High School Athletics - The Unlevel Playing Field

   A couple weeks ago, I was scolded by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Athletic Association (OSSAA) for criticizing the fact that it allows athletic competition between our public schools and private schools in the state playoffs (for all sports and activities). More specifically, I called out the OSSAA for being (in the words of Joe Tunnell, my high school football coach) "a gutless wonder", for fearing a lawsuit that would result if the playing field were leveled. I don't blame the OSSAA for taking offense to my calling it a "gutless wonder", so I apologized. I will not apologize, however, for my original assertion - "The OSSAA allows unfair competition between public schools and private schools during our playoffs. Private schools have many advantages which public schools do not, when competing for state titles in Oklahoma. Private schools can accept or reject students at will, thereby belonging to any classification level, Class-A through 6-A, they wish. Public schools must accept all students and belong to the classification level their enrollment dictates. Private schools can also technically "recruit" the best players from anywhere in the nation, although they claim they don't. Public schools cannot recruit players, by OSSAA rule. Private schools have the best facilities, equipment, and players money can buy, as they provide "scholarships" (known as sponsorships) to students. Public schools rely on public tax dollars to provide student funding and pay for facilities and equipment. The inequities that exist between publics and privates create unfair advantages for privates that are manifested on the playing field. Most states have attempted to level the playing field between private schools and public schools. Texas, for example, requires private schools to compete in only the top classification - 6A, during play-off competition. As a result, only two private schools play in the Texas public school league. Oklahoma, meanwhile, attempted to level the playing field somewhat a few years ago by requiring private schools to move up one classification level if they fit certain criteria. For example, if a private school in class-3A placed in the top eight the previous year, they would be required to move up to class-4A for the succeeding year. This "watered down" attempt at leveling the playing field did absolutely nothing, as the same private schools continued to dominate the OSSAA play-offs. Let's take a look at what the data says, in order to either refute or verify that private schools have unfair advantages over public schools, in athletic competition.
   There are currently 262 schools, 245 publics (94%)and 17 privates (6%) in class-A thru 6-A playing high school football in Oklahoma. This year, 114 (47%) public schools made the play-offs, while 14 (82%) private schools qualified for the play-offs. This statistic alone says that a player on a private school team has a better chance of qualifying for the playoffs, and then winning a state title. This leads coaches for private schools to have better recruiting years. Of the 114 public schools which made the playoffs, 33 (29%) advanced to the top 8, while 7 (50%) of the 14 private schools advanced. Please be aware at this point that the percentages of publics and privates must be roughly equal for a true level playing field to exist.
   One other anecdotal statistic: Heritage Hall High School (Class-3A and Class-4A) since its admittance into the OSSAA in 1976 - has won 80 state athletic titles! In 2015 alone, Heritage Hall won 10 state titles in Baseball, Cheerleading,Football, Boys Golf, Slow Pitch Softball, Boys Soccer, Boys Tennis, Girls Tennis, Boys Track, and Volleyball. Data such as these should be embarrassing for a private school, but they are not. Private schools use data, and facilities to lure better athletes to their schools, so will continue their unprecedented dominance over public schools. Furthermore, I predict the OSSAA will never level the playing field that public and private schools play on - for fear of lawsuits.

Lindsay Leopard Football

   Congratulations! to the Lindsay Leopards for finishing the football season with eleven wins and only one loss. This 2016 edition of Leopard football ranks up there will all the storied teams of the past - the 1962, 1970, 1973, 1977, and 1980 Leopard football teams. My message to this 2016 football team is this: Your memories of this season will last a lifetime. You will always remember your teammates and always have visions of events that transpired during the season. You will share them with your kids and grandkids as you go through life.
   I've only mentioned a few of the Leopard teams held in high esteem, because those are the ones familiar to me, as I went through Lindsay High School from 1972 to 1975. As a matter of fact, the Daily Oklahoman named the Lindsay Leopards as the program with the highest percentage of wins of any team in class-2A, for the decade of the seventies. The great 1970 Leopard football team entered the state finals that year with 12 wins and no losses. They were ranked first in class-2A most of the season and had shut-out five opponents that year,as they had scored 422 points while allowing only 44 during the regular season. The 1970 team boasted of great players such as Danny Simonton, Gary Cooper, Terry Henry, Billy Gibson, Danny Cunningham, Bud McGuire, Johnny Branch, and all-staters Mike Terry and Mike Flesher. I really don't like bringing up the not so great memories, but I will anyway. That 1970 Leopard team faced Nowata in the title game in December at Central State University in Edmond. The Leopards were heavy favorites and were in fact leading Nowata 12 to 0 by the end of the first quarter. In my mind, it was going to be another lopsided win by the Leopards, as I looked on as an 8th grader at Lindsay Junior High. The Ironmen of Nowata fought back, however, finally winning 14 - 12. My "football heroes" had lost the last game, much like this year's 2016 Leopards.
   The 1973 Leopards were almost identical to the 1970 team, except they relied on a ground control offense, instead of a back-breaking defense. The '73 Leopards, in the words of the Daily Oklahoman, "ground out rushing yardage the way a packing plant grinds out sausage". Once again, they ended the regular season with 10 wins against 0 losses, and ranked number one in class-2A. Like the '70 team, the '73 team had great players such as Stan Everett, Damon Clagg (6'5", 250), David Shahan, Duke Webb, Jeff Ardrey, Rick Lawson (6'6", 315), Mike Davis, and all-stater Bobby Simonton. They entered the play-offs 10-0 for the regular season, but faced another 10-0 team, the Bristow Purple Pirates in the first playoff game. Back in the seventies, only the district champs made the playoffs, so many very good football teams met during the first round. The Leopards were top-ranked, just like in 1970, but fell 9-7, so ended their campaign with a 10 wins and 1 loss record.
   The 1977 Leopards were much like their '70 and '73 brothers. They relied on a stellar defense that only allowed 6 touchdowns all year and were 10-0 when the regular season ended. The '77 Leopards also had many great players such as Joe Keith Foster, Johnny Beckham, Terry Winn, Dean Edzards, and Scott Gentry. The '77 Leopards eventually lost to another undefeated team, the Atoka Wampus Cats, to end their season - once again- with only one loss.
   So, the 2016 Lindsay Leopards are just the latest of several Leopard football teams to end the year with a single loss. They can count themselves among the elite of a long and storied tradition of gridiron legends - the tradition that IS Lindsay Leopard football.

