orward this email to a friend 

 Sponsors this week:
The Carpenter Shop
358 North Rockwell
The Carpenter Shop is a full line cabinet and countertop shop that travels all over the state building dream kitchens for discerning customers
This guy is a Noble Oklahoma based company that has great prices on electronics of all types and inexpensive toner and ink for your printer.


























































Comtec provides residential and commercial security systems in Oklahoma. 
  There is only one thing you really need to know about Comtec's quality and pricing, they do not require a contract for their services. 
Customers are free to walk away if their service isn't top quality.





































Rodent ResistantChicken Feeders! 




































$50 + Shipping








































































 Advertise Your Business, Event, Or Service Here!  
 $25.00 per week, tens of thousands of Oklahoman 
impressions every newsletter














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Breaks the Law
and Upholds Corruption
Last Tuesday the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on Jerry Fent’s lawsuit over SB 1246 claiming that the law was Constitutional.    The ruling allows SB 1246 to gradually lower income tax rates by .4% if certain revenue levels are met but the rub is that this is a check that isn’t likely to be cashed anytime soon.
Fent’s main arguments were that the bill failed to originate in the House of Representatives as required by the Oklahoma Constitution and that it failed to receive a ¾ majority vote in both chambers and was not sent to the voters for approval as required by our Constitution.   Parts of these edicts are in our original state Constitution and part were added in 1992 with the passage of SQ 640.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court claimed that “raising revenue” meant more than the process of collecting taxes for state government, they claimed it meant increasing tax rates.  They then said that the extra requirements of  the state Constitution don’t apply to SB 1246.
 “Clearly, one of the overriding purposes of the 1992 amendment ... was to secure ‘tax relief.  Given this fact, it is extremely doubtful that the people intended the popular vote or super-majority approvals to apply to a Legislative measure providing further relief by a reduction in the income tax rate.”
Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Attorney General who defended the lawsuit was quoted as saying:
“The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with our position and upheld the intent of the voters in passing State Question 640 to prevent tax increases.”
State Chamber president Fred Morgan chimed in praising the decision as two decades of work passing special interest tax cuts was at stake should the court have followed the law.
And of course the Oklahoma Supreme Court got this dead wrong.
We wrote about this back on November 16thth and quoted two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions on whether an origination clause in a Constitution mattered on taxation legislation and on what a “revenue bill” actually was:
The U.S. Supreme Court has numerous examples of legislation being struck down because it violated the U.S. Origination Clause and examples of what a revenue bill is and isn’t.   The best example is Wardell V. United States, a frivolous tax appeal case  in 1985 where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said this :
“We cannot accept this restrictive and strained reading of the Origination Clause. The term “bills for raising revenue” does not refer only to laws increasing taxes, but instead refers in general to all laws relating to taxes.”
The court gave numerous reasons why they rejected this particular case and documented both their thinking and the U.S. Supreme Court’s thinking on the legislative process.   First the U.S. Senate has never regarded itself as being empowered to initiate any sort of revenue bill, even one that lowers taxes.   They quote Exhibit 2A, Hinds Precedents of the Houe, written 1872. 
 Second they state that it would be impossible to decipher if a bill raises or lowers taxes because the impact will have varying effects on individuals and businesses and on the amount of total taxes raised in a fiscal year.   Lastly the Court brought up other Supreme Court decision where the Senate took a House bill and reversed the intent, raising taxes instead of lowering taxes as in the original language.  They ruled that the Senate had the right to do as they wish as long as the amendments were germane to the original subject of the bill and as long as the enacting language remained on the bill.
They ended with this statement:
“We therefore reject Armstrong’s proposed interpretation of the Origination Clause, and conclude instead that in adopting that clause, the framers of the Constitution intended that all legislation relating to taxes (and not just bills raising taxes) must be initiated in the House. .
Another case that is quoted is Milazzo V. United States, another tax evasion case where the U.S. Supreme Court covered what a revenue bill is:
 “We cannot agree that "revenue-raising" means only bills that increase taxes. "Although the bill was dramatically altered by amendment in the upper house of Congress, it remained a revenue bill, regardless whether it raised taxes or lowered them." Milazzo v. United States, 578 F.Supp. 248, 252 (S.D.Cal.1984
So the Oklahoma Supreme Court clearly and unequivocally violated the law and ignored higher court decisions that are the supreme law of the land but how about Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt?   Were his arguments in agreement with existing law?
No, Pruitt argued that the intent of the voters was more important than the actual language of SQ 640 that was approved by the voters.  Such an argument would be laudable if the state question was obtuse or poorly written but SQ640 was quite clear in its language:
The actual decision on SB 1246 can be found here and the decision was defended in these two statements from Justice Kauger in the written decision”
     "Absent an ambiguity," the intent of legislatures and voters is settled by the language in the amendment itself and "the courts are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the provision,"

