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.