President Trump was correct when he said we are engaged in a war.  He was even more prescient when he further avowed that he did not want the cure to be worse than the disease.  We have, by and large, fought the global pandemic on the assumption that the war was about a microbe, now known affectionately as COVID-19.  To defeat this bioenemy we implemented strategies to contain the infection and to slow if not totally eliminate its spread. We literally tried to quarantine the entire nation – shelter in place as we called it.  Simultaneously we deployed our frontline defenses, the healthcare community, to fight the resulting disease itself.

This infection prevention strategy – shelter in place, shutdown all but critical businesses, social distance one from another, etc. – brought the economy of our nation to a screeching halt, threw tens of millions out of work, crippled critical supply chains, shut down education, destroyed the airline and tourist industry, imposed jailtime on mothers trying to feed their families, limited freedoms and denied faith communities the ability to gather in worship,  even to gather in small groups for prayer or conduct parking lot drive-in services.  In Michigan garden centers were shut down during the peak of spring planting.⁽¹⁾  We will never be able to quantify the ultimate cost caused by the so-called cure. The social cost alone in increased child abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, drug abuse, anxiety and depression, etc. is enormous.

The enemy was giddy with excitement as he watched his virus frontal attack lead us to fearfully respond by literally destroying ourselves from within.  As I watched this fiasco unfold, I was vividly reminded of the 120,000 fearful Midianites who slaughtered each other when 300 Israelites blew their trumpets and uncovered their torches (Judges 6-7). If we are ever going to implement a successful defense of COVID-19, we must recognize that the enemy is Satan himself, and COVID-19 is simply one front in a multiple spearhead attack. The first question we must answer is how did this virus arrive on our shores in the first place.

We task the Department of Defense to protect this nation primarily from kinetic attacks – bad things like invasions, tanks, bullets and missiles. If the military were to fail to detect the launch of enemy missiles and fail to destroy them in the air, then a large portion of America would be toast.  We would consider that the military had failed us, and rightfully so. The same is true about an infection from something like the novel coronavirus.  The key to a successful defense is early detection of an attack and effective prevention of the infection entering the United States. It is brutally obvious that neither the federal government nor individual state governments, particularly New York City and the State of New York, had robust plans to detect the presence of an attack and defend against a biothreat to our nation.

Much has been said about China’s involvement in this pandemic.  Whether China intentionally developed, weaponized and released the virus on an unsuspecting world; accidentally released the virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology; or the virus naturally occurred in a Wuhan wet market is of little or no importance.  The military doesn’t rely, for example, on cooperation agreements with China, Iran, Russia or al-Qaeda to give us notice if and when such actors launch an attack on America, and we should not be so naïve as to expect that an infectious disease defensive strategy which depends on China, the World Health Organization or anyone else providing us  immediate, accurate information about the possibility of a pandemic will be of any use. But that is exactly the strategy we have followed.

The current National Security Strategy of the United States of America⁽²⁾ sets as a priority to detect and contain biothreats at their source.  But the first sentence of the strategy is to “work with other countries to detect and mitigate outbreaks early to prevent the spread of disease.” Nothing is said in the strategy about stopping the biothreat at our borders.  The strategy apparently relies on cooperation of countries like China in order to defend the United States from mass contagion. The Obama era strategy relied on “work(ing) with partners” on “developing a global system to prevent avoidable epidemics, (and) detect and report disease outbreaks in real time.”⁽³⁾  The George Bush strategy in this area was tied to efforts to “work with partner nations and institutions to strengthen global biosurveillance capabilities for early detection of suspicious outbreaks of disease.”⁽⁴⁾ In spite of the prevalence of epidemics/pandemics apparently nothing has been done in the last twenty years to develop an effective strategy to protect America from threats like COVID-19 other than to rely upon worldwide partnerships. This is nothing more than globalism run amuck.