California's SB 1383 and Proposition 2

   Proponents of SQ 777 "Right to Farm" cited two specific initiatives, both California bills, which could have been stopped if California had the "Right to Farm" in its constitution. Proposition 2, a ballot initiative, was voted on in 2008 - which increased the cage sizes for chickens, the pen sizes for veal calves, and gestation crate sizes for hogs (sows). As it was before Prop. 2, the sizes of these cages, pens, and crates - where livestock spends its entire lives - was too small for the chicken, calf, or sow to "stand upright, turn around, and even stretch limbs". Proposition 2 required cage and pen sizes to increase, to allow for this limited movement. It's a fact that only industrial corporate farms raised and produced livestock under the previous conditions, not family owned farms and ranches. Family farms do not raise and produce livestock in this way, so it's difficult for them to "compete" with the giant corporate farms, hence many went out of business - since only corporate farms grow and raise livestock like a gardener would grow a tomato plant. Most corporate entities such as Farm Bureau, only interested in the profit motive, did not like Prop.2 - as corporate executives and share-holders could see profits shrinking. Corporate execs said that egg prices would increase, as it would cost more to produce eggs. What actually happened, though, was egg prices initially increased - not because of the increased cage sizes - but because California was entering a drought period along with an outbreak of the avian flu (caused by small cage sizes). Egg prices are now, as of 2016, lower than they were before Prop. 2! In addition, since prop. 2 was a ballot initiative instead of a state law, it could not have been stopped by a "SQ 777" in California. By the way, corporations only interested in corporate profits, always support the corporate side of any initiative or law - not individual farmers and ranchers. A corporation which has share-holders and company executives are always concerned with corporate profits, and not concerned in the least with family farmers and ranchers. They are not concerned about how many family farmers they flush down the toilet, just as Wal-Mart is not concerned about how many family owned grocery stores, tire shops, pharmacies, optometrists, etc. it puts out of business.
   Senate Bill 1383 is the California law which forces local dairy farmers to drastically reduce methane pollution by 40% within 15 years. In order to comply with the new law, small family owned dairies (less than 3000 cows) will probably have to install $1 million "digesters" - giant manufactured tarp coverings which fit over cattle manure pits and designed to capture the escaping methane. The methane gas is then sold to electric companies for a profit. California has allocated $50 million for dairies to use for purchasing and installing "digesters". The only problem with this scenario is that there are over 450 dairies in California, so the only dairies that can afford to comply with the law would be the giant corporate dairies. In my opinion, SB 1383 is another corporate bill designed to consolidate the small dairies into the corporate giants. Several giant dairies already have the "digesters" in place, so the motivation behind the bill is to run the smaller family-owned dairies out of existence (like Seaboard Farms did in Oklahoma to our family owned hog farms). SB 1383 was fronted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in California because of air quality and greenhouse gases present in California only, not in Oklahoma. If the California Legislature had not taken action, the Federal government would have - so a Right to Farm bill in California would not have stopped the EPA. The good news for Oklahoma, is that several family owned dairies might relocate to our state, in order to avoid buying a $1 million digester.
   The bottom line for me is this: If I lived and worked a family farm in California, I would have been dead set against SB 1383 - as it is designed (just like SQ 777 in Oklahoma) for corporate farm advantages, for increased corporate profits. Once again, SB 1383 and SQ 777 pitted "corporate conservatives" against "traditional conservatives" In the case of SB 1383, however, the corporate conservatives and corporate liberals won, while in Oklahoma with SQ 777 - traditional conservatives won.