     "Constitutional provisions are not made for parsing by lawyers, but for the instruction of the people and the representatives of government, so that they may read and understand their rights and duties," the decision also states. "Words used in a constitutional provision and an accompanying ballot title are to be construed in a way most familiar to ordinary people who voted on the measure."
The key to understanding how wrong this decision is in in Kauger’s first statement:
     "Absent an ambiguity," the intent of legislatures and voters is settled by the language in the amendment itself and "the courts are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the provision,"
In adopting this principle the Oklahoma Supreme Court violates U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the intent of legislation versus the actual language of the legislation passed.  Kauger spins the principle 180 degrees actually.
Scott Pruitt actually used the U.S. Supreme Court version of this principle when he joined the other states in attacking the ACA or Obama Care law.  Pruitt argued that the ACA statute clearly indicated that tax deductions clearly flowed only to the state run exchanges and since Oklahoma had no state run exchange then Oklahomans were precluded from accepting a tax deduction if they bought insurance through the federal exchange.  Pruitt argued that the plain language of the legislation overrode the intent of the federal legislators.
But the court ruled that the statutory language was ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations so they overruled Pruitt’s arguments.
King v. Burwell, No. 14-1158 (4th Cir. 2014)
Because this case concerns a challenge to an agency’s construction of a statute, we apply the familiar two-step analytic framework set forth in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). At Chevron’s first step, a court looks to the “plain meaning” of the statute to determine if the regulation responds to it. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43. If it does, that is the end of the inquiry and the regulation stands. Id. However, if the statute is susceptible to multiple interpretations, the court then moves to Chevron’s second step and defers to the agency’s interpretation so long as it is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Id. at 843.
However, the court cannot ignore the common-sense appeal of the plaintiffs’ argument; a literal reading of the statute undoubtedly accords more closely with their position. As such, based solely on the language and context of the most relevant statutory provisions, the court cannot say that Congress’s intent is so clear and unambiguous that it “foreclose[s] any other interpretation.” Grapevine Imports, 636 F.3d at 1377.
So the Supreme Court says that only when the language is ambiguous and subject to interpretation opens the door to judicial review but Kauger says merely violating the intent of those who voted for a law opens the door….
So Pruitt argues one way on the ACA and another way on SB 1246…
And the Oklahoma Supreme Court ignores higher court decisions that prohibit them from ignoring the literal language of a statute.
So who is right?  Obviously the U.S. Supreme Court is the law of the land but is their decision flawed?  Should we go past obvious written language and attempt to guess the “intentions” of the legislators that wrote and passed legislation or the populace that approved a state question at the ballot box?
There are two competing thought processes in jurists, Textualism and Intentionalism.   Textualism refers to only what the actual words say and mean, Intentionalism is where the  jurist attempts to get inside the mind of the legislators to decipher what they might have meant even if that overrides the plain meaning of the law.
One learned commenter used an example of a law passed applying a tax to those earning over $100,000 per year.  Say you earn only $90,000 and you get hit with a tax penalty for not paying the special tax and you of course say that you make less than 100 k and are exempt.  The IRS says, “Well, that was a typo, the legislature intended the threshold to be $10,000 so you owe the tax.”  Which interpretation is best for you?
The simple answer is that following the law if it is unambiguous plain language is always the better path for society even if  that overrides the intent of the legislature because the legislature chose not to use plain ordinary language in the law.
Justice Scalia is a strict textualist and rejects any reliance on legislative intent over plain text. In his book labeled “A Matter of Interpretation” he says that is what makes the difference between a government of laws and a government of men.  He argues that we are governed not by intent of the legislature but by the laws they actually write down and indeed the first thing any court should do is look at the actual statute controlling the situation.  I recall all too well a prosecutor telling a jury that they won’t like the law but they must follow the law.
Scalia states:
“If  the law does not mean what it says and does not say what it means, citizens are left at a loss concerning how they should conduct themselves.”
Later he said :  
“Once text is abandoned, one intuition will serve as well as the other.”
Intentionalists believe that the intent of the speaker sets the meaning of a statute or statement as opposed to the plain language they used.  These are the same folks that want us to have a “living” Constitution that can be re interpreted as society changes.  The problem with that is that citizens are left being responsible for obeying a law that was unexpressed in the legal statutes.
We are left with merely guessing the intent of the legislators that wrote SQ 640 and the citizens that voted to pass the legislation into our Constitution.  Scalia argues that if citizens are put on notice to obey a law then the plain language of the law should be followed above any imagined intent.  This serves as a check on the legislature; if you want us to follow your laws then express them clearly.
And remember that letter that was submitted to legislators in support of upholding SB 1246?  Thirty five of them signed it.  Here are their names:
Gary Banz
David Derby
George Faught 
Dan Fisher
Elise Hall
Leslie Osborn
Dennis Johnson
Michael Rogers
Todd Russ
David Brumbaugh
Mark Lepack
Mike Sanders
Charles McCall
Lewis Moore
Kevin Calvey
Glen Mulready
Jason Murphey
Tom Newell
Charles Ortega
Chuck Strohm
Ken Walker
Paul Wesselhoft
Harold Wright
Mike Christian
Josh Cockroft
State Senators:
Clark Jolley
Ralph Shortey
Rob Standridge
Bill Brown
Kyle Loveless
Greg Treat
Dan Newberry
Nathan Dahm
Kim David
A J Griffin
The names underlined above are those that should have known better than to follow this misguided attempt at influencing the Court.  Ideologically they were wrong and not paying attention.  None of those tax breaks were at risk as long as the legislature followed the law in the coming session and restored the tax breaks with a supermajority or passage by a vote of the people.  They are also readers of the Sooner Tea Party newsletter and had read our article on Novmeber 16th.  Some might have already signed but they should have rescinded their approval.
In the end 35 out of 149 signed the ill thought out letter but 114 refused to sign, a 3 to 1 margin so this is clearly a win for the Sooner Tea Party especially as the letter was sold as “saving” tax cuts when in fact it did nothing but perpetuate special interest tax cuts and corruption.
However this chance at straightening out our state has failed unless Jerry Fent appeals the decision to a higher court.  He has indicated that he will not but we hope he changes his mind.  The clear language of the ballot is that the people are to approve all revenue bills including special tax credits or breaks given to special interests.  That alone would have killed off campaign contributions to politicians and would have left the legislature far less corrupted.
A Sterling Example of Oklahoma’s Fine Senate Leadership
Tongue in cheek of course….Senator Bryce Marlatt was arrested in the early morning hours of Tuesday December 2nd on DUI related charges.  The charges were actual Physical Control or APC because Marlatt was passed out at an intersection in his GMC pickup.
Marlatt reeked of alcohol and had trouble making comprehensible statements according to the arresting officer, claiming that he had “no more than anybody else” when asked how much he had drank.   Marlatt admitted to having a bourbon and Coke.  Marlatt refused to take the field sobriety test at the scene and again at the hospital.
Marlatt’s truck was impounded and he was booked into the Woodward County Jail until he posted $504.00 bond.   Marlatt’s attorney has claimed that Marlatt had taken a prescription sleeping aid prior to leaving work and had had a mixed drink earlier in the evening, became concerned about his state driving home and stopped the car in the intersection and fell asleep.   However the arrest report says that Marlatt admitted to drinking “one and a half glasses” of bourbon and Coke.  Common… a drunk not finishing a drink?  Really?   Might have passed out while drinking it and spilled it on himself…..
Right, sure, we have all done this….. we are driving across country and feel ourself nodding off so we park the vehicle in the road, at a stop light, and take a nap…..  leaving the truck running of course……And all of us pop pills while drinking alcohol… sure we do…..
Now this ass clown is the Majority Caucus Chairman and driving while drunk ought to qualify him to be dismissed from his position by Governor Fallin.  We do have that law on our books.  Marlatt also should lose his driver’s license for six months simply because of his refusal to take the sobriety tests according to state law.  
This is going to be happening again at the State Senate so as a precautionary service here is a website of a firm catering to drunk drivers with more information about refusal to take sobriety tests
Marlatt was one of the Senators that turned on the 2nd Amendment last session after Fallin vetoed some of the 2nd Amendment legislation.  HB 2461 had passed the Senate 46 to 0 and the House by 90 to 1 initially then Fallin of course vetoed it being the socialist, gun grabbing, bed swapping bitch that she is.  The House overrode the veto 86 to 3 but Senate leadership refused to vote on the bill until a ground swell of opposition arose from the citizens.  Leading the attempt to kill the bill was Senator Marlatt, Brian Bingman, Clark Jolley, and Mike Schulz.  Marlatt himself missed the eventual override vote, perhaps passed out face down in a urinal after imbibing his “lunch”?   When constituents blasted Marlatt over his refusal to attend the vote the following email exchange occurred:

