Many people wonder how Abraham Lincoln, our country's 16th president, could have anything to do with State Question 777, The Right to Harm. After all, he was President of the U.S. from 1861 to April of 1865, so what would he know about SQ 777 in 2016 Oklahoma?
On November 21, 1864, Lincoln penned a letter to Col. William F. Elkins, a close confidante and friend his during the Civil War. What follows is an excerpt from that letter:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... corporations (emphasis mine) have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." (The Lincoln Encyclopedia: The Spoken and Written Words of A. Lincoln, Archer H. Shaw (NY, NY: Macmillan, 1950).
I believe Lincoln foresaw the rise of fascism in Italy during the 1930's. Fascism is a political philosophy in which corporations and a dictator share equally in governing a country. Benito Mussolini was the dictator in Italy at that time who "invented" fascism. As a matter of fact, Mussolini said that "fascism" should have been called "corporatism". Mussolini, however, didn't last through World War II, so his style of government didn't last either. Even before Mussolini in Italy, corporate interests began consolidating authority over the government in the U.S. In the late 1920's, corporate farming (called suitcase farmers by Oklahomans) moved into the 4-corners area of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico, because of "generous government subsidies" - in order to plant and harvest wheat (on the governments dime). What followed was the greatest "corporate made" disaster the world has ever known - The Dust Bowl.
In 1973, an organization was created in the United States which called itself the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC was started by some enterprising corporate entities as a way to gain influence over state legislators from all 50 states. It was billed to members as an organization which matches corporations with state lawmakers, so that as "equal members" they can rewrite state laws which will benefit the bottom line of corporate entities (and even lawmakers). Since 1973, many state bills have been passed by state governments in order to do just that. ALEC was the "Big Club" that George Carlin ranted against in his profanity laced tirade in 2005. Many state laws favoring ALEC have been passed nationwide during the last 40 years. All of these laws and constitutional amendments which favor corporate entities bottom lines have originated at some point in ALEC - such as Oklahoma's State Question 777, which would add a constitutional amendment named, by ALEC, the right to farm. Does anyone else see a red flag here?
The "right to farm", a constitutional amendment, is being presented as a state question for Oklahoma voters to decide. This "bill" was actually presented to state lawmakers in 1996 by ALEC, but was rewritten in 2013 as a state constitutional amendment. It has appeared since then as a state question for states to consider, which is where it is today in Oklahoma.
There are several other state questions which have originated in ALEC, for us to consider next week - including SQ 790 (dubbed "the right to pray" by supporters), and SQ 792, the modernization of Oklahoma alcohol laws, which is really about the right of corporate retailers to consolidate liquor sales.
Please consider these facts when voting next week on all state questions, and even the House and Senate candidates running for election. Always remember, if there is a bill or state constitutional amendment appearing on the ballot, there must be a state lawmaker who put it there (except for ballot initiatives requiring a petition), and should you want to consider the above information when voting, please do.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Who or What Is Responsible for SQ 777 - Right to Harm
In watching some of the debate surrounding the Right to Harm bill, State Question 777, I noticed several proponents take credit for either writing the bill or punching it through as a state question on the November 8 ballot. For example, the Oklahoma Pork Council (OPC) was one of the first groups to take credit for writing the bill, a couple weeks ago. While I don't think anyone believes the OPC is responsible for actually inventing State Question 777, they are most certainly supporting it, using terms like "hogwash" to describe what those believe who don't support the bill. While enough has been said by both sides of the issue to know what the bill does - one side says its about giving the right to farm to our farmers and ranchers, while the other side says its about giving foreign farm factories constitutional protection against Oklahoma.
I decided to do a little research in order to determine the true origin of the bill, since several "grass roots" organizations such as the NPC and Farm Bureau are taking credit for it. After a little digging, I found through SourceWatch (a national watchdog group) that "The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is an industry group that represents the pork industry. Its leaders are corporate hog factory executives and industry lobbyists from pork producing and packing corporations like Smithfield (Shuanghui) foods." Shuanghui foods owned by China, but is located in Virginia. "The NPPC, meanwhile, is identified as a supporter of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). From the report ALEC Exposed - "ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve "model" bills." So, what I determined was the nearest relative of the OPC (which claimed credit for SQ 777) is the NPPC - which has corporate factory farms such as Seaboard in the Oklahoma panhandle and Shuanghui in Virginia as contributors. Does anyone begin to smell a "smoking gun" at this point in our investigation? An investigation of "model" bills from ALEC's own website discovered an agricultural bill dated 1996 - and eerily named "Right to Farm". The bill "model" is a "clone" of Oklahoma's State Question 777 - The Right to Farm. Everything, from start to finish, is an exact match for our own bill. The only thing left out of the "model" is the identifying characteristics for each state. All each state's sponsoring lawmaker has to do is "fill in the blanks" and almost magically produces a local bill that will convince local family farmers that this bill "is for them". Again, can anyone smell a corporate "smoking gun". This bill is not for us. It's writers and supporters belong to the "big club", as George Carlin called it - ALEC. "You and I are not in the big club" as Mr. Carlin said in his profanity laced tirade about corporations. One more interesting fact about ALEC is that not only does it have billion dollar corporations as its meat and potatoes, but it has 25% of all state lawmakers for members. While tracing the origin of the bill to 1996, and the writing of it to the NPPC (OPC's older brother) with Seaboard and Shuanghui's help, I discovered that several Oklahoma state legislator sponsors of SQ 777 are also members of ALEC. Lo and behold, another smoking gun. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to understand that the bill was dusted off a year ago, and transported back to Oklahoma along with a generous campaign contribution. Even if no campaign contribution was made to encourage the adoption of this bill, Dark Money groups also belong to ALEC, so contributions are untraceable. Dark money groups such as The American Federation of Children (AFC), the pro-voucher group, which has viciously attacked public school officials in the past (see my last blog about Dark Money). As a matter of fact, I just received in the mail today another card from the OFC ( The AFC's local affiliate) extolling the virtues of a particular District 42 House candidate. If you're a voter in House District 42 (Garvin and McClain County) you may have received the same card.
In summary, SQ 777 was written in 1996 by corporations, for corporations. It was NOT written by any local farmer nor any grass-roots organization. It was simply written to increase corporate profits for the benefit of share-holders, not you and I. It's documented.