All-State Cheerleaders

   We've barely begun the school year, and Blanchard Public Schools is proud to announce the addition of two all-staters of the Oklahoma Cheer Coaches Association (OCCA). High school cheerleaders from public and private schools all over the state competed on November 8 at Jenks High School in Tulsa, for the opportunity to be named "All-State" in cheerleading. From a field of 128 cheer competitors, 32 cheerleaders - 16 for the West and 16 for the East, were named all-state. The 16 West all-staters were comprised of students from all classifications, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. The 4 class 4A all-state cheerleaders named included Mackenzie Matray and Megan Musick of Blanchard High School! These two all-state cheerleaders comprised half of the total 4A competitors. What an accomplishment by Megan and Mackenzie! It's been several years since Blanchard High School had a cheerleader named to the all-state squad, the last being Karlee Morton in 2012. Mackenzie and Megan will be cheering at the  all-state basketball and football games to be held next summer. Once again, congratulations to Blanchard High School and to Megan Musick and Mackenzie Matray for being selected all-state cheerleaders 2016-2017.

Political philosophies - President and SQ 777.

   I'll now discuss my opinion of how specific political philosophies played a role in the race for President of the United States as well as State Question 777, The Right to Farm, in Oklahoma. These observations are strictly my opinion, but based on hard facts as to how both elections were won and lost. First of all, some political philosophy terms and definitions:
1) Traditional conservatism - A political and social philosophy which promotes retaining traditional  social institutions, such as family farms and public schools, in the context of the culture. Most Oklahomans, democrats and republicans alike, identify as traditional conservatives. They are sometimes called "tea-party" conservatives.
2) Corporate conservatism - A political philosophy which promotes the merger of corporations and    government whereby corporate power dominates. Corporate conservatism is sometimes called            corporatism or fascism.
3) Corporation - A for-profit entity which is owned by shareholders, can own land, and donate to campaigns just like individuals.
4) Non-profit - An association that conducts business for the benefit of the general public without a profit motive. Corporate conservatives often refer to non-profits as corporations.
5) Traditional liberalism - A political and social philosophy which promotes government as a way to   solve societies problems.
6) Corporate liberalism - A political philosophy in which the corporate elite become "both the chief    beneficiaries of and the chief lobbyists for corporate profiteering. Corporate liberals and corporate      conservatives are almost identical philosophically. Corporate liberalism is also called neo-liberalism.

   Donald Trump is a traditional conservative like most Oklahomans, which is why he received 65% of Oklahoma's vote last Tuesday. Hillary Clinton is a corporate liberalist, just like Barack Obama. The Clinton Foundation as well as Hillarie's campaign received $millions in corporate donations over the past several months in an attempt to win the presidency. Donald Trump pretty much funded his  own campaign. He did not receive financial support from corporate conservatives or corporate liberals. He won the presidency because of traditional conservative support. Many corporate conservatives denounced the Donald Trump campaign months before the general election. They were the republicans such as Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, et al, who said they could not support Trump. Fortunately for Donald Trump, traditional conservatives saw through their disingenuous statements, and voted for him anyway.
   State Question 777, The Right to Farm bill, mirrored the presidential race in a number of ways. Corporate conservatives were able to convince many traditional conservatives that this bill was actually for them (family farmers and ranchers). The bill was finally traced back to 1996 to a corporatist organization called ALEC. The bill in 1996 was actually a state law to be adopted by state legislators (corporate conservatives), not a state question. In 2013, the law was officially changed to a state question which could be adopted by states. It was determined by corporations that individual farmers and ranchers would be easier to fool, and present it as a "state question", rather than a law to be passed. As a matter of fact, Missouri and North Dakota did pass the bill as a state question in 2013. Traditional conservatives in Oklahoma were not so easy to fool, however, as it went down to defeat - 60% NO, 40% YES. Many Oklahomans saw the bill for what it truly was - a bill written by corporations for corporate profits only, not our family farmers. Corporate conservatives in Oklahoma said those that advocated failure for SQ 777 were "liberals", and after failure of the bill, many corporate conservatives began the on-line name-calling and disparaging comments directed at those who "Voted NO". As a matter of fact, those "corporate conservatives'" actions closely matched those neo-liberal actions in California and elsewhere in protesting Donald Trump as our U.S. President.
   Donald Trump overcame attacks from corporate conservatives and neo-liberals to win the presidency, with the help of traditional conservatives. Traditional conservatives overcame attacks from corporate conservatives and neo-liberals to flush SQ 777 down the toilet. In both cases, traditional conservatives win and corporations lose...

 

