Gov. Stitt opposes Abolition of Abortion Act; so what does "pro-life" even mean?

Pro-lifers like to say things like "Abortion is murder", "Life begins at conception", "We need to end abortion", and "Protect the unborn".

So why is it that a bill that matches that rhetoric and would actually abolish abortion - which continues in this state even after the overturning of Roe v. Wade through "self-managed" abortion pills - is a bridge too far for "pro-life" Governor Kevin Stitt?

Being "pro-life" is just about the cameras, awards, ratings, and elections. The actions of pro-life elected officials are not logically consistent with the rhetoric of the movement. What does "pro-life" even mean at that point?

From Protestia.com, ‘Pro-Life’ Governor Kevin Stitt Comes Out AGAINST Abolition of Abortion Act:

Hern hits Harris in new TV ad

Kevin Hern, running in the 1st Congressional District's GOP runoff, is out with a new TV ad hitting his opponent, former Tulsa DA Tim Harris, on earmarks, term limits, and attacks him as a career politician.



Ironically, back in June, Hern issued a challenge to the other GOP candidates to refrain from negative campaigning, saying, "I’m committing to a clean campaign and asking my competitors to do the same. The opportunity at hand is too important to waste by wallowing in the mud and allowing outside groups to influence the people’s vote—we should demand better. I’m also calling on each candidate to join me in making a public commitment to denounce any negative campaigning and ensure we hold all third-party groups accountable to any messages they push. I look forward to hearing from each of my opponents in joining me in this commitment."

Furthermore, while Hern did sign a pledge to co-sponsor and vote for the U.S. Term Limits amendment (3 House terms, 2 Senate terms), much like Markwayne Mullin did, he has made it a point to say that he personally won't hold to a self-imposed term limit (unlike Jim Bridenstine and Tom Coburn).

Term limits for thee, but not for me, apparently. I consider it to be hypocritical to claim support for term limits only if everyone else is required to hold to them as well. If you truly believe that term limits are a good thing, then you do what Jim Bridenstine and Tom Coburn did and actually follow through on that belief with action.

Step Up Oklahoma exposes own hypocrisy in letter to Wind Coalition

There's a dustup going on between Step Up Oklahoma, the group pushing $750M in new taxes, and The Wind Coalition, the group advocating for the wind energy industry. Step Up accuses the Wind Coalition of undermining their efforts to raise taxes on Oklahomans, while the Wind Coalition thinks Step Up is unfairly targeting them in their tax hike plan in favor of the oil and gas industry.

In an email to the Wind Coalition, Step Up Oklahoma spokesman Glenn Coffee (former Senate Pro Tem and Secretary of State) made this comment: "To date, we have not received anything that addresses the need for new recurring revenue. Instead, you ignored our request, proffering unworkable proposals meant to reduce local property taxes and shift even more tax burden on the backs of Oklahoma residential utility consumers and other industries. [emphasis mine]" (The Wind Coalition responded with their own letter, which can be viewed here.)

You don't say?

Meanwhile, the backbone of the Step Up Oklahoma plan is to place a burden of $571.2M in new taxes directly onto the backs of Oklahoma consumers and individual taxpayers, with an additional $156.5M being taken from the energy sector (oil/gas and wind) and $22M from expanding gambling (like we need more gambling in Oklahoma to devastate families).

Hypocrisy, much?


BONUS - here as some recent articles on the Fallin/Step Up tax hikes from Bloggers Organized for Oklahoma Taxpayers:

• ‘We can do better’: Americans for Prosperity pans Oklahoma tax plan [NonDoc]
• The Raw Nerve of it All — Arrogance and Corporate Greed of ‘StepUp’ Plan [SCrosnoe]
• The Band Is Back Together [Tapp Into Common Sense]
• Is It a "Step Up" ... or a Step Down? [Jordan Green Says]

Two-Faced Fallin: calls for federal tax cuts while pushing state tax hikes

As she comes to her final year in office, Governor Mary Fallin is setting a "legacy" of pushing for the largest tax hikes in Oklahoma history. In an ironic twist, she is simultaneously supporting the largest federal tax cut in decades.