On May 13, 2014, at 1:07 PM, "Lindsay Messer" <messerl@lsb.lsb.state.ok.us> wrote:

Good Afternoon Jxxx,

The following is not true and Senator Marlatt would be glad to visit with you regarding this email if you would like to send us your number.

 Thank you, 

Lindsay Messer

Executive Assistant to Senator Bryce Marlatt

Oklahoma State Senate

2300 North Lincoln Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK  73105



From: Jxxx xxxxxx [mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxcom]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:03 PM
To: <
Subject: Re: Sen. Marlatt, is this true??



Then why did he hide out when the override vote came down ??

 I think you are being mislead. I have info that your boss actively tried to keep this override bill from coming up for a vote.


Jxxx xxxxxx



On May 14, 2014, at 12:43 PM, "Lindsay Messer" <
messerl@lsb.lsb.state.ok.us> wrote:

Mr. xxxxxx, 

This is Bryce Marlatt.  As my assistant told you, I would be happy to visit with you regarding this bill.  Further, I would love to clarify where you are getting your information.  You are misinformed on my position and on some of the information you put in your email.  As Lindsay stated in the email below, I would love to visit with you if you would send your contact information.  If you want to find out where I was on the day of the override or any other information you are welcome to call and visit with me directly or send me your phone # and I will be glad to contact you.  If you are so curious of my position on the issue and my where abouts on the day of the vote please have the courtesy to speak with me directly and not try to funnel information through Lindsay.  She asked for your contact info, if you would like to visit please send it and I will call you directly. 


Bryce Marlatt

From: Jxxx xxxxxx<jxx@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
Date: May 14, 2014 at 1:03:28 PM CDT
To: "<
messerl@oksenate.gov>" <messerl@oksenate.gov>, marlatt@oksenate.gov
Subject: Re: Sen. Marlatt, is this true??



Son. You can damn sure bet I WILL call you and talk to you.  When I have the time and when I don't have people in earshot. 

But, how dare you mouth off to me about speaking to your assistant when I was merely responding to her email !!!  

Don't have her emailing people if you can't handle people telling her how they feel!

You are not very savvy in how to treat your people or you would not have missed that vote and you would have made contact with me when I first reached out to you a week ago !!

Get off your high horse. I will will call you to discuss this very soon. I assure you. 