The Best Team

   Congratulations to the Lindsay Leopards! 11-0, and still going! I don't know when the Leopards last ended a regular season 10 wins and 0 losses. It could have been in the early eighties or even 1973 (when I was in high school). I hear this 2016 version is just as good as any other Leopard team, but time will tell if they're as good as some teams from the late 1950's, early 1960's, or early 1970's. Good luck to them, and I hope to see them play over the next several weeks.
   Very rarely under Friday night lights does the "best team" lose. As a matter of fact, I can't remember a time in all my high school football commentaries that I said "the best team did not win". Almost always, the best team wins when football games are played. Sometimes, bad officiating contributes to one team's loss, but rarely does the best team lose because of bad officiating.
   I'll go ahead and say it for the game played Friday night between the Blanchard Lions and Heritage Hall Chargers - "The best team did not win." Oh, I know, the final score was Heritage Hall 27 - Blanchard 19, but... the best team did not win.
   I played or coached in over 150 games of high school football during my 18 year career, and I can remember only two games in which the best team did not win. The first one was a game in 1974 between the Lindsay Leopards and El Reno Indians which ended in a 0 to 0 tie (There was no sudden death or tie-breaker in those days). It rained the entire game, and the Leopards turned the ball over several times and simply couldn't maintain proper footing when threatening to score. The actual play on the field, however, was lopsided in favor of the Leopards. The best team did not win that night. The second time I remember in which the best team didn't win, was a game between the Duncan Demons and The Tulsa McLain Scots in the 1987 Class-5A State Championship game. This game matched the 8 wins 5 loss Demons against the 13 and 0 McLain Scots. Tulsa McLain High School entered that final game in 1987 by dismantling every team they played that yea. In addition to beating every team, they had thoroughly intimidated each team before every game that year. They did so by standing at mid-field during pre-game warm-ups and chanting, "We will rock you" over and over again to the opposing team at the other end of the field. They did this toward the end of the pre-game warm-up period, just before exiting the field for their locker room. Opposing teams were left with an ominous feeling toward the Scots, just before kick-off. As a team and coaching staff, the Duncan Demons had seen this intimidation tactic on film, so knew what to expect. The Demons had entered the playoffs with only 5 wins against 5 losses, as a 4th place team in the district (much like this year's Blanchard Lions) - but had battled all year to win games by one point usually. As a matter of fact, they faced the 10 and 0, number one ranked Carl Albert Titans in the first play-off game that year, and came away with a hard-fought 9 to 7 victory on the last play of the game. This was perhaps the most satisfying victory I've ever been associated with - and what was to follow a month later was probably the most heartbreaking loss I've ever been associated with. In that championship game in December of 1987, the Duncan Demons had turned the tables on the Tulsa McLain Scots. Instead of the Scots standing at mid-field chanting at the Demons, the Duncan Demon players had lined up at mid-field before the Scots had a chance, and began chanting "We will rock you" as the Demon marching band played the anthem. No Duncan coaches or fans knew what the players and band had planned, but it worked to perfection. The Scots had been out-flanked by the Duncan Demons. The Demons went on to out-play them by out-hitting, out-running, and having better statistics - but losing on the score-board, 7-6. The Demons drove the length of the field in the 4th quarter, only to miss a 23 yard field goal on the last play. I'll always remember that game.. always.
   The Lions' game on Friday night reminds me of that 1987 championship game. Blanchard out-hit, out-ran, and out-played Heritage Hall - the winner of 38 straight games - but still lost 27-19 because of the wrong breaks at the wrong times. It's just that simple - "the best team did not win".

VETERANS DAY - 2016

   Veterans Day, Friday, November 11, 2016. We, as American citizens, should recognize the sacrifices our veterans have made in order that we remain a free people. To remind myself of these sacrifices, I saw a movie last two years ago – “Fury”, starring Brad Pitt as a tank commander during the last days of World War II. Seeing this movie not only reminded me of our veteran’s sacrifices but also served to help me realize how trivial most of our disagreements are concerning how to best educate our students or who to vote for in any upcoming election.  Joe Tunnell (Lindsay H.S. football coach, 1968-1982), perhaps reflected on what’s really important in 1968 in the locker room following a Clinton-Lindsay playoff game  (I had written an earlier column about it). The Red Tornados had just put a “beat down” on a very good Lindsay Leopard football team, 35-7. Tunnell entered the locker room where the first thing he said to his down trodden players was “If we ever go to war with Russia, those guys are on our side.” Tunnell put the devastating loss in perspective for his team by reminding them that “it’s only a game” and there are more important things to think about, like the real-life “game” our veterans have played and won.

   We can honor our military heroes by recognizing the contributions of a real veteran today. For me, I’ll do that now: Warren H. Beckham (1920-1968) was a United States Army veteran of World War II and fought with the 87^th Infantry Mountain Division in Italy (1942-1945). Uncle Warren was awarded the Silver Star on July 6, 1945 for his actions during the push through fascist Italy in the war against Nazi Germany. The account of these actions that merited the commendation is located in the Army Hall of Valor and is as follows:

                                                                  “ General Order 127, July 6, 1945.

                                                                           Award of Silver Star.

                                                          Warren H. Beckham, 87^th Mountain Infantry.

                                           For gallantry in action on 15 April 1945, near Mt. Pigna, Italy.

   During the attack on a strongly defended mountain, Sergeant Beckham, mortar squad leader, emplaced his weapon on the top of a nearby hill, and then moved forward to the to the highest point, which was absolutely devoid of cover, to direct mortar fire on the hostile emplacements on the mountain. Despite direct firing of artillery and sniper fire, which endangered his life continually, he remained exposed to the intense enemy action, calmly zeroing in on the enemy machine-guns and pill-boxes which were holding up the advance of the company. His gallant conduct and skillful placement of the mortar fire on the hostile defenders greatly expedited the winning of the objective. Sergeant Beckham’s heroic performance of a dangerous mission adds luster to the finest traditions of the United States Army.”