Some might argue that an aggressive detection/intervention strategy is not practical.  The nation of Taiwan belies that notion. Having learned a painful lesson from the 2003 SARS outbreak, Taiwan went to high alert in December 2019 when indications of a contagious new illness arose. Their first actions included monitoring incoming passengers from Wuhan.  They opened their Central Epidemic Command Center in January focused on prevention measures and established quarantine protocols for high-risk travelers.  Rigorous tracking and contact history soon followed with mandatory quarantine for those found to be infected or to have been in contact with infected persons, thus avoiding mass community spread.  The result was that life as normal did not drastically change in Taiwan.  Local food businesses remained open as did offices. Body-temperature monitoring, rigorous disinfection, wearing of masks and similar steps were taken to slow the spread of any infections that managed to slip into the country.⁽⁵⁾ If America’s public health system is as great as our past National Security Strategy documents assert, I see no reason why America could not have done at least as well as Taiwan in preventing COVID-19 from entering our country, and have done so with far fewer attacks on our basic freedoms than we have seen in the mitigation phase of fighting the disease itself.  As our founding father Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

It is too late during this pandemic to implement an effective strategy to prevent the inoculation of our nation with the COVID-19 virus.  This is unfortunate, for any strategy which tries to intercept the virus at our borders requires courageous leadership and President Trump is the only president in recent times with the guts to make an early decision to defeat the infection at our points of entry rather than fight the disease in our healthcare facilities. The failure of our state and national public health community to have an effective strategy in place prior to COVID-19 is just something we will have to live with for now.

However, it is not too late to recognize that we are fighting a war on multiple fronts, not just one front.  The enemy’s primary attack is the disease, and the battle rages primarily in the nation’s healthcare facilities. Our defenders are our healthcare professionals. Like any soldier on the front lines, our healthcare workers are tired, stressed, and short of supplies. They are also courageous, devoted to service, and well-trained. But here is where we get confused.  Instead of recognizing that the enemy is attacking on multiple fronts, we instead design our tactics as though the battle is only in the hospitals and the goal is only to minimize the loss of life to the virus.  With this approach, we sacrifice all our resources to enable the healthcare workers to “hold the line,” neglecting the loss of life associated with the other battle fronts.  The objective becomes to “lower the curve” so that the front line is not overwhelmed.  This is fine and good, but that scenario only occurs in a few “hot spots.”  In other areas the front line (i.e., healthcare professionals) may be stressed, overworked and short of some supplies, but they have plenty of hospital beds, plenty of ICU’s, and plenty of ventilators.  In these locations we must realize that the enemy is using fear to drive us to sacrifice all our resources needlessly, resulting in the enemy winning the battle of the economy, supply lines, loss of freedom, rising anxiety, workers without jobs, etc.   We must adopt a holistic approach to this war if we expect to minimize the total loss of life and keep the collateral damage to the lowest possible level.

Further, we must recognize that Satan is using witting and unwitting actors in his attack on the world. The worldwide public health system has relied upon globalism to detect and defeat biothreats at their source, but Satan knew this was a losing strategy because men are not angels and countries like China look out for number one rather than losing face and admitting an internal failure.  Likewise, Satan loves it when men harbor hatred in their hearts, and for this reason the mainstream media and social media proved to be willing participants in Satan’s plan to spread fear throughout the world about the virus.  Fear mongering by the media led to increased public anxiety, so much so that in many cases those needing medical attention delayed presenting themselves to their doctors out of fear and anxiety. The mainstream U.S. media willingly participated in fear mongering and false reporting for two primary reasons: a desire to use the pandemic to spread progressive policies and a vitriolic hatred of President Trump. Satan could find no more willing participants in his strategy to destroy the world.

Another willing accomplice in Satan’s plot has been selected state governors and city mayors.  Lusting for power these civil servants were complicit in Satan’s plot to shut down the economy of the nation. Going far beyond rational public health measures these civil servants shuttered businesses, proclaiming any activity “not necessary to sustain or protect life” as non-critical. Satan loved it, for he knew that in God’s economy all legitimate business is critical to the well-being of His creatures.  These civil servants needlessly increased unemployment beyond what was necessary to assure the frontline healthcare system was not overrun;  they unnecessarily burdened the poor, the homeless, the least in our society;  and they increased anxiety among the citizenry, even encouraging people to rat on their neighbors for violating social distancing rules.

Finally, Satan hates God’s people, and a timid church fearfully proved in most cases unwilling to resist irrational “safe” guidelines and shuttered church doors in compliance with civil magistrate mandates. Nothing could be more pleasing to Satan.

Satan has been winning this war for two primary reasons – we have failed to recognize Satan as the enemy, and we have failed to realize that this war is being fought on many fronts.  Satan is using the fallenness of man to literally allow us to destroy ourselves.  Until we wake up to the reality of the enemy in our midst and the multifaceted nature of the war we are fighting, I am afraid we are doomed to a long and protracted battle.