Jxxx xxxxxx

Charlie Meadows Stirs up a Firestorm over Racist Comments
Goes Silent Immediately Afterward
No New Newsletter since the Outburst
Bless his heart…. poor Charlie Meadows literally disemboweled himself last week in a November 29th newletter entitled Why blacks hate cops & how blacks can be winners, not losers!”  Until Charlie and OCPAC get smart enough to take it down the newsletter can be found here.   
More than a few conservatives decided to stand by Charlie despite the obvious racism interspersed throughout his carefully crafted and thought out article.  The Sooner Tea Party of course was the first to distance ourselves from the racist statements and we pounded Charlie into the dirt in our November 30th newsletter and again in two media interviews.  Our stance was that Charlie might not be outright racist but driven by religious bigotry and well…. Just old and confused and speaking without thinking through the consequences of the hatred revealed in his words.
 But to tell you the truth it was hard sticking to that defense of the corpulent wind bag during interviews.  The Red Dirt Report’s Tim Farley was quick to challenge us on our stance saying “How could you admit that Charlie’s comments were racist but say the man himself is not?”
The short answer to Tim was that perhaps we simply aren’t yet ready to accept the amount of damage that has been done to the Oklahoma conservative movement due to Charlie’s statements.    So I decided that we need to dig deeper into the difference between a racist and a bigot and look at the big picture instead of trying to shield Charlie from his punishment.
Words mean things is one of our biggest guidelines on the issues.  Precise definitions of words is the first place to start when investigating an issue.  The definition of Racism is:
“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
The definition of a bigot is:
“a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)”
I look at words as mere tools and nary a word is “bad” or should make a person feel “bad” unless the word actually fits its use.  Ignorant means unknowing, not stupid, is a prime example.   Now lets look at three statements from Charlie’s racist rant and the headline to see how the definitions of racist and bigot fit.
Why blacks hate cops & how blacks can be winners, not losers!
This statement is overly broad and inclusive.  The assumption is that all blacks hate cops and that all blacks are losers.   Hands down, no debate possible, racist as hell.  Charlie opines that if you are black then you are a loser that also hates cops, determining that race is the cause of the hate and the cause of them being “losers”.  Had Charlie stated that lower class blacks or the protesters in Ferguson were cop haters and losers then he would have been able to speak to the issue without being labeled racist.  
 "This commentary is about that large number of black folks that do hate cops and are losers."
Charlie is on safer ground here as he says “large number” instead of a sweeping, blanket statement that all blacks hate cops and are losers but again he singled out only the black protesters opposed to simply going after the protesters.  Had he made only this statement his newsletter would have been ignored as usual.
Second statement comes from paragraph 16 where he was talking about the black protesters: 
 "I would suggest the mob mentality operates on great ignorance as they have little intellectual capability of understanding what justice is and probably wouldn’t recognize it if it hit them in the face.
Holy cow! (offending some Hindus I suppose) Charlie just slit his belly and pulled out his guts with both hands!   Folks understand from the headline that he is talking about all blacks and he just wrote that they have a limited intellectual ability (Bob Cleveland, that means they are slow or un intelligent) to understand the issue.  Obviously Charlie is using race as the primary determining factor of their alleged inability to understand.  He thinks they are simply too stupid because of their race!  This isn’t about a dislike of the race or Charlie’s inability to accept them, in fact he invites them to white churches later on in his rant.  So bigotry is out, this statement is absolutely racist.
The third statement is the entire third from last paragraph:  
"If I were a black person and wanted a change of attitude, I would flee most black churches, at least if a black church continues to make its congregants out to be victims.Black folks are welcome in most white churches, but there will be some cultural differences. It might be good for success to emulate good cultural traits of white folks. Be careful of the music and entertainment in which black people spend their time. That which is good and glorifies God is good and that which promotes violence, disrespect, drugs, immoral sex and the things of a rebel are harmful. What you take in through the senses of your eyes and ears is what you become, just like the things we eat are what we become." 
At this point Charlie is clawing on back bone and rib cage, no more guts to spill out.  He clearly states that most black churches are evil and harming their race and urges them to flee to a white church.  Then tells them to “act” white or at least emulate being white.  Reading into that you can see that Charlie thinks that blacks are not like whites; that the difference caused by their race is going to hold them back unless they shed their association to the black churches.
The part about their culture promoting violence, disrespect, drugs, immoral sex, and the things of a rebel are pretty bad too, as if that is all black culture offers the average black person.  Here again Charlie thought process is starkly revealed; he believes that the color of their skin or their racial source is responsible for their destiny and capabilities and their only hope is to flee to a white church.
Simply talking down to blacks as his headline clearly states is a sign of racial superiority by Charlie.
Well, damned…. Those statements made by Charlie Meadows were just outright racist no matter how you look at them.  If the man himself is racist or not will be left for others to decide.
So where is the conservative movement now that Charlie Meadows has had his say and gotten some coverage?   KFOR was the first to pick up the story and they called us for a comment as they had read our severe rebuking of Charlie Meadows the day after his rant became public.
From there the Oklahoman picked up the story in a link to KFOR and the liberal media organizations and bloggers grabbed hold of the sotry.
Oklahoma’s own Lost Ogle picked up the story as well and did a thorough job of calling Charlie Meadows a racist and giving their logic for doing so:
“The guy pictured above is Charlie Meadows. When he’s not pursuing his lifelong dream of being a Santa at Dollar General, he’s a Derplahoman propagandist and the leader of some group called the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee.   He’s also a racist.”
The author, no friend of the Sooner Tea Party for sure, zoomed in on exactly why the general public will find Charlie Meadow’s article racist:
“Actually, you can write thoughtful commentary about the complex situation in Ferguson and how it relates to race without being labeled a racist. Plenty of people have done it. What makes you a racist is making sweeping racist generalizations and writing the ignorant statement that most black people hate cops and are losers.”
Another blog site, the Red Dirt Report, one of the most bipartisan and respected blogs in Oklahoma picked up the story and quoted a woman who outlined exactly what is going to happen if Oklahoma conservatives don’t put a lot of distance between Charlie Meadows and themselves:
“Another protester, Fannie Bates, said she’s worried that OCPAC is supporting racist candidates. During the 2014 general election, OCPAC and Meadows threw their support to Gov. Mary Fallin, Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb, Labor Commissioner Mark Costello, incumbent U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe and James Lankford, who won the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Tom Coburn.They also supported U.S. Rep.-elect Steve Russell and several other state lawmakers.”
The Red Dirt Report was also the first news media to report that U.S. Congressman elect Steve Russell was the first politician to publicly distance himself from Charlie Meadows.   Russell told the Red Dirt Reporter Tim Farley that he put out a statement urging Meadows and Oklahoma City’s black community leaders to engage in a dialogue that might resolve conflicts they have with each other:
   “Being able to do that is the hallmark of what makes our diverse Republic great,” Russell said. “Not doing it will only create distrust and contention. It might be time to replace the need to look for outrage with the need to look for outreach.”
Now really…. Few are going to see this as the black community having a problem with Charlie Meadows.   The NAACP would have to change Charlie Meadow’s belief system, not address some slight that they or a black person that might have long ago infuriated Charlie Meadows and caused the seed of racism to grow in his heart.
The scandal is just now hitting the chat forums and we all know that folks like to forward these kind of things online and some will be years old before they make their rounds of the internet.