   Warren H. Beckham, like all veterans, served his country when “winning” meant preserving our way of life in the U.S.A., and “losing” meant allowing the Nazis to change it. We must always put things in perspective and realize that the ultimate “game” has already been played by our veterans, and we won.

   Prologue: Warren Beckham was killed in an oilfield explosion near Ardmore, Oklahoma on March 11, 1968 at age 47.

            

History of Political Philosophies - 2016

   I think it's timely that I share my opinion on political philosophies, since it's the day after - the day after the November 8 elections. My opinion will be based on the standard definitions of political philosophies as applied to some misunderstandings of Tuesday's elections. Bear in mind,that these definitive philosophies are only one definition and anyone reading this blog may have an altogether different view. First of all, my definition of terms, according to Wikipedia, Webster, Brittanica, et al:

Conservatism - A political and social philosophy which promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization such as our public education system and our family farms.

Corporatism - A political and social philosophy which promotes a partnership between corporations and government in ruling a country. Sometimes called corporate fascism by conservative groups.

Neo-liberalism - A political and social philosophy which promotes government spending on corporations, as opposed to people. Sometimes called corporate welfare by traditional conservatives.

   These political philosophies played out on November 8 in an interesting and dynamic way. Many voters who considered themselves conservative, found out they were actually corporatists, as they voted for corporate interests on the State Questions. For example, many who voted YES on SQ 792 are in favor of corporate interests sharing authority with our government. SQ 792, which had over $ one million paid to the YES campaign by corporate entities, passed by an overwhelming majority. The only benefits of SQ 792 (the bill which allows corporations to sell liquor, as well as everything else in life) is to advance share-holder and company profits. The bill allows corporations access to liquor markets, which will ultimately destroy small business owners. Many traditional conservatives tried to point this fact out to their fellow voters, but it fell on deaf ears. Many voters actually self-identify as conservative, but are in reality, corporatists.

   Another example of corporatism disguised as conservatism was displayed by SQ 777. The bill actually was written by corporatists for corporations. Corporations working shoulder to shoulder with state lawmakers wrote the bill in 1996 at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The corporate factory farms involved were Seaboard, Smithfield, Tyson, et al - while the state legislators involved shall remain anonymous. Anyone who should want to know names, however, can see them in a publication called ALEC Exposed. George Carlin ranted about corporatism in his 2005 routine, The American Dream, and Abraham Lincoln expressed his fear of corporatism in a letter to one of his civil war generals.
 

 

The Day After... Election 2016

   It's the day after the November 8 election, and I feel compelled to talk about several issues which were decided yesterday. I'm quite sure that everyone didn't get everything they wished for as far as election outcomes, but most received at least some gratification - as several state questions and many candidates were running. I feel the same way most do, as I won some and lost some. I'd like to talk about something which was put on the back shelf as election day arrived, but I think it now bears closer scrutiny. The jaw-dropping felony charges against the state superintendent and her campaign consultant, AH Strategies, just days before the November 8 elections should be looked at more closely. The charges relate primarily to the use of "dark money" in Joy Hofmeister's campaign and the charge that Hofmeister, through her campaign consultant Fount Holland, both knew about and helped coordinate negative TV ads in opposition to Janet Barresi. When dark money is used against an opponent's campaign, the sponsoring candidate cannot have prior knowledge of any TV ads, telephone ads, or mailings which will benefit himself/herself. If prior knowledge by the beneficiary candidate is determined to be present by a district attorney - then charges usually follow. The Oklahoma County District Attorney claims to have such evidence in this case. The evidence is said to be from confiscated text messages to and from Hofmeister and Chad Alexander, an employee of Fount Holland (AH Strategies). It seems that when Chad Alexander stopped by the police over 2 years ago, he was in possession of cocaine. At that time, his cell phone was confiscated - and the conversations between Hofmeister and her campaign consultant were discovered.
   It's too early to say if Hofmeister and Holland are guilty of what they're being charged with - "conspiracy" to coordinate dark money attack ads, but the penalty if convicted could be 30 years in prison and massive fines. I truly believe that Superintendent Hofmeister fell in with the wrong crowd on this deal. She was under the influence of Holland's dark money, which ultimately came back to haunt her. The first hint of corruption in my opinion, was when she hired AH Strategies for her consulting firm, several months before the primary election in 2014. AH Strategies was known for winning elections... at all costs, even breaking the law. As a matter of fact, I was a little surprised when Hofmeister hired it, as it was already widely known that Chad Alexander, an employee of AH, had been charged with possession of cocaine only a month before Hofmeister hired the firm. If there is "guilt by association", I guess this is it. Only time will tell if Joy Hofmeister is truly guilty of conspiracy.
   If Mrs. Hofmeister is guilty though, I think the district attorneys in all counties should take a hard look at all clients of AH Strategies, as the firm had several more out there who won elections on Tuesday. Remember, the charges of conspiracy stem from the fact that Joy Hofmeister and Fount Holland coordinated "dark money" attack ads against Janet Barresi. If Fount Holland is guilty of conspiring with Hofmeister to coordinate "dark money", then he must be guilty of coordinating "dark money" with several more clients out there. Maybe, or maybe not. In the case of Hofmeister, the evidence appears to be a confiscated cell phone, so the Oklahoma County DA, David Prater, just lucked into it. As in Hofmeister's case, a county district attorney would just have to "luck into" evidence which indicates a crime was committed. One such candidate who is a client of Fount Holland is Tim Downing of the District 42 House in Garvin and McClain Counties. He won in a landslide on November 8, over Liz George of Blanchard. There is no doubt that "dark money" attacked Liz George, as many voters received campaign cards in the mail from the "dark money" group "American Federation for Children" (AFC) in the days leading up to November 8. As a matter of fact, I received 2 cards in the mail from the AFC, telling me what a great legislator Tim Downing will make. Many people believe that Mr. Downing was fully aware of the dark money group, and knew what they were doing. Downing said early on, though, that his campaign knows nothing of the dark money attack ads and phone calls from the AFC and another "dark money" group - Nation United (Catalyst Oklahoma) also out of Washington D.C.. I suggest though, that if a candidate completes an application for funding from a dark money group, they certainly KNOW about the ads and mailers. I, in fact, received the AFC questionaire to fill out and return for possible campaign funding, but trashed it immediately, as I knew what it was - dark money.
   I know it's possible that Mr. Downing has no idea about "dark money" or that prior knowledge can be a crime, so it would be premature to jump to conclusions. Evidently, many people believe that Mr. Downing knew nothing about the dark money attack ads or phone calls, or they simply don't care, as he won handily on November 8, 2016.