(1) Sibilla, Nick,  (April 16, 2020), Michigan Bans Many Stores from Selling Seeds, Home Gardening Supplies, Calls Them “Not Necessary”, Forbes, retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/04/16/michigan-bans-many-stores-from-selling-seeds-home-gardening-supplies-calls-them-not-necessary/#7d546fe25f80

(2) National Security Strategy of the United States of America, p. 9, December 2017, http://nssarchive.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2017.pdf

(3) National Security Strategy, February 2015, p. 14,  http://nssarchive.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2015.pdf

(4) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, March 2006, p. 22, http://nssarchive.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2006.pdf

(5) Tsai Ing-Wen, (April 16, 2020), President of Taiwan: How My Country Prevented a Major Outbreak of COVID-19, Time, retrieved from https://time.com/collection/finding-hope-coronavirus-pandemic/5820596/taiwan-coronavirus-lessons/

On Monday the Oklahoma Ethics Commission staff issued a revision to proposed rule 2019-02.  Interestingly, it is labeled as “Option 2” not “Revision 2”.  Does this mean they are giving the Commissioners two choices?  You can read the revised rule here:  https://www.ok.gov/ethics/documents/2019-02%20proposed%20Long%20indirect%20lobbying%20option%202%20revised.pdf    From a practical standpoint the revised rule is still a nightmare for “grass roots” lobbying.

For example, Rule 5.2.6.a defines indirect lobbying as any communication advocating support or opposition made through a paid advertisement.  No dollar amount for advertising is included in the rule.  Thus I could spend as little as $5 on a facebook ad and be involved in indirect lobbying and subject to its requirements.  Or I could pay for an ad in the Bartlesville Sunrise Reporter, or pay for an ad in the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise and I would be subject to the Indirect Lobbying rules. Note that I said “I.”  The rule applies to individuals as well as organizations. As I read it no entity could engage in paid advertising regarding legislation without becoming subject to this rule.  Those who provide advertising space better take notice because this may cause your revenue stream to decrease.  This will certainly discourage me as an individual from engaging in grass roots advocacy through the medium of paid ads.

But it gets worse.  Rule 5.2.6.c defines indirect lobbying as expenditures in excess of $500 in a calendar year for the purpose of advocating support or opposition of legislation.  Suppose I am sending out emails, as I am prone to do, advocating or opposing legislation.  Does the $500 limitation include my cable fees for access to the internet, or a portion thereof?  Does it include my subscriptions to newspapers and magazines that I use partly for the purpose of staying informed about legislative agendas?

Or what if I decide to send out postcards to several hundred Bartlesville residents?  I actually did this on one occasion in the past. If I do that on several issues over a year I will easily exceed the $500 just in postal fees alone.  A local organization for or against a piece of legislation that particularly impacted them could easily become subject to the rule simply by contacting  one thousand Bartlesville residents only.

What about churches?  If a church were to include advocacy/opposition in its weekly bulletin it would easily exceed the $500 trigger.  In fact, such a church could easily exceed the $5000 trigger for having to file a report with the ethics commission [Rule 5.19.B].  But of course a church (or any other organization for that matter) could avoid all this hassle if only they would not encourage their members to influence others to their way of thinking for Rule 5.2.6 at line 22 excludes from indirect lobbying any “internal communications by an organization with its members indicating the organizations position on legislation so long as the communications do not encourage its members to advocate for or against pending legislation.”  This hints at the Obama/Clinton era approach of always framing the First Amendment protection for “freedom of religion” [actually “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”] as a protection for “freedom of worship.”  In other words, they were cleverly suggesting that our First Amendment religious protections are limited to what we do within the four walls of the church building.  This proposed rule cleverly proposes it is okay for churches to suggest to their members how to vote on an issue, but it is not acceptable for a church to suggest its members take that knowledge outside the church and proselytize to others. Similarly, a pro-life organization could not suggest that its members advocate for a pro-life piece of legislation.  A local fly fishing club or bass fishing club could not suggest its members advocate against legislation allowing tons of junk to be dumped in the Caney River without potentially subjecting the club to indirect lobbying rules.

For organizations the rules are particularly onerous.  For instance, if I gave $51 to my local fly fishing club for the purpose of defraying mailing costs to send out postcards to Bartlesville residents (thus exceeding the $500 threshold) notifying them that the legislature was authorizing XYZ Corporation to dump 100 tons of pollutants into the Caney River and encouraging them to oppose the proposed bill, my local club would have to report my contribution to the Ethics Commission, giving them my name and address.