Back in February, Fallin proposed a massive expansion of the state sales tax, amounting to over $1,703,879,742.00 ($1.7 Billion). Additional taxes she proposed brought the total to nearly $2.6 Billion. I've posted extensively on the Fallin Tax Hikes, which have shifted and morphed over the past ten months. The state legislature went along with her on some of her ideas, while discarding many of the worst parts of her proposed tax hike packages.

While Governor Fallin was doing her best to increase taxes on Oklahomans, our seven Republican members of Congress were working to pass a package at the federal level that would dramatically cut taxes. Today, the U.S. House voted on final passage of the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act, with the U.S. Senate expected to pass it later tonight and send it to President Donald Trump's desk for his signature.

To help with that effort, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker organized a letter of support, sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, and signed by 21 Republican governors.

In further comments on the letter, posted on WhiteHouse.gov, Governor Fallin said, "Our nation’s tax code, on the other hand, is outdated and in desperate need of reform. Due to incomprehensible regulations and untold pages of forms and instructions, nearly 90% of taxpayers need external help to simply pay their taxes."

In the Governors' letter, Fallin put her stamp of approval on this statement, and others: "We need to simplify the tax code and reduce the burden on hard-working people all across the United States."

Which is it, Governor Fallin? Do you want to reduce the tax burden on hard-working Oklahomans or do you want to increase the tax burden on hard-working Oklahomans? You can't have it both ways.

To quote James 1:8, "A double minded man [or woman, in this case] is unstable in all his ways."

Richardson hits Lamb for Ethics Reform plan

GARY RICHARDSON BLASTS HYPOCRISY OF LAMB’S ETHICS PLAN

December 4, 2017 -- GOP candidate for Governor, Gary Richardson, is challenging Lt. Governor Todd Lamb’s so-called “Reform In Government” plan.  Among Lamb’s proposals, he calls for tighter regulation of lobbyist donations which, Richardson points out, appears quite disingenuous coming from the Lt. Governor. 

    “Todd Lamb has taken more than $5800 in gifts from lobbyists so far.  This is tantamount to a 400 lb. doctor telling a patient to lose weight,” Gary Richardson says.  “Lobbyists have showered Lamb with everything from lavish dinners to Final Four basketball tickets.  It’s ironic Lamb wants to crack down on lobbyists while saying absolutely nothing about fixing the rampant corruption and mismanagement within his own Tourism Department.”

    The malfeasance at the Lt. Governor's Tourism Department was uncovered last week in an investigative report that aired on Fox 25 News in Oklahoma City.

    “What’s worse?  The lobbyist who gives the gifts or the lawmaker who cheerfully accepts the gifts?” says Richardson. “Todd Lamb is the personification of everything wrong with State Government and the poster boy for Oklahoma’s current crisis.  As Governor, I will never accept gifts from lobbyists.  My only special interest is serving the people of Oklahoma with responsible and transparent government.”

    Gary Richardson is a native Oklahoman, a former US Attorney appointed by President Reagan, and founder of a successful law firm in Tulsa.

    For more information on Gary Richardson’s campaign for Governor of Oklahoma visit his website at www.GaryRichardson.org.

Pledge-Breaker Mullin slams Senators for breaking pledges

2nd District Congressman Markwayne Mullin posted a video Saturday morning in which he slammed several Republican senators for breaking pledges.

He's specifically referring to Senators Collins, McCain, Murkowski, and Paul for failing to support the Graham-Cassidy healthcare plan that was the last proposal put forward by the Republican-led Senate to [sorta] repeal and [sorta] replace ObamaCare.

I agree with his outrage over Republicans failing to keep their promises, particularly on ObamaCare. However, the irony here is simply too much to ignore.

Allow me to remind Congressman Mullin to look in the mirror, where he will see a man who repeatedly pledged to the voters of the 2nd District that he would only seek three terms in the House, yet has brazenly decided to break that pledge.

Yes, I'm upset at Republicans like Mullin who fail to keep their promises. As I said in a recent post, it's another example of the death of honor in the GOP. For him to sanctimoniously criticize others for breaking promises while his very campaign is a broken promise is hypocrisy of the first-degree.

Here's Mullin's video:



Unsurprisingly, I am blocked from commenting on any of Mullin's posts, or even from liking his page.