I decided to do a little research in order to determine the true origin of the bill, since several "grass roots" organizations such as the NPC and Farm Bureau are taking credit for it. After a little digging, I found through SourceWatch (a national watchdog group) that "The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is an industry group that represents the pork industry. Its leaders are corporate hog factory executives and industry lobbyists from pork producing and packing corporations like Smithfield (Shuanghui) foods." Shuanghui foods owned by China, but is located in Virginia. "The NPPC, meanwhile, is identified as a supporter of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). From the report ALEC Exposed - "ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve "model" bills." So, what I determined was the nearest relative of the OPC (which claimed credit for SQ 777) is the NPPC - which has corporate factory farms such as Seaboard in the Oklahoma panhandle and Shuanghui in Virginia as contributors. Does anyone begin to smell a "smoking gun" at this point in our investigation? An investigation of "model" bills from ALEC's own website discovered an agricultural bill dated 1996 - and eerily named "Right to Farm". The bill "model" is a "clone" of Oklahoma's State Question 777 - The Right to Farm. Everything, from start to finish, is an exact match for our own bill. The only thing left out of the "model" is the identifying characteristics for each state. All each state's sponsoring lawmaker has to do is "fill in the blanks" and almost magically produces a local bill that will convince local family farmers that this bill "is for them". Again, can anyone smell a corporate "smoking gun". This bill is not for us. It's writers and supporters belong to the "big club", as George Carlin called it - ALEC. "You and I are not in the big club" as Mr. Carlin said in his profanity laced tirade about corporations. One more interesting fact about ALEC is that not only does it have billion dollar corporations as its meat and potatoes, but it has 25% of all state lawmakers for members. While tracing the origin of the bill to 1996, and the writing of it to the NPPC (OPC's older brother) with Seaboard and Shuanghui's help, I discovered that several Oklahoma state legislator sponsors of SQ 777 are also members of ALEC. Lo and behold, another smoking gun. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to understand that the bill was dusted off a year ago, and transported back to Oklahoma along with a generous campaign contribution. Even if no campaign contribution was made to encourage the adoption of this bill, Dark Money groups also belong to ALEC, so contributions are untraceable. Dark money groups such as The American Federation of Children (AFC), the pro-voucher group, which has viciously attacked public school officials in the past (see my last blog about Dark Money). As a matter of fact, I just received in the mail today another card from the OFC ( The AFC's local affiliate) extolling the virtues of a particular District 42 House candidate. If you're a voter in House District 42 (Garvin and McClain County) you may have received the same card.
In summary, SQ 777 was written in 1996 by corporations, for corporations. It was NOT written by any local farmer nor any grass-roots organization. It was simply written to increase corporate profits for the benefit of share-holders, not you and I. It's documented.
Dark Money: Its Role in the November 8 Election
With the November 8 general election right around the corner, we should take a look at an issue that plays a large role for several of the state questions and several state level races which will be on the ballot. The issue I'm referring to is the role that "Dark Money" plays in the success or failure of a state question or a House/Senate race. I think we should understand the definition of only two political philosophies before we analyze "Dark Money", because the difference between the two is very subtle, yet very distinct. According to Wikipedia, "Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centered on preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes, and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism". It sounds like what many of us claim to be. Fascism U.S.A. - A Review of the Growing Loss of Democracy defines Fascism as "where big corporations have become our government". Since no one in America thinks of himself/herself as a fascist, we'll use Benito Mussolini's (Fascist dictator of Italy) definition of Corporatism, which is "the merger of State and corporate power". I think it's important we quote Vladimir llyich Lenin's criticism of fascism in that "Fascism is capitalism in decay" as it is related to Dark Money. Oklahoma Watch defines dark money groups as "Independent groups that seek to influence elections". These groups make a concerted effort to keep their donors anonymous, for fear that if names are exposed, obviously the donating entities will stop donating. Also, the recipients (state question or candidate) of dark money support often claim they have no knowledge of the dark money support - whether true or not. On June 24, 2016 (just prior to the June 28 primary election), Oklahoma Watch reported that dark money groups "that seek to influence elections had spent more than $300,000" in the five weeks prior, "on Oklahoma's legislative and congressional primary contests". Now that we understand a couple of the political philosophies and related issues as applied to the upcoming election, I'll apply them to specific competing entities in a past election (primary election on June 28, 2016) and then link the issues to the upcoming November 8 general election.
As many friends know (and also people that are not familiar with me) I'm a public school official in Blanchard, but I also ran for the District 42 House of Representatives seat in the primary election on June 28, 2016. Many citizens who run for public office do so for various reasons, and my reason was that since the present legislature has been unable to balance the state budget for about the last 2 or 3 years (I think everyone can agree), I would lend my experience - since I have balanced multi-million dollar school budgets for the past 12 years. Since I had never run for public office, I encountered many issues with which I had no experience or knowledge. One such major issue is the role that "Dark Money" plays in many elections, whether it's about candidate or state questions. As I stated from news reports, dark money did play a role during the previous primary election, both state-wide and personally. From Oklahoma Watch, June 24, 2016, 'Dark Money' Groups Accelerate Spending in Oklahoma Races - "The Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund (OFC), a school-choice PAC that supports offering vouchers to attend private schools, was the only group to spend money in opposition to candidates. In two races, the group targeted current or former educators who are running on a platform to increase funding for public schools. The federation spent about $3,600 in direct mail criticizing Blanchard Public Schools Superintendent Jim Beckham, who is running in the House District 42 Republican primary. It also spent $1,114 in support of his opponent (Tim) Downing." ... "Of the four groups that have made independent expenditures on legislative primary races, an obscure non-profit called Catalyst Oklahoma spent the most. ... $29,120 in support of Tim Downing in House District 42." In my opinion, these two Dark Money groups targeted me and supported Mr. Downing for obvious reasons. Also from Oklahoma Watch - 'Some candidates garnering support from the independent expenditures (dark money) have moved to distance themselves from the efforts.' " Unless it says 'authorized and paid for by friends of Tim Downing,' it is not from me," Downing wrote on his campaign's Facebook page earlier this month. "I have zero control over people or groups who exercise their freedom of speech to communicate with voters." I also received a questionnaire from the OFC which asked questions related to 'my support for school vouchers'. One must bear in mind that I've been highly critical of the American Federation for Children (AFC), the federal affiliate for the OFC, based in Washington D.C., for their state legislator lobbying efforts in Oklahoma. I did not complete and return the questionnaire, simply because I recognized the group for what it was (Dark Money). The document I received from the OFC indicated that if I supported their position for school vouchers by returning the questionnaire indicating so, I would receive financial support for my campaign. Little did I know that by ignoring their offer of support, they would mail out cards to republican voters which was very negative toward me.
I also accepted an invitation from a group to interview for potential financial support for my campaign. The group was unidentified by name, but I assume it was the Catalyst Oklahoma group. It was made up about 10 members, all corporate entities, which asked a series of questions. One question in particular raised a red flag for me - "Are you for or against the one-cent sales tax for education?" I answered "This sales tax would never have been proposed, had the current legislature been able to balance the state budget without raising taxes". They took this answer to mean that I support the sales tax increase. I knew going in that I would not receive support from this group, but I did not know they would make thousands of phone calls to voters, criticizing me and building up my opponent.
I know that "ethics" is a personal choice - in that everyone's definition of which actions are ethical or unethical is up to each. In other words, just because I believe particular actions are unethical for me doesn't make it so for another. For me, receiving solicited support for one's campaign from a dark money group, and then denying knowledge, is unethical.
Many, if not all dark money groups belong to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is an organization made up of giant for-profit corporations which pay $millions in membership fees - in order to receive access to state legislators. At annual conferences, state lawmakers are invited, where they are wined and dined, in order to advance "for profit" corporate legislation. This is the place where State Question 777 - The Right to Farm, was born 20 years ago. It's finally made to Oklahoma, along with $$$ to a lawmaker's campaign fund.
I always vote for the candidate in any race who has not received Dark Money, and I vote for the state question side which does not receive dark money. I will vote for Liz George in the District 42 House race, and I will vote NO on SQ 777 - The Right to Harm, because organizations which support the opposite - belong to ALEC.