I also oppose this rule from a philosophical viewpoint. Some argue that the intent of the Ethics Commission is to separate and identify the true grass roots efforts from the well-funded special interests.  If this really is their motive, they have cast their regulatory net far too wide. In trying to force well-funded special interest groups to reveal their funders/supporters the Ethics Commission has burdened every individual and group in the state of Oklahoma with disclosure requirements, potential Ethics Commission reporting requirements and potential legal problems for failure to abide by said rules.  All in the name of “sunlight.”

I too would like to know who is funding some of these campaigns, but I believe that as long as they stick to political speech and are not paying anyone to do lobbying they, as well as myself, should be free from ANY reporting requirements about our free speech opinions.  I am not willing to trade any reporting of my political speech in order to learn the names of those funding anonymous campaigns.  If we as individuals allow these types of rules to be passed regarding our free speech, then what will be the next requirement that the Ethics Commission imposes on us?

Do you remember Publius?  Over a period of ten months he wrote eighty-five articles encouraging New Yorkers to support the proposed U.S. Constitution.  I am quite sure that a commission at that time that thought like the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, would have demanded that those behind the pseudonym Publius expose themselves as “indirect lobbyists.” I doubt Alexander Hamilton, John Madison and John Jay (collectively Publius) would have agreed with such an assertion.

Existing Ethics Commission Rule 5.2.4.c states that the following individuals shall not be considered lobbyists: “any person exercising his or her constitutional right to petition the government who receives no compensation or anything of value for lobbying.”  You mean I am not a lobbyist?  Under the proposed rule this useful definition of a lobbyist is ignored when talking about an indirect lobbyist.  You see the Ethics Commission got it right the first time, but in their desire to find out who is funding those anonymous campaigns they are willing to overlook the basic principle that if all I am doing is exercising free speech and I am not being compensated in any way for doing so, then I should not be subject to any rule of any type.  If I want to write as Publius I am free to do so.

Another argument against this rule is that it simply isn’t something that the Ethics Commission is authorized to get involved with. I have not had time to research this argument, but if you got to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs website you will find this argument well documented.

By the way, on December 26, 2018, the Tulsa World published an editorial in support of the proposed rule.  The editorial writer seems to think that the rule only impacts anonymous groups seeking to influence the Oklahoma legislature.  The Tulsa World summarizes the problem as, “The who’s-paying-for-it question is often critical to informed voters interested in the potential for ulterior motives in the group’s agendas.”

The World then goes on to attack those of a different opinion writing: “Overwrought lobbyists immediately went on the defensive. It’s an outrage! A civil rights travesty! Anonymous speech is still protected free speech, they proclaimed” and “Here’s a pretty good rule of thumb about lobbyists: When they start foaming at the mouth about public disclosure, you’re going in the right direction.” This is the typical approach of those who have no sound basis for their argument – they attack the other person, not the argument!  I really wonder if the Tulsa World even read the proposed rule before they wrote their glowing editorial in support of it.

You can read the Tulsa World editorial here:

https://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/editorials/tulsa-world-editorial-ethics-proposal-would-bring-sunshine-to-indirect/article_22b451e6-bd82-59fd-b974-740cf717a2bf.html

If you agree with my arguments that the proposed rule is not a “ray of sunshine” as advertised but instead a dampening of true grass roots political involvement, then I suggest you write the Tulsa World at wayne.greene@tulsaworld.com and tell him so.  Be polite and do not attack the messenger, attack the message.

Also write your state senator and your representative and express your opinion on this proposed rule. And if you feel so led, feel free to forward this blog post to your friends.  We need to get the word out quickly if we hope to have any success in killing this bad rule.

The Ethics Commission votes on this proposed rule on January 11th.  You can sign a petition against this rule at the following site: https://www.ocpathink.org/say-no-way-to-regulating-free-speech

Lobbying Statement:  My name is Gary Kilpatrick. I approved this message.  Heck, I thought it up, wrote it, typed it, edited it, and posted it on this blog all by myself.  No one paid me anything to write this blog.  I did it all because I love my country and my state.  And I am looking forward to my next citizenship location where I will not have to put up with any of this nonsense.

Many have asked how I view the upcoming races on the Republican Primary Ballot. My thoughts are below. I have arranged my suggestions in the order they appear on the ballot. Sometimes I refer to The Tulsa Beacon or the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC) for their comments on a candidate.