The Hay's in the Barn... on State Question 777

      Barry Switzer had a favorite saying when he was winning National Championships at O.U. and when he coached the Dallas Cowboys, winning a Super Bowl in 1992. After the last practice or last film session before a big game, Switzer would survey the team as they looked to him and say "well boys, the hay's in the barn". After I became a football coach at Duncan High School, we continued to say, at the end of each practice on Thursday evenings, "the hay's in the barn". It meant that the preparation for winning the next game was finished, and all that was left was to go out the next day - and "kick butt and take names". And so be it with State Question 777, the right to harm our family farms and environment - by the corporate factory producers and packers. As the facts have proven out, this bill is being fronted by a corporation, Farm Bureau, and was originally written by Shuanghui, Seaboard, and Tyson factory farms. These three corporate factory farms have convinced many of our family farmers and ranchers that this bill is for us. They have convinced many of us that the real enemy is the Humane Society, and we must protect ourselves from the evil HSUS by blocking Oklahoma from enacting any farm crippling legislation. Seaboard,et al, have convinced many Oklahomans they are family farms, and the only way to stop HSUS from invading our family farms is to give constitutional protection to international and foreign factory farms. Farm Bureau is fronting 777 because these foreign factory farms (their biggest customers) have told FB that it must. We (family farmers and ranchers) have tried over the past several weeks to educate the public about 777, by providing facts and data on what this bill actually does. The time is finally here to determine if our hard work will pay off. Election day is tommorrow, so as Barry Switzer said - "The hay is in the barn", Vote NO on SQ 777!

Chinese Owned Farms and Corporations

   The proponents of SQ 777, The Right to Harm, have publicly stated that this bill is not about Chinese and international farms. But let's look at the facts:
1) China owns the largest hog farm in the world, Shuanghui, located in Virginia. It produces 25% of all hogs in the U.S.A.
2) Seaboard foods, an international hog farm, is the 3rd largest hog farm in the U.S.A. located in the panhandle of Oklahoma. It is directly responsible for forcing the closure of most of the family hog farms in Oklahoma since 2005, reducing the "competition" by 1,626 family hog producers from 2005 to 2012. I personally know several hog farms that have "gone under" because they could not compete with the giant hog factory.
3) Oklahoma chicken farms have been reduced from 6,105 family owned farms in 2005 to only 3 factory farms in 2012.
4) Besides factory farms, China owns approximately a dozen other giant corporations in the U.S.A.
5) All told, the rise of corporate-industrial agriculture in Oklahoma coincided with the largest decline in the agricultural workforce in Oklahoma history. 77% of farm and ranch jobs disappeared in Oklahoma from 1990 to 2014 - greater than the decline in subsistence farming during the Dust Bowl.
6) The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is an industry group that represents the pork industry. Its leaders are executives with factory hog farms and industry lobbyists from pork producing and packing corporations like Shuanghui and Seaboard. They have been identified as a supporter of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where bills are handed to state lawmakers which will benefit share-holders and executives.
7) The NPPC, working hand in hand with Seaboard and Suanghui factory hog farms, wrote "The Right to Farm" bill in 1996. They may have had assistance from the corporate insurance industry.
8) Right to Farm was rewritten in 2013 to fit the bill into a state question, where it was picked up by several states. Oklahoma lawmakers picked up the state question in 2015 at an ALEC conference.
9) The gist of the campaign effort by proponents of SQ 777 has been to instill fear of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) into local farmers and ranchers. Even though HSUS has never passed a state law inhibiting our right to farm, proponents of the bill (corporate owners) say that HSUS will take away our right to farm if we don't pass this bill (pure BS).
10) Ultimately, SQ 777 is all about corporate profits and share-holder gains, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the right to farm. It's about the right to harm our family farmers and ranchers and the right of CORPORATIONS to harm our environment.