As many friends know (and also people that are not familiar with me) I'm a public school official in Blanchard, but I also ran for the District 42 House of Representatives seat in the primary election on June 28, 2016. Many citizens who run for public office do so for various reasons, and my reason was that since the present legislature has been unable to balance the state budget for about the last 2 or 3 years (I think everyone can agree), I would lend my experience - since I have balanced multi-million dollar school budgets for the past 12 years. Since I had never run for public office, I encountered many issues with which I had no experience or knowledge. One such major issue is the role that "Dark Money" plays in many elections, whether it's about candidate or state questions. As I stated from news reports, dark money did play a role during the previous primary election, both state-wide and personally. From Oklahoma Watch, June 24, 2016, 'Dark Money' Groups Accelerate Spending in Oklahoma Races - "The Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund (OFC), a school-choice PAC that supports offering vouchers to attend private schools, was the only group to spend money in opposition to candidates. In two races, the group targeted current or former educators who are running on a platform to increase funding for public schools. The federation spent about $3,600 in direct mail criticizing Blanchard Public Schools Superintendent Jim Beckham, who is running in the House District 42 Republican primary. It also spent $1,114 in support of his opponent (Tim) Downing." ... "Of the four groups that have made independent expenditures on legislative primary races, an obscure non-profit called Catalyst Oklahoma spent the most. ... $29,120 in support of Tim Downing in House District 42." In my opinion, these two Dark Money groups targeted me and supported Mr. Downing for obvious reasons. Also from Oklahoma Watch - 'Some candidates garnering support from the independent expenditures (dark money) have moved to distance themselves from the efforts.' " Unless it says 'authorized and paid for by friends of Tim Downing,' it is not from me," Downing wrote on his campaign's Facebook page earlier this month. "I have zero control over people or groups who exercise their freedom of speech to communicate with voters." I also received a questionnaire from the OFC which asked questions related to 'my support for school vouchers'. One must bear in mind that I've been highly critical of the American Federation for Children (AFC), the federal affiliate for the OFC, based in Washington D.C., for their state legislator lobbying efforts in Oklahoma. I did not complete and return the questionnaire, simply because I recognized the group for what it was (Dark Money). The document I received from the OFC indicated that if I supported their position for school vouchers by returning the questionnaire indicating so, I would receive financial support for my campaign. Little did I know that by ignoring their offer of support, they would mail out cards to republican voters which was very negative toward me.
I also accepted an invitation from a group to interview for potential financial support for my campaign. The group was unidentified by name, but I assume it was the Catalyst Oklahoma group. It was made up about 10 members, all corporate entities, which asked a series of questions. One question in particular raised a red flag for me - "Are you for or against the one-cent sales tax for education?" I answered "This sales tax would never have been proposed, had the current legislature been able to balance the state budget without raising taxes". They took this answer to mean that I support the sales tax increase. I knew going in that I would not receive support from this group, but I did not know they would make thousands of phone calls to voters, criticizing me and building up my opponent.
I know that "ethics" is a personal choice - in that everyone's definition of which actions are ethical or unethical is up to each. In other words, just because I believe particular actions are unethical for me doesn't make it so for another. For me, receiving solicited support for one's campaign from a dark money group, and then denying knowledge, is unethical.
Many, if not all dark money groups belong to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is an organization made up of giant for-profit corporations which pay $millions in membership fees - in order to receive access to state legislators. At annual conferences, state lawmakers are invited, where they are wined and dined, in order to advance "for profit" corporate legislation. This is the place where State Question 777 - The Right to Farm, was born 20 years ago. It's finally made to Oklahoma, along with $$$ to a lawmaker's campaign fund.
I always vote for the candidate in any race who has not received Dark Money, and I vote for the state question side which does not receive dark money. I will vote for Liz George in the District 42 House race, and I will vote NO on SQ 777 - The Right to Harm, because organizations which support the opposite - belong to ALEC.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Conservatives Say Vote NO on SQ 777
Many people simply do not have the time to watch videos that can last as long as 30 minutes when trying to get information about SQ 777, Right to Harm. For that reason, I'll place the conservative position as stated by the Oklahoma Conservative PAC (OCPAC) in text (the abbreviated version). Before I do that, though, I'd like to share a quick political analysis of the presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, so we may have a contextual analysis of why conservatives will vote NO on SQ 777. In my opinion, Donald Trump is the conservative candidate for several reasons - He believes in smaller government and local government. He does not believe any elected political office should be beholden to corporations, in other words, his campaign contributions have come from himself, not corporate "owners" of the country. He does not answer to corporations, only voters. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is beholden to corporations (check her contribution list). She, like Barack Obama, is considered a neo-liberal by conservatives, because she believes in corporate control of the nation and the economy. Bear in mind, this is the conservative analysis of both candidates. Some conservatives have even considered Hillary Clinton a fascist, since she has acquired so much money from corporate entities. BTW, fascism was also referred to as corporatism by Benito Mussolini, dictator in Italy during the 1930's who invented fascism. Fascism by definition is shared governance between corporations and government officials. Another name of fascism is neo-conservatism, because approximately 25% of those lawmakers who call themselves conservative are really not.
First, I'll state the official position, word for word, of the most conservative group in Oklahoma - the Oklahoma Conservative PAC, on SQ 777:
SQ 777, "Right to Harm" Vote NO. This proposed amendment to our state constitution sounds good on the surface, but it appears to have been written by Washington lobbyists on behalf of multi-national corporate agricultural interests. The measure is designed to bypass our state legislature's authority, so that federal mandates and regulations can rule the day in farming. Ultimately, if passed, this measure would make it harder for small farmers to fight federal overreach and harder to fight the lawyers of out-of-state big corporations.
To conservatives, Hillary Clinton will stand behind SQ 777, as her political philosophy - corporatism (conservatives usually call it fascism, as they do later on in the film) lines up perfectly with SQ 777. Conservatives believe that Hillary Clinton has received $millions in corporate campaign contributions (and much worse) so will always bow down to her corporate bosses. I believe the first part (contributions) is an irrefutable fact. Conservatives believe (with good cause) that Donald Trump answers to no corporation, period. He doesn't even answer to his own party bosses and toe the establishment line. Conservatives believe he answers to no entity other than the American people. It is probably why he will win Oklahoma in a landslide, but inevitably lose the national vote. But the verdict is in as to how Hillary Clinton would vote on SQ 777 - YES, and how Donald Trump would vote - Hell NO.
Oklahoma conservatives are also religious. As a matter of fact, the OCPAC says "we are about religion and politics, and that's all. I believe, as does the OCPAC, that only God gives me the Right to Farm, not the government and why the OCPAC is calling SQ 777 Right to Harm. They say that eventually, more government control will be the end result of the bill. Conservatives also believe that a specific aspect of SQ 777, that it will give the right to harm livestock to Shuanghui - the Chinese factory hog farm in Virginia (Seaboard is the Chinese equivalent in Oklahoma). Many conservatives, as do I, believe that this aspect of SQ 777 is mentioned by the Word of God. Proverbs 12:10 - "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." This means to many conservatives that God does give us the right to farm, but not to mistreat or torture livestock. I don't believe any family farmer or rancher has ever mistreated farm animals. However, I know that foreign chicken and hog producers have done just that, and these are the writers of SQ 777. I know what you're thinking, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" but conservatives (and liberals) must apply God's Word to all situations. To summarize, most conservatives will vote no on SQ 777, if they believe it's really Right to Harm, not right to farm.