Governor

There are 10 candidates for Governor.  If no candidate receives over 50% of the vote, then the top two candidates will duke it out on August 28th.  I only consider 6 of the 10 candidates to have any chance of making the run-off – Fisher, Stitt, Lamb, Jones, Cornett and Richardson.

Fisher is what I call a true conservative. He believes in small government (both state and federal), low taxation, fewer regulations so the free market can actually work, state sovereignty, and he is pro-first and second amendments with a desire to increase state protections in these areas. A man of his word, Dan will govern just like he campaigned.

Dan Fisher is for proper government.  By that he means that our state government should focus on core functions (education, corrections, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc) and stay out of frivolous expenditures where government tries to pick winners and losers. A good example of frivolous expenditure is the subsidy our state has given to wind energy, exceeding over $100 million per year in recent times.

As Governor, Dan will work to return control of education to its rightful stakeholders: local citizens and their local school boards. Focusing attention on spending alone distracts us from focusing on the inefficiencies and over-regulation in our bureaucratic system. Our education dollars should be spent on teachers, classrooms, and students – not on duplicative administrative costs. The spending silos should be eliminated or reduced and spending decisions made at the local level.

As a former teacher and the husband of a teacher Dan supports the pay raise for teachers, but he is against the recent tax increase to fund the pay raise.  He is a signor of the petition to repeal the tax increase because he knows that the money for the pay raise is available without the tax increases.  The increased taxes simply grow government in the long term. The tax increases were nothing more than the liberals classic use of a “crisis” to achieve their long-term objective of more government spending and bigger government.

A pastor, Dan Fisher served two terms in the State House of Representatives.  He knows the Oklahoma swamp. Politicians are addicted to borrowing and spending, and  state bureaucracy is infected with waste, fraud, and abuse. Every agency should be thoroughly examined. However, Dan realizes that the Governor cannot change everything on his own. Dan believes the key to a successful term as Governor is strong principled leadership tempered with the spirit of diplomacy and effective use of the bully pulpit of the Governor’s Office.

None of the other candidates in the race for Governor are really true conservatives. Todd Lamb, Kevin Stitt and Mick Cornett all have a tendency to support the growth of government and increased taxes.  Stitt is the frontrunner in some polls, but he has serious legal problems in several states where he and his companies have been banned. Gary Richardson, to his credit, is also a signor of the tax petition, but my beef with Gary is that he ran for governor as an independent in 2002, receiving 14% of the vote and assuring Democrat Brad Henry won the race.  Gary knew that he could not win and he would siphon votes away from Steve Largent, the Republican candidate, and that is exactly what he did. I figure that if he turned on us once he sure might turn on us again.

All six of the candidates say they are pro-life, but I doubt five of them would do anything more than support laws to further regulate the legal murder of the unborn.  Unlike them, Dan Fisher wants to abolish abortion in Oklahoma and he has a plan to do so.

I plan to vote for Dan Fisher for Governor. We need Dan Fisher as Governor.  None of the other candidates bring a Biblical worldview to the table like Dan does.

Lieutenant Governor

Matt Pinnell was the leader of the Oklahoma Republican Party and by all accounts did very well in that job.  He went to Washington a few years ago and worked for the National Republican Party where again I am told he did very well.  Now he wants to be Lieutenant Governor, probably as a stepping stone to Governor.

Dana Murphy serves on the Corporation Commission and I think she is one of the better commissioners.  But OCPAC says she is pro-abortion and quite liberal and I am afraid they may be right.

Eddie Fields serves in the state senate representing Osage, Kay, etc. counties.  I met him last year at an event and was reasonably impressed, but his conservative rating is only 53% and only 16% in 2017.

I know very little about Dominique DaMon Block, but OCPAC says he seems to have the best understanding of limited government of the group.  However, it is very unlikely he will win.

Although I have some reservations about whether Matt may turn into an establishment Republican, I am assured by those who know him well that he is solid. Therefore, I recommend Matt Pinnell for Lieutenant Governor.

State Auditor

I think Cindy Byrd is the best choice for State Auditor. She has served in the Auditor’s office for some 20 years and is endorsed by Gary Jones, the retiring State Auditor.

Attorney General

This is a tough race to make a recommendation. Mike Hunter, the current Attorney General who was appointed by Governor Fallin when Scott Pruitt left to become Administrator of the EPA, and Gentner Drummond, a Tulsa lawyer, businessman and Osage County cattleman, have been at each other’s throats for weeks.  It got so bad I started looking at the third candidate Angela Bonilla, but it did not take me very long reading her website to realize she was a liberal in sheep’s clothing.