   The above 10 points are all based on documented facts - VOTE NO on SQ 777!

Dark Money Update

    According to the "Daily Oklahoman" newspaper, "State schools chief charged with campaign violations, conspiracy". You've seen the story by now, so know the state superintendent of schools is involved along with her campaign management firm - AH Strategies. What is alleged to have occurred is that the state superintendent had prior knowledge of the actions that a dark money group would take to ensure victory in the race against Janet Barresi (two years ago). It was dark money television ads which ran, as a way of depicting Barresi as being out of touch with public schools. It's legal for dark money groups to run negative campaign commercials or send out negative mailers against candidates for political office, but it's not legal for candidates to actually have advance knowledge of negative campaign ads or mailed campaign brochures. This is where the conspiracy charges originate - that the state superintendent along with her campaign consulting firm, AH Strategies, knew in advance just how much money would be spent and which dark money group would be spending the money - for her campaign. "Authorities believe Hofmeister, (Fount) Holland, a political adviser and founder of AH Strategies, and others worked together to solicit excessive funds for the state campaign by coordinating activities between Hofmeister's committee and an independent expenditure, which came to be known as Oklahomans for Public School excellence (OPSE). They allegedly funneled excess contributions to benefit Hofmeister's campaign as she fought to defeat Superintendent Janet Barresi" (Tahlequah Daily Press). The press also reports that "An Oklahoma City-based campaign strategist facing criminal charges... has consulted for other 'House candidates', according to financial disclosures filed this year."
   Among the several House candidates represented by AH Strategies, is Tim Downing, who won the House District 42 seat in Garvin and McClain Counties. While Mr. Downing received over $40,000 in support from the dark money groups American Federation for Children (AFC) and Citizens United, it is still unknown who their major donors are. It is also unknown if Mr. Downing had prior knowledge of this dark money support, as he denies it. However, documents have surfaced which indicate that Mr. Downing did have prior knowledge - such as the "application" document for AFC support. There are also indications that prior knowledge of Citizens United support exist, as it discussed possible support with candidates. It will certainly be interesting to note if the "net widens" on this investigation, as it will take a good investigative reporter or inquisitive district attorney.

State Question 790 (The Right to Pray)

   State Question 790 will also appear on our ballot for the November 8 election. If SQ 790 passes, Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution will be stricken. This is the clause which separates church from state. It prevents monuments related to all religions from being erected on state property. Oklahomans decided many years ago that if a monument such as the "Ten Commandments" was allowed on public property, a monument such as "Baphomet" (the goat-headed figure) for pagan idol worshipers must also be allowed. The "separation of church and state" was then added to our Oklahoma Constitution, so that NO monuments could be placed on "PUBLIC" property (emphasis on 'public'). Article 2, Section 5 not only prevents pagan idol monuments from being placed on public property, but it prevents the public funding of private religious schools and corporate charter schools. Corporate entities such as the American Federation of Children (an ALEC and "Big Club" member), a school voucher advocacy group, would certainly like Article 2, Section 5 of the Constitution removed, so that public tax dollars could be siphoned to out-of-state and foreign charter schools. Foreign charter schools, such as the Fethullah Gulen's charter chain (Turkey) would stand to benefit greatly, if only Article 2, Section 5 was removed from our Constitution. It's no small wonder that the American Federation of Children (AFC) has poured $ millions into the "vote yes on SQ 790" campaign. It's also a sad fact that the AFC has poured $ thousands into state candidate campaigns which support the AFC's vision of sending Oklahomans' public tax dollars to out-of-state private and corporate schools. Tim Downing, a House District 42 candidate from Purcell, is one such campaign which received $33,000 in support from the AFC. Any voters in House District 42 who received campaign literature from the Downing campaign, just check the disclaimer in small print - Paid for by The Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund.
   Entities such as the non-profits and corporations which belong to the secretive club, ALEC, have dubbed SQ 790 - "The Right to Pray", to get it passed. I believe, as most Christians believe, that God's Word gives us the right to pray, any time - anywhere. Permission to pray doesn't come from corporations or any fascist group, such as ALEC - just as the "Right to Farm" (SQ 777) is provided by God's Word, not corporations. Corporate entities, such as the AFC and Seaboard farms use "the right" to do anything, as a way to trick people into supporting ALEC inspired state questions. I believe SQ 777 (The Right to Farm), SQ 790 (The Right to Pray), and SQ 792 (The Right to Buy liquor at Wal-Mart) are for corporate profits only, NOTHING ELSE... and ample evidence says so.