One more thing that really made me laugh this morning - a commercial appeared on TV in which the individual, a neo-conservative (according to several conservative groups), told everyone to vote yes on SQ 790 if you believe in the right to pray at football games. Sounds a lot like those corporate entities pushing SQ 777. What a joke! Again, God's Word gives me the right to pray anywhere, not the government. I'll have a lot to say about this fiasco (SQ 790) later.
First, I'll state the official position, word for word, of the most conservative group in Oklahoma - the Oklahoma Conservative PAC, on SQ 777:
SQ 777, "Right to Harm" Vote NO. This proposed amendment to our state constitution sounds good on the surface, but it appears to have been written by Washington lobbyists on behalf of multi-national corporate agricultural interests. The measure is designed to bypass our state legislature's authority, so that federal mandates and regulations can rule the day in farming. Ultimately, if passed, this measure would make it harder for small farmers to fight federal overreach and harder to fight the lawyers of out-of-state big corporations.
To conservatives, Hillary Clinton will stand behind SQ 777, as her political philosophy - corporatism (conservatives usually call it fascism, as they do later on in the film) lines up perfectly with SQ 777. Conservatives believe that Hillary Clinton has received $millions in corporate campaign contributions (and much worse) so will always bow down to her corporate bosses. I believe the first part (contributions) is an irrefutable fact. Conservatives believe (with good cause) that Donald Trump answers to no corporation, period. He doesn't even answer to his own party bosses and toe the establishment line. Conservatives believe he answers to no entity other than the American people. It is probably why he will win Oklahoma in a landslide, but inevitably lose the national vote. But the verdict is in as to how Hillary Clinton would vote on SQ 777 - YES, and how Donald Trump would vote - Hell NO.
Oklahoma conservatives are also religious. As a matter of fact, the OCPAC says "we are about religion and politics, and that's all. I believe, as does the OCPAC, that only God gives me the Right to Farm, not the government and why the OCPAC is calling SQ 777 Right to Harm. They say that eventually, more government control will be the end result of the bill. Conservatives also believe that a specific aspect of SQ 777, that it will give the right to harm livestock to Shuanghui - the Chinese factory hog farm in Virginia (Seaboard is the Chinese equivalent in Oklahoma). Many conservatives, as do I, believe that this aspect of SQ 777 is mentioned by the Word of God. Proverbs 12:10 - "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." This means to many conservatives that God does give us the right to farm, but not to mistreat or torture livestock. I don't believe any family farmer or rancher has ever mistreated farm animals. However, I know that foreign chicken and hog producers have done just that, and these are the writers of SQ 777. I know what you're thinking, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" but conservatives (and liberals) must apply God's Word to all situations. To summarize, most conservatives will vote no on SQ 777, if they believe it's really Right to Harm, not right to farm.
One more thing that really made me laugh this morning - a commercial appeared on TV in which the individual, a neo-conservative (according to several conservative groups), told everyone to vote yes on SQ 790 if you believe in the right to pray at football games. Sounds a lot like those corporate entities pushing SQ 777. What a joke! Again, God's Word gives me the right to pray anywhere, not the government. I'll have a lot to say about this fiasco (SQ 790) later.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Educating Politically
I've tried to politically educate my friends (and even those who don't consider me a friend) concerning State Question 777 over the past couple weeks, and will continue to do so through November 8. There are actually, in my opinion, four state questions which are politically motivated, which I will explore before November 8, election day. In addition to SQ 777 - right to farm (which gives lawmakers the right to transfer local authority for family farms to corporate entities), there is SQ 779 - the one-cent sales tax increase for education (which gives lawmakers the right to transfer the authority to provide teacher salaries to Oklahoma voters), SQ 790 - the replacement of the Ten Commandments monument to state capitol grounds (which gives lawmakers the right to transfer public monies to private and corporate schools), and SQ 792 - the modernization of Oklahoma liquor laws (which gives lawmakers the right to transfer local vendor economies to out-of-state and foreign corporate entities). These four state questions all have one common denominator - the right of government and corporate control, something which George Carlin ranted against in 2005 and Abraham Lincoln wrote about in 1866 (of which I'll detail later).
Before I go on to common denominators though, I'd first like to address a question I received from a YES voter concerning SQ 777. "Vote Yes corporate entities" have told local hog farmers that the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) will stop them from castrating pigs if 777 doesn't pass. First of all, Oklahoma has been losing local commercial hog farmers since the hog factory Seaboard began consolidating them (putting them out of business). As a matter of fact we had 6,200 hog farms in 1985, which was reduced to 1987 by 2012. The reduction was due in part to Seaboard, a corporate farm factory, stealing the hog market. I personally know several family hog farms that went out of business because of Seaboard's efforts. They are my friends. Seaboard is not my friend. I researched the castration concern, and determined that HSUS has no issue with the castration of pigs as a method of hog farming. As a matter of fact, HSUS does have an issue with Seaboard, in the way they confine sows in 2' by 6' gestation cages for their entire pregnancy (maybe 6 months), not just the time period just before giving birth (according to news release from Missouri). In the article, the reporter (not HSUS) mentioned the castration of baby pigs by Seaboard in relation to the cage sizes. Bear in mind that HSUS is not concerned with any abuse issue that pertains to farming and ranching, only abuse issues that Seaboard, Suanghui (Chinese owned), and other factory farms are guilty of committing. Seaboard seized the opportunity to spread the false rumor that HSUS would prevent hog farmers from castrating pigs, if SQ 777 doesn't pass. This is fear mongering at its worst, because HSUS has never passed a state law that says I can't castrate calves or hogs. The family hog farmers left in Oklahoma do not cage sows for long lengths of time, as I've seen their gestation cages, and know how long they cage them. But you must understand that factory farms do not care about livestock, only about corporate and shareholder profits. They produce livestock like the way the rest of us would grow tomato plants. So, this castration complaint was initiated by Seaboard for Seaboard, not our family farmers and ranchers.
Now, let's analyze SQ 792, the modernization of Oklahoma liquor laws, and determine how its related to SQ 777. First of all, it was initiated by unknown ALEC corporations, although you may know. I could guess that it would be corporate retail sales outlets. The important issue the bill addresses is to allow strong beer and wine to be sold at corporate outlets, not just by our local business owners who are your friends and neighbors. In my opinion, this bill was initiated by Wal-Mart in an attempt to close the competition (local liquor stores). In my opinion, many local liquor stores will be forced to close if 792 passes. Just this one issue will encourage me to vote No on SQ 792. If you value your friends who own local businesses, you will also vote no. Also in my opinion, if 792 passes, our youth will more easily circumvent age requirements for purchasing alcohol. This is another reason I'll vote no. The bottom line for SQ 792 is corporate profits, just as it is for SQ 777.
I'll continue to analyze the four state questions initiated by ALEC in each and every blog, through November 8... . Because it's far too much to write about in just one. Thank you for reading it...