OCPAC has picked (not an endorsement) Gentner Drummond.  The Tulsa Beacon has endorsed Mike Hunter. The negative campaigning sours me on both men, so I rate this race as a toss-up; but I lean toward Gentner Drummond since he is a newcomer.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

I voted 4 years ago for Joy Hofmeister to replace Janet Barresi, and I do not regret that one bit.  Baressi had to go; she was pro-common core all the way.  But Hofmeister is common core light, and she now needs to depart.  Linda Murphy is the right person to replace her.  I worked some with Linda in 2014 when we were battling Governor Fallin and the legislature over common core and Linda was solid. I fully support Linda Murphy for Superintendent.

Commissioner of Labor

Cathy Costello, widow of former Labor Commissioner Mark Costello, is a successful business owner and a strong Christian.  She should have been appointed as Labor Commissioner by Governor Fallin upon the death of her husband, but wasn’t.  The person who was appointed is not in the race.

Her opponent, Leslie Osborn, served in the State House for a number of years.  She has actively campaigned for tax increases and to give away our state sovereignty says OCPAC.  We often don’t pay much attention to these regulatory agencies, but it is amazing the damage that can be done financially and socially by agency heads that do not respect conservative principles.

I strongly endorse Cathy Costello for Commissioner of Labor.

Insurance Commissioner

This is a race that points out the downside of term limits.  For the last eight years Oklahoma has had, arguably, the best Insurance Commissioner in state history.  John Doak fought for the citizens, and it is a shame that he is term limited.

Donald Chasteen, one of two candidates for the position, owns an insurance agency.  He is a conservative Christian. He believes in smaller government and supports Trump’s efforts to “drain the swamp.”

His opponent, Representative Glen Mulready, is a career politician with plenty of insurance experience, both on the job and in the House.  His planned move from the House to head of an agency is a typical career path of career politicians (term limits don’t really work; the politicians just shuffle around to other jobs where they may even do more damage than in the Legislature.)

OCPAC and Tulsa Beacon both support Donald Chasteen.  I do too.

Corporation Commissioner

Bob Anthony is one of three Corporation Commissioners.  His seat on the Commission is up for reelection, and he is running again.  Bob is supported by OCPAC and the Tulsa Beacon.

Brian Bingman served for 12 years in the State Senate.  He has worked in the oil business for most of his life. I am not too keen on sending a career politician to yet another government job, but one could argue that is exactly what we would be doing if we reelect Bob Anthony.

Harold Spradling, a pastor, is 84 years old.  I see nothing in his background to suggest competency in the myriad of technical issues the Corporation Commissioners must deal with.

Although I have some personal issues with Bob Anthony, I agree with others that he has fought against corruption during his time on the Commission.  I recommend returning Bob Anthony to the Corporation Commission.

Representative to Congress for the First District

Andy Coleman is my hands down choice to replace Jim Bridenstine as our First District Congressman.  Andy is a lawyer, a military veteran and a past employee of Voice of the Martyrs.  He is a committed Christian who has lived out his beliefs in service to the persecuted church. Andy refers to himself as a battle-tested conservative who will help President Trump drain the swamp. He has proven courage, tested character, and is a true conservative. I consider we are very fortunate to have a person of the caliber of Andy to represent us in Congress.

If Andy were not running then Nathan Dahm would be my choice for Congress.  Nathan too is a dedicated Christian who has served in ministry overseas. He is an independent businessman. Some criticize Nathan because he chose to rerun for the State Senate in 2016, although he most certainly knew that he intended to run to replace the term-limited (self-limited) Bridenstine, thus deserting his constituents half way though his second term.  I think Nathan is not as well qualified as Andy Coleman and we need Nathan more in the State Senate right now than in Congress.

Kevin Hern, an owner of a number of McDonald’s franchises, is the best funded of the First District candidates.  My respect for Kevin has declined considerably in the past week or two due to his unfounded accusations against Andy Coleman. I think his true colors emerged when he felt threatened.

Andy Coleman is my clear choice for Congress.

State Representative District 11

Martin Garber has served on numerous State Commissions and Foundations. He helped start the Bartlesville Education Promise, a foundation to help raise funds to support Bartlesville education.  He served 27 years on the Board of Regents of Tulsa Community College, and his entire career was involved working with the state legislature.  Martin is well qualified to serve the citizens of District 11.