One More Wooden Stake to the Heart of SQ 777 - The Right to Harm

   Conservative groups across the state are lining up to say "Vote NO, on SQ 777", including the Oklahoma Conservative PAC and the Daily Oklahoman newspaper. There is actually a long list of entities state-wide that say "VOTE NO", including many family ranchers and farmers, which includes family hog farms in particular. Of course the reasons for voting NO, are numerous and varied - but the most prominent reason for family hog farms to vote "no" is as follows:
   Out-of-state and foreign factory hog producers decided as early as 1996 that they wanted to "corner the market" as far as hog production was concerned, but to do that they needed state laws in place across the nation which would increase their bottom line - profits (both for shareholders and company executives). Of course, there are only a few corporate hog farms across the U.S.A., including Seaboard Farms which is international, and Shuanghui (Smithfield), which is owned by China. Critics of these corporations, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), have complained for many years about corporate mistreatment of livestock by these two farm "factories". As a matter of fact, in my opinion, several corporate factory farms have persuaded our local farmers and ranchers that this SQ is for them. They have done this by enlisting what many people believe are grassroots organizations such as Farm Bureau and the National Pork Council.
   I think the best way to find out about SQ 777 would be to ask any of the 50 hog farms statewide what they think of it. For obvious reasons, I believe its best not to ask Seaboard what it thinks (LOL).
   A very important aspect of corporate control in ANY industry, is to put the competition out of business, so to speak. We see it all the time in our everyday lives as Wal-Mart enters a community to "corner the market" and run the local competition out of town. Grocery stores, tire shops, restaurants, pharmacies, and many other local vendors fold - when Wal-Mart comes to town. Wal-Mart does this by receiving tax breaks, free property, etc that our local businesses never had access to. SQ 792, the liquor modernization bill, is designed to run our local liquor stores out of business. As a matter of fact, Wal-Mart is the largest contributor to the vote yes on SQ 792 campaign at $1,613,507. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Wal-Mart would like to corner the liquor market!
   SQ 777 is to farms what SQ 792 is to our local liquor stores. Several years ago, there were 1,689 hog farms in Oklahoma.Seaboard factory farm entered Oklahoma in 1992, and the number of hog farms was slashed to only 53 full-time hog farms by 2012. This phenomenon was not because 1,636 hog farms decided to just quit the business, but because Seaboard began to corner the producer market. Many people believe that's "just too bad" (sarcasm intended), but it's because they have no friends that were forced out of the business. In my opinion, Seaboard and Tyson are the forces behind "Yes on SQ 777", as they "control" what many people believe are "grassroots" supporters of the bill. I have ample evidence to support my opinion, as ALEC is definitely involved.
   In summary, I'll be voting NO on SQ 792, as well as SQ 777 because I support our local business owners as well as our local farmers and ranchers, and neither of these bills do that...

No Industry Should Control Our Water - No on SQ 777

   As I drove to OKC the other day, I saw a billboard on the west side of Highway 62 just north of Newcastle which read: "No Industry Should Control Our Water - Vote No on SQ 777". At that moment, I realized what it probably was referring, specifically.
   Several months ago, at a Leadership Oklahoma retreat in Tulsa, one of the topics for study was "water". Specifically, how water should be used in Oklahoma, for the benefit of Oklahomans. One presentation involved "competing" interests as to how our water should be controlled. On one side was Tom Buchanan, President of Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and on the other side was a representative of the Cherokee Nation. Each side on the issue was allowed to speak for approximately 30 minutes and present its case as to how Oklahoma water should be controlled. Mr. Buchanan, whom I met and briefly visited with at the presentation, made the case that water in "wet" parts of the state should be transferred to drier counties, basically from east to west. This seems to make some sense, since farmers and ranchers in the west need more water than they currently have. I assumed that the farmers and ranchers in the west mostly carried FB Insurance, just as they do everywhere. The only issue with this perspective is that farmers and ranchers in eastern and central counties may not wish to give up any water to pump west. I know I don't, and my ranch is in south-central Oklahoma. My ranch has experienced drought just like those in the west, and since future droughts are unpredictable, I doubt if those ranchers in the east would like to lose any water either. Also, since this perspective of water rights is from a corporation (Farm Bureau) - it must at least be considered that to vote yes on SQ 777, is corporately inspired (There are only a few farm corporations in Oklahoma, such as Seaboard and Tyson). Seaboard farm factory is located in a very dry area of the state - the Oklahoma Panhandle - while Tyson farm factory is in the eastern part of the state. I also assume both factories have ties to Farm Bureau. A side-note to this water issue is that Farm Bureau is solidly supporting SQ 777, while our Indian Nations (I believe most if not all) are saying "VOTE NO" on SQ 777.
   The Cherokee Nation representative, then presented its case against SQ 777. The Cherokees as well as the Chickasaws (the area where my ranch is located) believe the water rights belong to the people who reside in any particular location. For example, they believe the water my livestock drink and my ranch uses should stay where it naturally occurs. They believe water is a natural resource provided by God, and not meant for an "industry" to decide where its to be sent (hence the billboard I referred to earlier).
   The takeaway for me from the water issue in SQ 777 is this: Farm Bureau would like to control Oklahomans' water rights, while the Tribal Nations want our family farmers and ranchers to control their own water. It's as simple as that, so I'll be voting NO on SQ 777 - just one more reason...