One local forum had a lively discussion on the scandal.  They sourced the Lost Ogle for the discussion with this as the headline:   OCPAC's Charlie Meadows: Kind of a Racist

The author of the post is a well known Democrat, someone that might be best described as an honorable opponent of conservatives, not a flaming liberal that will gain little notice or sympathy.  He was nice enough to point out that we slammed Charlie’s statements immediately but called both groups “tea party” organizations.  He also explains that Charlie isn’t a lone nut job screaming into the wilderness but is a well connected and well respected conservative with deep ties to the elected officials.
“And if you're going to say this guy is a fringe lunatic, I'd say that OCPAC has enough pull in Oklahoma politics that it was able to host a primary debate for the U.S. Senate seat. This guy is a big part of the activist arm of state politics... not 100% effective because his buddy Steve Kern (who agrees 100% with Meadows here) was defeated in his primary.”
Another forum poster linked to our article slamming Charlie but nary a comment was made against what we wrote so we successfully addressed Charlie’s behavior and were approved by the liberals.  There you go, one can discuss race and even the deficiencies of people without appearing racist
Another poster tried to distance the Republican and conservative movement by calling Charlie Meadows fringe but the original thread author posted a link to a Red Dirt Report on an OCPAC meeting featuring the major Congressional candidates for the 5th District including James Lankford.  He goes on to admit that he is tied in with the legislature, helping to write some legislation, and that all of the legislature knows and panders to both Charlie Meadows and to a lesser extent (due to slander charges?) to the Sooner Tea Party.  He finishes by stating this:
“Charlie Meadows and Al Gerhart have a huge influence with Oklahoma conservatives. If you don't understand this, you really don't know much about Oklahoma politics.”
But back to the original intent of this article, is the Sooner Tea Party position on Charlie Meadows consistent with our Oklahoma values?   We freely admit, even to the media, that we are struggling with outright labeling Charlie Meadows as a vile racist spewing hatred.   We admit to making excuses for him, saying that he doesn’t have a mean bone in his body while also calling his remarks racist.  One thing to look at is if this is a recent change in Charlie’s behavior or has this simply been unnoticed due to lack of interest in what OCPAC does?
No doubt that Charlie is a religious bigot, that is well established but the only other recent article on black/white relations was this article by Charlie some time back.  
While you see a little bigotry peeping through the article seems far less inflammatory and little obvious racism rears its ugly head.  Charlie avoided making sweeping blanket generalization for the most part.
Makes me wonder if poor Charlie has suffered a stroke?  That will change behavior as parts of the brain are starved of oxygen, radical behavior I have heard.
Lastly we need to look at the circumstances under which Charlie spoke.  Recall the manufactured outrage over a “fried chicken” remark by then state Senator Brogdon.
That remark was made off the cuff, during debate over a bill at the Capitol.   Wasn’t even close to being racist as they weren’t discussing racial issues, just talking about being forced to purchase something.  And Brogdon had had fried chicken for lunch so he asked if we all would be forced to buy that for lunch? 
And the “scandal” quickly disappeared with little damage as it was obviously manufactured.
Another attempt to manufacture racism charges were some ill thought out remarks by Rep. Sally Kern that earned her a savage spanking by liberal Speaker Kris Steele.
“We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”
Rep. Kern went a bit too far in claiming that little kids in school were claiming that they weren’t worried about learning because the government would take care of them.  Yet this manufactured incident gained little traction because she said “a lot” instead of saying “many” or “large numbers” or as Charlie did, simply accusing all blacks of being losers and hating cops.  The incident did do some damage to Kern, to this day she is labeled as racist on the internet but at least it didn’t harm her re elections.  Yes, Kern spoke some unpleasant truths but since she didn’t do so in a blatant racist manner the vast majority of the citizenry had little to say about her comments.  However her husband Steve was quoted by KFOR as stating that he stood behind Charlie Meadow’s comments and that was not very smart if he ever intends to run for office again.   I don’t know the man that well but he certainly doesn’t come across like someone that would agree with racist comments.
So the cat is out of the bag; one of Oklahoma’s conservative leaders appears to be racist to a lot of folks.   Worse is the blowback that the candidates endorsed by OCPAC might suffer in the next election cycle.  Even worse than that is the blow back that well intentioned but clueless conservatives might sustain over defending Charlie Meadow’s racist comments.
Former KTOK radio personality Reid Mullins has become the first casualty over some remarks he made on Facebook defending Charlie’s racist comments:
“May I bluntly ask what the hell is wrong with the news department of OKC TV station KFOR?
Granted, they are an affiliate of NBC, which includes MSNBC and CNBC, as well as some other broadcast interests. But traditionally, LOCAL network affiliates have differentiated themselves from their network "parents" out of deference to a much more conservative audience, both politically and non-politically. But it seems as if things have changed.
Last week, I was up early on Thanksgiving morning (Thanksgiving MORNING of all days) and discovered that they had gone after OK County employee Larry Stein for some Facebook post. A FACEBOOK POST of all things! They proceeded to imply that he should not have his say on his own (NOT the County's) FB account. And of ALL DAYS - a non-working, non-denominational, non-religious-specific holiday observed by just about everyone. YET, one where no one could be reached for official comment, due to such a business and government holiday.
 Then, here comes round two with an attack on OCPAC leader Charlie Meadows. In the 10pm story, barely the TITLE of Charlie's piece “Why blacks hate cops & how blacks can be winners, not losers!“ was quoted.  And who did KFOR get to lambaste Charlie Meadows? None other than Sooner Tea Party leader and convicted felon Al Gerhart.    Did KFOR bother to mention this? NOT AT ALL! But that was not all that put the word "hack" in "hack reporting."
 This "piece" was SO LAME that the "reporter" Sarah Stewart should have reported that - when she mentioned a protest of OCPAC - and that they meet at the church home, Olivet Baptist (whose Pastor is Steve Kern), she also should have included that he is the husband of "controversial" State Rep. Sally Rogers Kern - just to be ideologically true. But apparently, ineptness took over and she failed to complete the lib media 'hat trick.'   This is one of the most grotesque attempts at "journalism" I've seen a long, long time.   Who has taken over the news department at KFOR, and why does s/he still have a job?   For the record, I don't always agree with Charlie Meadows but I like him and OCPAC, and I personally know Steve and Sally Kern and consider them to be true Patriots.
 KFOR, you are driving away your good, sensible, conservative audience in droves after these two train wrecks of "reporting."