Before I go on to common denominators though, I'd first like to address a question I received from a YES voter concerning SQ 777. "Vote Yes corporate entities" have told local hog farmers that the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) will stop them from castrating pigs if 777 doesn't pass. First of all, Oklahoma has been losing local commercial hog farmers since the hog factory Seaboard began consolidating them (putting them out of business). As a matter of fact we had 6,200 hog farms in 1985, which was reduced to 1987 by 2012. The reduction was due in part to Seaboard, a corporate farm factory, stealing the hog market. I personally know several family hog farms that went out of business because of Seaboard's efforts. They are my friends. Seaboard is not my friend. I researched the castration concern, and determined that HSUS has no issue with the castration of pigs as a method of hog farming. As a matter of fact, HSUS does have an issue with Seaboard, in the way they confine sows in 2' by 6' gestation cages for their entire pregnancy (maybe 6 months), not just the time period just before giving birth (according to news release from Missouri). In the article, the reporter (not HSUS) mentioned the castration of baby pigs by Seaboard in relation to the cage sizes. Bear in mind that HSUS is not concerned with any abuse issue that pertains to farming and ranching, only abuse issues that Seaboard, Suanghui (Chinese owned), and other factory farms are guilty of committing. Seaboard seized the opportunity to spread the false rumor that HSUS would prevent hog farmers from castrating pigs, if SQ 777 doesn't pass. This is fear mongering at its worst, because HSUS has never passed a state law that says I can't castrate calves or hogs. The family hog farmers left in Oklahoma do not cage sows for long lengths of time, as I've seen their gestation cages, and know how long they cage them. But you must understand that factory farms do not care about livestock, only about corporate and shareholder profits. They produce livestock like the way the rest of us would grow tomato plants. So, this castration complaint was initiated by Seaboard for Seaboard, not our family farmers and ranchers.
Now, let's analyze SQ 792, the modernization of Oklahoma liquor laws, and determine how its related to SQ 777. First of all, it was initiated by unknown ALEC corporations, although you may know. I could guess that it would be corporate retail sales outlets. The important issue the bill addresses is to allow strong beer and wine to be sold at corporate outlets, not just by our local business owners who are your friends and neighbors. In my opinion, this bill was initiated by Wal-Mart in an attempt to close the competition (local liquor stores). In my opinion, many local liquor stores will be forced to close if 792 passes. Just this one issue will encourage me to vote No on SQ 792. If you value your friends who own local businesses, you will also vote no. Also in my opinion, if 792 passes, our youth will more easily circumvent age requirements for purchasing alcohol. This is another reason I'll vote no. The bottom line for SQ 792 is corporate profits, just as it is for SQ 777.
I'll continue to analyze the four state questions initiated by ALEC in each and every blog, through November 8... . Because it's far too much to write about in just one. Thank you for reading it...
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
State Question 777 blog #2
George Carlin, stand-up comic and political analyst, has a lot to say about State Question 777, the Right to Harm Oklahoma's farms bill, that will be voted on November 8. State Question 777 is the brainchild of Seaboard and Suanghui (owned by China, but located in Virginia) farms, which routinely torture livestock - something our family farms and ranches would never do. George Carlin may not seem very knowledgeable (because of his use of foul language), but he had an IQ of 156, and was very astute as far as politics are concerned. I'll first re-print Carlin's political assessment of "The Big Club" which you and I aren't in, and then analyze it to determine how it hits SQ 777 on the head. Please be aware that he uses foul language, so don't read it if foul language offends you:
"There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now... the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They OWN you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly their getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 ******* years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now their coming for your social security money. They want your ******* retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this ******* place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. ...And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue **** that's being jammed up their ******** everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it." To get the full effects of Carlin's speech, listen to it on you tube.
I'll first identify the players in George's rant, which will identify the "owners" of SQ 777. "The owners of this country" are corporate entities which Mr. Carlin identifies later on as "corporation owners" and "big wealthy business interests". He leaves out another important owner, however, as non-profit entities which support big wealthy business interests. One example is the non-profit group American Federation of Children which supports corporate charter school chains, such as the international Fethullah Gulen Charter Schools out of Turkey. Approximately 230 of these schools are spread across the U.S. today. "Obedient workers" are identified as everyday Americans who are not wealthy executives and owners of corporations. I think that means just about everyone reading this blog. "The Big Club" exists now as an organization which calls itself "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is an organization founded in 1973 which has members made up of corporations, big wealthy business owners (as opposed to local and small business owners), non-profit organizations (which answer to corporate interests), and State Legislators. The primary function of ALEC is to match corporations (more than 300 corporations around the world belong to ALEC) with state legislators (25% of all state legislators in the U.S. belong to ALEC), so that corporations can get state laws made which benefit their bottom line - profits. The corporations, such as corporate charter schools, just hand a state legislator a bill, telling him or her to "take it back to Oklahoma, and get it passed into law". Corporations know, however, which lawmakers to hand their bills to - it would naturally be the state legislators who can be bought and paid for, according to George Carlin. The Big Club, ALEC, is referred to as a fascist organization by the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC). Fascism is a political philosophy employed by the dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, before and during World War II. He was hanged by Italians in 1942 as the Allies swept through Italy. On a side note, my uncle, Warren Beckham (U.S. Army) received the Silver Star for his work in Italy during WWII. But I digress. Fascism can best be described as a partnership between corporations and the government in running the country. Benito Mussolini even said Fascism should be called "corporatism" to better describe his political philosophy. Now, you may take a look at the way ALEC describes itself on its website to determine for yourself if its really about corporate and government control of our lives. ALEC is a highly secretive organization, but was exposed in 2011 as to who its members were. As a result, many corporations resigned their memberships because they did not want the unsuspecting public to know. You may find everything you need to know about ALEC in a report called "ALEC Exposed". As a result of ALEC Exposed, I determined State Question 777 was not written by farmers and ranchers in 2015, but by ALEC in 1996. ALEC has been pedaling it since then, but one of Oklahoma's lawmakers just picked it up this year, along with a hefty contribution check from Tyson, Seaboard, or Suanghui farms (oops, I'm naming names again). Of course, the middleman in these transactions could have been a non-profit that accepts $ millions from these corporate farms.
In summary, SQ 777 was not written by local farmers and ranchers, it was written in 1996 by corporations for corporations at an ALEC conference. Corporations are only concerned about their bottom line - profits for shareholders, nothing else. The proof is out there.
"There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now... the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They OWN you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly their getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 ******* years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now their coming for your social security money. They want your ******* retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this ******* place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. ...And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue **** that's being jammed up their ******** everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it." To get the full effects of Carlin's speech, listen to it on you tube.