I will vote for Martin Garber for District 11 State Representative.

State Representative District 10

Travis Dunlap is the current District 10 Representative and I believe he should be reelected. Travis has taken a lot of heat from local educators and even the local newspaper because he did not support the tax hike.  Travis did not support the tax hike because he promised his constituents to oppose unnecessary tax increases and he kept his word.  He is correct in stating that the tax hike was not necessary to fund a pay raise for teachers.

I appreciate a principled conservative, a person willing to take the heat for what he believes is true and right, and I support Travis Dunlap in his bid to serve the citizens of District 10 another term.

District Judge – District 11

Curtis DeLapp, the current sitting judge, is running for reelection. Also in the race is Linda Thomas and Alan Gentges.  Curtis is a Christian, but unfortunately he has handed down some rulings in which many of us fail to see the fairness and the gentleness we expect of our judges.

My only suggestion on this race is that worldview matters. The day will come when even Bartlesville courts will rule on matters where the worldview of the judge may decide the outcome of the decision.  Today there are many judges across the land who do not interpret the Constitution, and the First Amendment in particular, as the founders intended.  They let their false worldviews taint their understanding of the Constitution. I will vote for Curtis DeLapp because I believe that he fundamentally has a Biblical worldview in spite of the fact that he apparently has trouble at times exhibiting it.

There are 10 candidates for Governor in the upcoming Republican primary election on June 26th.  If no candidate receives over 50% of the vote, then the top two candidates will duke it out on August 28th.  I only consider 6 of the 10 candidates to have any chance of making the run-off – Fisher, Stitt, Lamb, Jones, Cornett and Richardson.

Dan Fisher is what I call a true conservative. He believes in small government (both state and federal), low taxation, fewer regulations so the free market can actually work, state sovereignty, and he is pro-first and second amendments with a desire to increase state protections in these areas. A man of his word, Dan will govern just like he campaigned.

Dan Fisher is for proper government.  By that he means that our state government should focus on core functions (education, corrections, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc) and stay out of frivolous expenditures where government tries to pick winners and losers. A good example of frivolous expenditure is the subsidy our state has given to wind energy, exceeding over $100 million per year in recent times.

As Governor, Dan will work to return control of education to its rightful stakeholders: local citizens and their local school boards. Focusing attention on spending alone distracts us from focusing on the inefficiencies and over-regulation in our bureaucratic system. Our education dollars should be spent on teachers, classrooms, and students – not on duplicative administrative costs. The spending silos should be eliminated or reduced and spending decisions made at the local level.

As a former teacher and the husband of a teacher Dan supports the pay raise for teachers, but he is against the recent tax increase to fund the pay raise.  He is a signor of the petition to repeal the tax increase because he knows that the money for the pay raise is available without the tax increases.  The increased taxes simply grow government in the long term. The tax increases were nothing more than the liberals classic use of a “crisis” to achieve their long-term objective of more government spending and bigger government.

A pastor, Dan Fisher served two terms in the State House of Representatives.  He knows the Oklahoma swamp. Politicians are addicted to borrowing and spending, and  state bureaucracy is infected with waste, fraud, and abuse. Every agency should be thoroughly examined. However, Dan realizes that the Governor cannot change everything on his own. Dan believes the key to a successful term as Governor is strong principled leadership tempered with the spirit of diplomacy and effective use of the bully pulpit of the Governor’s Office.

None of the other candidates in the race for Governor are really true conservatives. Todd Lamb, Kevin Stitt and Mick Cornett all have a tendency to support the growth of government and increased taxes.  Stitt is the frontrunner in some polls, but he has serious legal problems in several states where he and his companies have been banned. Gary Richardson, to his credit, is also a signor of the tax petition, but my beef with Gary is that he ran for governor as an independent in 2002, receiving 14% of the vote and assuring Democrat Brad Henry won the race.  Gary knew that he could not win and he would siphon votes away from Steve Largent, the Republican candidate, and that is exactly what he did. I figure that if he turned on us once he sure might turn on us again.

All six of the candidates say they are pro-life, but I doubt five of them would do anything more than support laws to further regulate the legal murder of the unborn.  Unlike them, Dan Fisher wants to abolish abortion in Oklahoma and he has a plan to do so.

I will vote for Dan Fisher for Governor on June 26th.