Reid Mullins seemed upset that they covered Charlie’s racist remarks and especially incensed that they chose the Sooner Tea Party to rebut the racist comments.   Could that be to a nearly complete lack of other conservative groups standing up to protest?  The part about the felony conviction though showed that it was merely a low blow.  Looks like in Reid Mullin’s world there is no free speech and all of us should be little robots that go along with what the politicians want.  That was one of the rampant issues that led to Reid being fired from KTOK; he simply had not the balls to stand up and question his guests about inconsistencies.  
But Reid landed another job at a small AM station and did Reid take the time to protest Charlie’s racist remarks?  It seems not.
Worse was the amount of comments to Reid’s tirade.   Makes you wonder if any of those people had bothered to even read Charlie’s racist rant before they defended him?
But everything happens for a reason in this world.  This might well be a catharsis that could clean out any remaining racist elements in the conservative movement.  Racist, not prejudiced, for I believe that most people on this earth maintain prejudices and there is no getting around that.  People have memories and they decide certain things and sometimes they form opinions of other groups be they right or wrong.  Can’t blame folks for that but you would hope that they never wind up damaging conservative candidates by association.
Since the previous Saturday’s (November 29th) outburst Charlie Meadows has not yet spoken out about the scandal.   Usually he sends out two emails a week and with no holiday or other event possibly delaying another newsletter one wonders if the John Birch Society has muzzled the old boy for good or if Charlie is simply biding his time till the furor blows over.  As of 6 pm Sunday night there has been no newsletter or email sent out via email or posted on their Google group.
Where’s the Door Charlie?
We have yet to see a mass exodus of politicians distancing themselves from OCPAC/Charlie Meadow’s endorsements.  That concerned us to no end so we sent out the following email to those candidates listed as OCPAC/Charlie Meadows endorsed in the latest election cycle:
We see that you were endorsed as a candidate by Charlie Meadows or OCPAC in the primary or general election. The list of endorsed candidates are called "Charlie's Picks" and can be found easily using a Google search.
With the recent controversy swirling around Charlie for what many are calling racist comments, we would like to give each candidate a chance to distance themselves from Charlie's views. Our fear is that the endorsement by Charlie Meadows will bleed over into the candidates which would be a disaster for conservatives in Oklahoma.
Steve Russell has already addressed the issue with a press release and called on Charlie and the black community to resolve their differences.
Attached is a copy of Charlie's remarks but there are three statements that he made that we would like to get your statement on as to if you agree with Charlie or if you reject his views. We ask this because one candidate, who happens to be Charlie's pastor, already said publically that he agreed with Charlie's views. Many of you are well known to the Sooner Tea Party and really there is no need to ask but replying will make certain that you are insulated from any blowback in the next election if an opponent tries to tie you to the OCPAC/Charlie Meadows endorsement.
The three statements are underlined in the attached copy of Charlie's article. 
First statement comes from paragraph one:  
 "This commentary is about that large number of black folks that do hate cops and are losers."
Second statement comes from paragraph 16 where he was talking about the black protesters:
 "I would suggest the mob mentality operates on great ignorance as they have little intellectual capability of understanding what justice is and probably wouldn’t recognize it if it hit them in the face.
The third statement is the entire third from last paragraph:
"If I were a black person and wanted a change of attitude, I would flee most black churches, at least if a black church continues to make its congregants out to be victims.Black folks are welcome in most white churches, but there will be some cultural differences. It might be good for success to emulate good cultural traits of white folks. Be careful of the music and entertainment in which black people spend their time. That which is good and glorifies God is good and that which promotes violence, disrespect, drugs, immoral sex and the things of a rebel are harmful. What you take in through the senses of your eyes and ears is what you become, just like the things we eat are what we become." 
Calling large numbers of blacks losers and cop haters, saying that the blacks in the protests at Ferguson had little intellectual capability for understanding what justice is, and the entire paragraph where Charlie attacks "most" black churches, asks blacks to "emulate" whites, and states that black people spend their time  celebrating violence, disrespect, ,drugs, immoral sex, and being rebellious are the worst statements in a very bad article. 
We would like to report that every candidate emailed back with a short statement condemning  these racist statements or at least saying that they disagree with them.   
A list of candidates along with any statement they wish to have published will be printed in the next newsletter along with the list of those such as candidate Steve Kern who already publically said they stand by Charlie's words. 
A third list of those that didn't respond will also be listed.
OCPAC did a lot of good things in the past ten years but this scandal has the potential to ruin many, many, conservative careers if the candidates don't come out strongly against racist views by those who publically endorsed them.   This will also send OCPAC members a warning that some controls need to be put in place if Charlie is allowed remain in association with OCPAC to prevent future harm from occurring.
Please be proactive on this issue and don't allow a primary candidate to surface in the next election with a mail piece stating that you were silent about an accused racist endorsing your campaign.  We all know that impressions usually trump reality in politics and this is one impression that you should be very, very, concerned about. 