I'll first identify the players in George's rant, which will identify the "owners" of SQ 777. "The owners of this country" are corporate entities which Mr. Carlin identifies later on as "corporation owners" and "big wealthy business interests". He leaves out another important owner, however, as non-profit entities which support big wealthy business interests. One example is the non-profit group American Federation of Children which supports corporate charter school chains, such as the international Fethullah Gulen Charter Schools out of Turkey. Approximately 230 of these schools are spread across the U.S. today. "Obedient workers" are identified as everyday Americans who are not wealthy executives and owners of corporations. I think that means just about everyone reading this blog. "The Big Club" exists now as an organization which calls itself "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is an organization founded in 1973 which has members made up of corporations, big wealthy business owners (as opposed to local and small business owners), non-profit organizations (which answer to corporate interests), and State Legislators. The primary function of ALEC is to match corporations (more than 300 corporations around the world belong to ALEC) with state legislators (25% of all state legislators in the U.S. belong to ALEC), so that corporations can get state laws made which benefit their bottom line - profits. The corporations, such as corporate charter schools, just hand a state legislator a bill, telling him or her to "take it back to Oklahoma, and get it passed into law". Corporations know, however, which lawmakers to hand their bills to - it would naturally be the state legislators who can be bought and paid for, according to George Carlin. The Big Club, ALEC, is referred to as a fascist organization by the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC). Fascism is a political philosophy employed by the dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, before and during World War II. He was hanged by Italians in 1942 as the Allies swept through Italy. On a side note, my uncle, Warren Beckham (U.S. Army) received the Silver Star for his work in Italy during WWII. But I digress. Fascism can best be described as a partnership between corporations and the government in running the country. Benito Mussolini even said Fascism should be called "corporatism" to better describe his political philosophy. Now, you may take a look at the way ALEC describes itself on its website to determine for yourself if its really about corporate and government control of our lives. ALEC is a highly secretive organization, but was exposed in 2011 as to who its members were. As a result, many corporations resigned their memberships because they did not want the unsuspecting public to know. You may find everything you need to know about ALEC in a report called "ALEC Exposed". As a result of ALEC Exposed, I determined State Question 777 was not written by farmers and ranchers in 2015, but by ALEC in 1996. ALEC has been pedaling it since then, but one of Oklahoma's lawmakers just picked it up this year, along with a hefty contribution check from Tyson, Seaboard, or Suanghui farms (oops, I'm naming names again). Of course, the middleman in these transactions could have been a non-profit that accepts $ millions from these corporate farms.
In summary, SQ 777 was not written by local farmers and ranchers, it was written in 1996 by corporations for corporations at an ALEC conference. Corporations are only concerned about their bottom line - profits for shareholders, nothing else. The proof is out there.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Right to Farm or Right to Harm?
Many friends are confused about the Right to Farm bill, State Question 777, and have asked me to explain it from my perspective. I'll try to do that now by examining the facts and then providing my opinion as to why I believe Oklahomans should vote NO on SQ 777. I'll do this from a public school official's perspective and also from a family rancher's perspective.
I've studied public schools for about 35 years now and have a Ph.D. in public school funding and finance, so I should know what I'm talking about (though that's debatable) when it comes to public school issues. Public schools have dealt with all kinds of issues over the years, but just recently have begun to experience the political side of education. The threat to destroy our public schools now comes from the east and is certainly politically motivated. (In the interest of full disclosure, my political philosophy is as a social conservative). By definition, social conservatism is a political philosophy which promotes retaining successful traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.Our Oklahoma public schools are one such successful, traditional social institution - and I'll do whatever it takes to protect and preserve them. If this means I must call out those that seek to destroy our schools by directing resources to out-of-state and foreign education corporations, then I'll do just that. As an example, State Question 790, the bill that will allow the Ten Commandments Monument to be again placed at the state Capitol, is not really about moving the Ten Commandments to capitol grounds - it's a bill that removes Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. This clause states that no public money shall be appropriated directly or indirectly to any religious private school or purpose by any lawmaker. For example, what would stop a legislator from sending our public money to the ISIS School of Terrorism with no art. 2, sec. 5? If Art. 2, Sec. 5 is removed from the Constitution, it will allow legislators to send public tax dollars to any private or corporate charter school he or she pleases. The effect of allowing legislators to spend public tax dollars on potentially out-of-state religious and corporate schools, that public schools should receive, would be to choke us completely out of existence. The next obvious question that comes up is "where did this terrible SQ come from?" What conservative lawmaker in his right mind would mislabel SQ 790 by saying it's all about moving the Ten Commandments to state capitol grounds, when it's obviously not? It's misleading by intent, to fool Oklahoma voters into voting yes. To determine the motivation behind authoring bills such as SQ 790 - follow the money trail. The money trail in this case leads us to parts unknown. The place of origination of this bill and others like it changes each year. Remember, in the mind of corporations, a moving target is hard to hit - when following the money trail. I believe SQ 790 was provided to a state lawmaker in San Diego, California, last year. This was the destination of last year's National Conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). According to "ALEC Exposed", 2015, "ALEC has long been a secretive collaboration between Big Business and "conservative" politicians. Behind closed doors, they ghostwrite "model" bills to be introduced in state capitols across the country. This agenda - underwritten by global corporations - includes major tax loopholes for big industries and the super rich, proposals to offshore U.S. jobs, and efforts to weaken public health, safety, and environmental protections. Although many of these bills have become law, until now, their origin has been largely unknown. ... big corporations are changing the legal rules and undermining democracy across the nation." ALEC is made up of only two types of members - corporate entities and state lawmakers. The corporate member pays between $5000 and $25,000 in annual dues to retain membership while the legislative members only pay $50 per year. The legislative members often receive an all-expense paid family vacation to attend the annual conference. What a deal! For the high dues that corporate members pay, they receive face-to-face meetings with state legislators. ALEC Exposed states that "ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group: it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line.Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve "model" bills."
"Dark money" groups also belong to ALEC. A dark money group has corporate members also, but the corporate membership tries to remain anonymous, so it can spend vast amounts of money on legislative campaigns without being traced. A specific example of a dark money group which belongs to ALEC is the American Federation for Children (AFC). It is a group that promotes the school privatization or voucher agenda. It is the 501(c)(4) arm of the 501(c)(3) non-profit group the Alliance for School Vouchers. It was organized and is funded by the billionaire DeVos family, who are the heirs to the Amway fortune. Former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen, who was charged with multiple crimes (felonies) stemming from abuse of his office, is on staff at AFC as Senior Advisor to it's Government Affairs Team. Scott Jensen has been in Oklahoma many times, cheering on our state legislators who have proposed the school voucher bills. In the organizations own words, AFC is "a leading national advocacy organization promoting... school vouchers and scholarship tax-credit programs." (SourceWatch). The definition of "Fascism" is the merger of state and corporate power. As a matter of fact, according to Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy during WWII, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." When Scott Jensen appeared at our capitol two years ago to promote his voucher bills, many public school officials took notice - and I wrote several news columns criticizing his participation in our legislative process. It's no small wonder that Mr. Jensen took offense at this criticism and directed approximately $24,000 in dark money to the effort to make sure I didn't win the primary election for House District 42 on June 28, 2016. It's a fact, if you received a card in the mail which told you how terrible I would be as a legislator, and how great my primary opponent will be - check the small print as to who it came from: the Oklahoma affiliate of The American Federation for Children. I don't think that AFC was just picking on me however, as it spent over $100,000 in making sure that 5 other public school candidates were defeated in Oklahoma. In addition to the $24,000 spent by AFC, another dark money group, America United spent approximately $9,000 to make sure I lost. These are documented facts, as I still have samples of the cards that went out to registered voters. Remember, in determining the origin of bad bills such as SQ 790 - follow the money trail. George Carlin (comedian and political analyst) hit the nail on the head in 2005, when he said "It's a big club, and you ain't in it." The "Big Club" he was referring to involve corporations and legislators only (ALEC). The big club, however, convinces everyone else that they too are in the big club. Yeah right... No education bill EVER originated in ALEC that would benefit our public schools, only corporate charter schools - such as the 230 U.S. charter schools run by the Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric. By the way, the Fethullah's school board was arrested more than a month ago in Turkey for threatening a coup. Sounds like the type of charter school that ALEC needs to be passing bills for - NOT!
Now, why will I vote no on SQ 777, Right to Farm? For all of the above reasons, plus many more. After a little digging, I discovered that the Right to Farm bill was actually written in 1996 at an ALEC conference. I'm not sure who wrote it, but I heard the Oklahoma Pork Council take credit about a week ago. It's listed as a "model" bill on its "Model Legislation" site, verbatim. The only information left out is the Title, Enforcement date, Effective date, and other words that a state legislator must fill in for himself, like "Oklahoma" on the line for the appropriate state name. ALEC has evidently concluded that state lawmakers must be smart enough to only fill in the blank. But maybe not. There is only one thing missing from the OK Pork Council receiving credit for writing the bill - it is not an ALEC member. The National Pork Council (NPC) is a member, however, so it must be the original writer. By the way, the NPC contributed over $300,000 to ALEC, in order to encourage state lawmakers to take model bills back to their home states for passage. While I'm sure there are some Oklahoma hog farmers that belong to the NPC, I'm positive its major memberships are the International and foreign hog farms. Hog farms such as Seaboard in the panhandle and the Suanghui Group (Smithfield - I refuse to call them by their American name because it's owned by China) in Virginia. The giant industrial hog farms and chicken farms are the ONLY entities that will benefit from SQ 777. Many of my good friends are dead set against the United States Humane Society (HSUS) for the perception that it buys "bleeding heart legislators" in order to pass laws that infringe upon our rights. I don't know, but I do know the following facts about the HSUS: 1) HSUS has never infringed on my right to farm, 2) HSUS has only investigated and "shined a light" on Seaboard, Shuanghui, Tyson, and several other foreign and international corporate farm factories (it's well documented) for their high tech "farming" methods. High tech farming methods such as the dumping of chicken waste in the Illinois River and pig abuse (documented) by Shuanghui and Seaboard. I know of NO Oklahoma farmer or rancher who treats livestock like Seaboard and Suanghui does. Seaboard, Suanghui, and several more ALEC members have managed to convince many of my friends (I'm not friends with corporate entities) that SQ 777 is good for them. It's not for you (like George Carlin so eloquently stated), it's about the bottom line for corporations. They handed the bill to one of our state lawmakers (along with a campaign check) and said "get it passed". By the way, lawmakers' campaign donations may be accessed on the Ethics Commission website, as I've done many times. I'll state the obvious once again, follow the money trail. ALEC has never, ever advocated for ANY bill that does not affect the bottom line for corporations. Remember, "It's a big club, and our local farmers and ranchers ain't in it.
Most Oklahomans can't remember the "Dust Bowl" of the late 1920's and 1930's - the greatest man-made ecological and economical disaster the world has ever known. It wasn't really man-made though, it was corporate made (The Worst Hard Time, Timothy Egan). My grandfather and your ancestors did not cause the dust bowl. The dust bowl was caused by CORPORATE farming, not because it got hot and the wind began to blow, but because of what was cutting edge technology at the time - the one-way plow. Corporate farming entities called "suitcase farmers" in the 1930's received massive federal subsidies (no local farmers received), and swooped in from the east to buy up every square inch of Oklahoma prairie. The suitcase farmers, so-called because they rented hotel rooms and ran their farms from there. They plowed up all the land and planted wheat (my grandfather farmed cotton on 60 acres) in order to make what they thought would be massive profits. When the price of wheat dropped to 25 cents/bushel, they left Oklahoma and took our topsoil with them. This happened because corporate farms convinced the federal government that tax breaks and subsidies would be good for all farmers, big and small. Nothing could be further from the truth. My grandfather died at the age of 45 in 1933 as a result of corporate greed. This is another reason I'm voting no on 777.
The Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC), which bills itself as "about religion and politics, the only two things that matter" is probably the most conservative group in the state. The OCPAC believes that SQ 777 is unconstitutional and a veiled attempt to expand government, with which I agree. While I'm conservative on most issues (I believe in retaining our traditional social institutions, such as family farms) I'm not as far right as the OCPAC, because I don't refer to our public schools as "government schools". The OCPAC believes that bills such as 777 are nothing more than fascism (see earlier definition) with which I also agree. I also agree that SQ 777 will definitely result in attorneys and the courts determining the final outcome of the sure to follow constitutional lawsuits. In my opinion, the combination of government and corporate control of our farms is something we don't need in Okahoma. ALEC's own website brags about joint corporate / government law making!
In summary, I believe that God gives me the right to farm - not the government, so I don't need SQ 777. IT'S A TRICK QUESTION! I also don't abuse my livestock - that's also addressed by the Word of God, so PETA and the HSUS will never tell me how to farm. They may tell Tyson not to dump chicken waste in the Illinois River or tell Seaboard not to abuse pigs, but if 777 passes, corporate farms such as Swanghui will become more common. I'm voting NO on SQ 777.
I've studied public schools for about 35 years now and have a Ph.D. in public school funding and finance, so I should know what I'm talking about (though that's debatable) when it comes to public school issues. Public schools have dealt with all kinds of issues over the years, but just recently have begun to experience the political side of education. The threat to destroy our public schools now comes from the east and is certainly politically motivated. (In the interest of full disclosure, my political philosophy is as a social conservative). By definition, social conservatism is a political philosophy which promotes retaining successful traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.Our Oklahoma public schools are one such successful, traditional social institution - and I'll do whatever it takes to protect and preserve them. If this means I must call out those that seek to destroy our schools by directing resources to out-of-state and foreign education corporations, then I'll do just that. As an example, State Question 790, the bill that will allow the Ten Commandments Monument to be again placed at the state Capitol, is not really about moving the Ten Commandments to capitol grounds - it's a bill that removes Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. This clause states that no public money shall be appropriated directly or indirectly to any religious private school or purpose by any lawmaker. For example, what would stop a legislator from sending our public money to the ISIS School of Terrorism with no art. 2, sec. 5? If Art. 2, Sec. 5 is removed from the Constitution, it will allow legislators to send public tax dollars to any private or corporate charter school he or she pleases. The effect of allowing legislators to spend public tax dollars on potentially out-of-state religious and corporate schools, that public schools should receive, would be to choke us completely out of existence. The next obvious question that comes up is "where did this terrible SQ come from?" What conservative lawmaker in his right mind would mislabel SQ 790 by saying it's all about moving the Ten Commandments to state capitol grounds, when it's obviously not? It's misleading by intent, to fool Oklahoma voters into voting yes. To determine the motivation behind authoring bills such as SQ 790 - follow the money trail. The money trail in this case leads us to parts unknown. The place of origination of this bill and others like it changes each year. Remember, in the mind of corporations, a moving target is hard to hit - when following the money trail. I believe SQ 790 was provided to a state lawmaker in San Diego, California, last year. This was the destination of last year's National Conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). According to "ALEC Exposed", 2015, "ALEC has long been a secretive collaboration between Big Business and "conservative" politicians. Behind closed doors, they ghostwrite "model" bills to be introduced in state capitols across the country. This agenda - underwritten by global corporations - includes major tax loopholes for big industries and the super rich, proposals to offshore U.S. jobs, and efforts to weaken public health, safety, and environmental protections. Although many of these bills have become law, until now, their origin has been largely unknown. ... big corporations are changing the legal rules and undermining democracy across the nation." ALEC is made up of only two types of members - corporate entities and state lawmakers. The corporate member pays between $5000 and $25,000 in annual dues to retain membership while the legislative members only pay $50 per year. The legislative members often receive an all-expense paid family vacation to attend the annual conference. What a deal! For the high dues that corporate members pay, they receive face-to-face meetings with state legislators. ALEC Exposed states that "ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group: it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line.Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve "model" bills."