So far only one state representative, Paul Wesselhoft, has responded.  It seems that the politicians find themselves between a rock and a hard place and are afraid of making Charlie Meadows angry or incurring the wrath of the John Birch Society.   Paul’s statement is below:
"I  disagree with some of the comments that my friend, Charley, made in reference the African Americans; and those disagreements I immediately made know publicly  on Facebook on my group site--"Socrates on Facebook."
Unfortunately for Rep. Wesselhoft his comments on his Facebook page are not showing and it takes forever to scroll down as he has a thriving Facebook page.  We scrolled for twenty minutes till we came to the bottom of the page but no comments were showing about Charlie’s rant.   Our main purpose for getting candidates to speak out is to make their opposition to Charlie’s views easily found by a Google search.  If you Google “Charlie Meadows” the racist story has already landed on the first page and is rocketing up to the top of the page.  Not good….
However the email was sent out pretty late so we are going to wait until next week before publishing the list of politicians.   Like we said, this is all out there on the internet already and simply publishing the list isn’t harming any of the candidates.  Coming out with a statement, both soon and firm, is in the best interest of the conservative movement.  We would be derelict if we didn’t try to coax these candidates into protecting themselves from getting a mailer in their next campaign claiming that they were endorsed by a  accused  racist  and did nothing to set the record straight. 
We will also follow up with a phone call to each individual that has a phone number in their ethics commission reports so that we are sure of notifying everyone of the danger posed by not responding to Charlie’s article.
One, Read that Again, One Upset Reader
Responds about Charlie’s Racial Rant Story
No, the picture doesn’t match the story but it was funny as hell
Few people were offended over our story about Charlie Meadow’s racist rant last week.  Only one email was sent on the issue and as we love printing these negative responses as examples we are publishing the entire email below:
I am deeply saddened and offended by your comments about "Massa" Charlie Meadows and Rep. Sally Kern. You are showing yourself to have no understanding of America as it once was and why it used to be so great. I am highly confident that both Charlie and Sally are Christians in addition to being American patriots. I believe that all they want is for their country to recapture its status as a Christian nation. After all, that is the ONLY thing that made us great. It makes no sense that you would attack Charlie like this, especially when you consider the fact that many black people are saying the exact same thing that Charlie is. Why is Charlie a racist if they aren't? They, too, want nothing but the best for our nation and its people. Your understanding of Christianity is as lacking as your knowledge of history. Your "massa" remark is without question far more "racist" than anything I've ever heard from Charlie or Sally either one. You should be ashamed of yourself, and you owe them a public apology.
Ted Merritt
Well, Ted got his say.  But now he has to defend his views.  He was polite, civil even, and tried to marshall his thoughts.  We sent back a response asking for clarification on his views but received no reply.  So we are going to answer Ted’s letter to the editor here as usual.
First Ted, we love the idea of America being a Christian nation.  We are, but our founding fathers clearly understood that no one “Christian” sect should be allowed to gain control.  Instead we allow a mutlitude of “Christian” churches and other faiths to flourish  and keep all religion away from public policy. 
Not talking about in the schools, and yes Christian statements are all over our money and our public buildings, but they are at arms length when it comes to deciding policy or formulating laws under which all faiths live.   We love the idea that we have Chaplains in the legislature and aren’t pleased that the Muslim faith is allowed to participate as the Muslims seem to have a problem with getting along with the rest of the world.  Putting it mildly…..
Charlie isn’t being attacked because he is Christian, more so because he is acting in a thoroughly un Christian manner.   We do agree with you that anyone, regardless of race, that makes statements like Charlie’s are racists.  Black, yellow, green, chartreuse…. Doesn’t matter what color they might be.
As to the Massa Charlie label, well you yourself used it so it seems to have taken root.   Calling him Massa Charlie isn’t racist, it is calling the pot black in a humourous way.   One of the blog posts talked about how plantation owners in the deep south during the days of slavery were surrounded by blacks; how does that make someone not racist?  We were both pointing out the absurbity of making wide sweeping blanket statements about a race and insisting that they aren’t racist.  Read the definition above.  The word fits the behavior.
Funny you brought up Sally Kern though, you seem to be admitting that she has faced racist labeling in the past.   We don’t think what she said was racist, dumb for sure, ignorant even, but not racist.   Her Husband Steve though probably ruined his political career by publically agreeing with Charlie’s racist rant.
Here is the deal Ted.  Find better Christians to lead if they are making these kind of mistakes.  It is hard enough to survive in politics, it is even harder if you are stupid enough to make these kind of statements in public.
As to being ashamed, we are not.   Standing up to this kind of behavior helps limit the damage that Charlie Meadows wrought to the conservative movement and you can see that reflected in some of the comments on the news stories.  The Tea Party gets called racist and some clear thinking liberal has to pause and say “but they spoke out against this behavior? 
As for an apology…. Charlie owes one to the black community and to the conservative community, on his way out the door into obscurity.
Merry Christmas!