"Dark money" groups also belong to ALEC. A dark money group has corporate members also, but the corporate membership tries to remain anonymous, so it can spend vast amounts of money on legislative campaigns without being traced. A specific example of a dark money group which belongs to ALEC is the American Federation for Children (AFC). It is a group that promotes the school privatization or voucher agenda. It is the 501(c)(4) arm of the 501(c)(3) non-profit group the Alliance for School Vouchers. It was organized and is funded by the billionaire DeVos family, who are the heirs to the Amway fortune. Former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen, who was charged with multiple crimes (felonies) stemming from abuse of his office, is on staff at AFC as Senior Advisor to it's Government Affairs Team. Scott Jensen has been in Oklahoma many times, cheering on our state legislators who have proposed the school voucher bills. In the organizations own words, AFC is "a leading national advocacy organization promoting... school vouchers and scholarship tax-credit programs." (SourceWatch). The definition of "Fascism" is the merger of state and corporate power. As a matter of fact, according to Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy during WWII, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." When Scott Jensen appeared at our capitol two years ago to promote his voucher bills, many public school officials took notice - and I wrote several news columns criticizing his participation in our legislative process. It's no small wonder that Mr. Jensen took offense at this criticism and directed approximately $24,000 in dark money to the effort to make sure I didn't win the primary election for House District 42 on June 28, 2016. It's a fact, if you received a card in the mail which told you how terrible I would be as a legislator, and how great my primary opponent will be - check the small print as to who it came from: the Oklahoma affiliate of The American Federation for Children. I don't think that AFC was just picking on me however, as it spent over $100,000 in making sure that 5 other public school candidates were defeated in Oklahoma. In addition to the $24,000 spent by AFC, another dark money group, America United spent approximately $9,000 to make sure I lost. These are documented facts, as I still have samples of the cards that went out to registered voters. Remember, in determining the origin of bad bills such as SQ 790 - follow the money trail. George Carlin (comedian and political analyst) hit the nail on the head in 2005, when he said "It's a big club, and you ain't in it." The "Big Club" he was referring to involve corporations and legislators only (ALEC). The big club, however, convinces everyone else that they too are in the big club. Yeah right... No education bill EVER originated in ALEC that would benefit our public schools, only corporate charter schools - such as the 230 U.S. charter schools run by the Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric. By the way, the Fethullah's school board was arrested more than a month ago in Turkey for threatening a coup. Sounds like the type of charter school that ALEC needs to be passing bills for - NOT!
Now, why will I vote no on SQ 777, Right to Farm? For all of the above reasons, plus many more. After a little digging, I discovered that the Right to Farm bill was actually written in 1996 at an ALEC conference. I'm not sure who wrote it, but I heard the Oklahoma Pork Council take credit about a week ago. It's listed as a "model" bill on its "Model Legislation" site, verbatim. The only information left out is the Title, Enforcement date, Effective date, and other words that a state legislator must fill in for himself, like "Oklahoma" on the line for the appropriate state name. ALEC has evidently concluded that state lawmakers must be smart enough to only fill in the blank. But maybe not. There is only one thing missing from the OK Pork Council receiving credit for writing the bill - it is not an ALEC member. The National Pork Council (NPC) is a member, however, so it must be the original writer. By the way, the NPC contributed over $300,000 to ALEC, in order to encourage state lawmakers to take model bills back to their home states for passage. While I'm sure there are some Oklahoma hog farmers that belong to the NPC, I'm positive its major memberships are the International and foreign hog farms. Hog farms such as Seaboard in the panhandle and the Suanghui Group (Smithfield - I refuse to call them by their American name because it's owned by China) in Virginia. The giant industrial hog farms and chicken farms are the ONLY entities that will benefit from SQ 777. Many of my good friends are dead set against the United States Humane Society (HSUS) for the perception that it buys "bleeding heart legislators" in order to pass laws that infringe upon our rights. I don't know, but I do know the following facts about the HSUS: 1) HSUS has never infringed on my right to farm, 2) HSUS has only investigated and "shined a light" on Seaboard, Shuanghui, Tyson, and several other foreign and international corporate farm factories (it's well documented) for their high tech "farming" methods. High tech farming methods such as the dumping of chicken waste in the Illinois River and pig abuse (documented) by Shuanghui and Seaboard. I know of NO Oklahoma farmer or rancher who treats livestock like Seaboard and Suanghui does. Seaboard, Suanghui, and several more ALEC members have managed to convince many of my friends (I'm not friends with corporate entities) that SQ 777 is good for them. It's not for you (like George Carlin so eloquently stated), it's about the bottom line for corporations. They handed the bill to one of our state lawmakers (along with a campaign check) and said "get it passed". By the way, lawmakers' campaign donations may be accessed on the Ethics Commission website, as I've done many times. I'll state the obvious once again, follow the money trail. ALEC has never, ever advocated for ANY bill that does not affect the bottom line for corporations. Remember, "It's a big club, and our local farmers and ranchers ain't in it.
Most Oklahomans can't remember the "Dust Bowl" of the late 1920's and 1930's - the greatest man-made ecological and economical disaster the world has ever known. It wasn't really man-made though, it was corporate made (The Worst Hard Time, Timothy Egan). My grandfather and your ancestors did not cause the dust bowl. The dust bowl was caused by CORPORATE farming, not because it got hot and the wind began to blow, but because of what was cutting edge technology at the time - the one-way plow. Corporate farming entities called "suitcase farmers" in the 1930's received massive federal subsidies (no local farmers received), and swooped in from the east to buy up every square inch of Oklahoma prairie. The suitcase farmers, so-called because they rented hotel rooms and ran their farms from there. They plowed up all the land and planted wheat (my grandfather farmed cotton on 60 acres) in order to make what they thought would be massive profits. When the price of wheat dropped to 25 cents/bushel, they left Oklahoma and took our topsoil with them. This happened because corporate farms convinced the federal government that tax breaks and subsidies would be good for all farmers, big and small. Nothing could be further from the truth. My grandfather died at the age of 45 in 1933 as a result of corporate greed. This is another reason I'm voting no on 777.
The Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC), which bills itself as "about religion and politics, the only two things that matter" is probably the most conservative group in the state. The OCPAC believes that SQ 777 is unconstitutional and a veiled attempt to expand government, with which I agree. While I'm conservative on most issues (I believe in retaining our traditional social institutions, such as family farms) I'm not as far right as the OCPAC, because I don't refer to our public schools as "government schools". The OCPAC believes that bills such as 777 are nothing more than fascism (see earlier definition) with which I also agree. I also agree that SQ 777 will definitely result in attorneys and the courts determining the final outcome of the sure to follow constitutional lawsuits. In my opinion, the combination of government and corporate control of our farms is something we don't need in Okahoma. ALEC's own website brags about joint corporate / government law making!
In summary, I believe that God gives me the right to farm - not the government, so I don't need SQ 777. IT'S A TRICK QUESTION! I also don't abuse my livestock - that's also addressed by the Word of God, so PETA and the HSUS will never tell me how to farm. They may tell Tyson not to dump chicken waste in the Illinois River or tell Seaboard not to abuse pigs, but if 777 passes, corporate farms such as Swanghui will become more common. I'm voting NO on SQ 777.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)