This is an extra special 2014 Christmas this year at the Men's Club (Ladies always welcome). Lunch is $12 (meal, drink, tax, and tip included), RSVP for Christmas Ham and all the fixins lunch asap @ darrengantz@gmail.com or call Billie Bell 918-638-9977.

LaFortune Park Golf Course
5501 S Yale Ave, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135

at 11:30am - 1:00pm
56°F / 40°F Partly Cloudy

Just in time for Christmas, this month we welcome our speaker Pastor Kenneth W. Hagin President of Kenneth Hagin Ministries and Pastor of Rhema Bible Church in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, with an extension campus in Oklahoma City. He ministers around the world. Known for calling the Body of Christ to steadfast faith, he seizes every ministry opportunity to impart an attitude of "I cannot be defeated, and I will not quit."
Rev. Hagin began preparing for his call to ministry—a ministry that now spans over 50 years—at Southwestern Assemblies of God University. He graduated from Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and holds an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Faith Theological Seminary in Tampa, Florida.

In his early years of ministry, Rev. Hagin was an associate pastor and traveling evangelist. Later, he went on to organize and develop Rhema Bible Training Colleges in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, and in other countries around the world.

Kenneth W. Hagin's array of responsibilities also includes International Director of Rhema Ministerial Association International. He hosts the annual A Call to Arms® Men's Conference, and with his wife, Lynette, co-hosts Rhema Praise, a weekly television program, and Rhema for Today, a weekday radio program broadcast throughout the United States. They also conduct Living Faith Crusades, spreading the message of faith and healing around the world.

Recognizing the lateness of the hour before the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, Rev. Hagin has expanded his speaking schedule beyond his regular pastoral duties. To fulfill the urgent call of God to prepare the Church for a deeper experience of His Presence, Rev. Hagin delivers messages that reveal key spiritual truths about faith, healing, and other vital subjects. He ministers with a strong healing anointing, and his ministry leads the Body of Christ into a greater experience of the glory of God!

Kenneth W. Hagin and his wife live in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is the son of the late Kenneth E. Hagin.

Where does Liberty come from? Should Christians be involved in politics? What is our mission?

Add bonus we will have the Harris Girls Camille Harris and Haley Harris singing from 11:30 to 12:00 Christmas songs and their new hit for The Salvation Army song.

You don't want to miss this month!

Darren Gantz - President
Tulsa County Republican Men's Club
2013 Senate members and House Members
Please copy the block of emails for your contact list so you are able to email all of them and help to inform and educate them before the new sessions begin. Use Bcc to send dozens of email with one email from you to them. This will look like you send each one of them a personal email with only their email showing as the recipient. Please mention the Sooner TeaParty in your emails so they will have a healthy respest for what we do. 



 Want to reach all 101 House members with two email addresses?   Just use these email addresses in the Bcc address line and all 101 of them will get a copy
Here are the updated individual House members email addresses in three blocks of Thirty- four each and updated senate emal addresses in one block
Who is my state representative and my state Senator?   Click here to find out  
Here is the Senate Directory
Here is the House Directory
Remember to strip the unsubscribe link before forwarding this newsletter to prevent someone from taking you off our list!  Use our forward this email link at the top owf the newsletter to prevent being accidently  unsubscribed.
Money is always needed for printing costs, postage, sign materials, and robo call costs.  We are tightfisted; we will spend your hard earned money wisely and frugally as we do our very best to clean up Oklahoma politicians so we can begin to clean up our country.
You can donate by sending a check to Sooner Tea party, 358 North Rockwell Ave, Oklahoma City, OK, 73127  or visit Soonerteaparty.org and use the Paypal donation button.