OCPA points out Fallin's hypocrisy on special session

Following Governor Mary Fallin's statement on next week's special session, and her threat to veto any measures that include cuts to state agencies, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs put the following post up:

On the 15th, Governor Fallin sent this press release out, officially calling for a special session. From the release (also in her executive order): "Fallin recommended lawmakers: [...] Address the need for more consolidation and other efficiencies in all areas of state government."

Yesterday, she completely changed her tune: "Additional cuts to agencies will further harm state services. I will veto a proposal that calls for cuts to state agencies"

Which is it, Governor Fallin? I guess one could say that she was for "right-sizing government" before she was against it.

IRONY: Ron Paul asks UN to confiscate RonPaul.com, RonPaul.org from his own fans

In an ironic turn of events, former Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has asked the United Nations to seize a website from his own supporters, and hand it over to him without compensating the legal owners.

That's right.

RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org have been owned by grassroots supporters of Ron Paul since 2008. The sites were first registered in 1999 and 2000. At one point, Paul owned RonPaul.org, but let the registration expire, and for some odd reason did not attempt to get RonPaul.com or RonPaul.org in preparation for his 2008 presidential campaign.

Last month, Paul expressed regret in an interview with libertarian conspiracist Alex Jones that he didn't own RonPaul.com. Following that, the owners of RonPaul.com offered to give the former congressman RonPaul.org for free, and detailed reasons why they wished to keep RonPaul.com (details here). If he still wanted to get the .com site, they said that they would sell it to him for $250,000 and include their email list of 170,000 addresses (which he could tap for fundraising, and easily recoup the expense).

Instead of taking their offers, Ron Paul decided to go to the United Nations (of all places) and ask them to strip the domains - without compensation - from the current owners, and give them to him.


This situation prompted the Paul fans who own RonPaul.com to say this:

Paul's hypocrisy in going to the UN is just too ironic. Click here to read the entire story from Paul's grassroots supporters.

U.S. Senator On Raising The Debt Ceiling

A while back, one U.S. Senator had this to say on the floor of the Senate about raising the debt ceiling:

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem. 

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.  

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion'' with a "T.'' That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. 

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.  

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans; a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.  [. . .]

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.  

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit. 

I couldn't agree more.

Did I mention when this speech was given, and who made it?

March 16th, 2006.

Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois).

Inhofe on Earmarks: 2008 and 2010

2008: U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe cosponsors U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint’s one-year earmark moratorium. (note: Inhofe was running for re-election in 2008)

2010:  U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is one of the most vehement and public opponents to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint's two-year earmark moratorium that is identical to the moratorium that House Republicans will put in place once the new GOP majority is sworn in.

Which one is it, Senator? You can't have it both ways.

While we're on the earmarks topic, OUDaily.com had the following graphic on a story today:

The Hypocrisy of Ron Paul

This is why I have practically no respect for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Ron Paul vehemently denounced the $410 billion catch-all spending bill approved last week by the House of Representatives.

But although the libertarian-leaning Republican from Lake Jackson cast a vote against the massive spending measure, his fingerprints were on some of the earmarks that helped inflate its cost.

Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill. His earmarks included repair projects to the Galveston Seawall damaged by Hurricane Ike and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

(Houston Chronicle)

Ron Paul thinks he can get away with submitting earmarks, because he doesn't vote for them. What absolute hypocrisy. In his interview on Meet the Press, he compares earmarks to tax credits.

Here's a great article on the issue by Joseph Farrah on WorldNetDaily, written in late 2007. I'm sure Farrah took all sorts of grief from the fanatical supporters of the congressman (as will I, more than likely), but he is absolutely right.

In his column, Farrah says, "I just simply didn't know that Ron Paul plays the Washington racket just like the rest of the gang. The only difference is he has figured out a system of plausible deniability for himself – a way he can still maintain his image of incorruptibility and integrity, while bringing home the pork to his Texas district with the kind of efficiency that would make Robert Byrd blush." He continues later:

"Paul defended his actions on 'Meet the Press' in spin that would make Bill Clinton proud. 'I've never voted for an earmark in my life,' he explained. 'I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people.'

This is actually as ingenious as it is immoral. Ron Paul knows his vote against his own earmarks for pork is meaningless to the actual outcome. He's going to get his pork because every member of Congress gets his pork. But Ron Paul gets the psychic satisfaction of voting against it – after, of course, he proposed it."

After reading about Ron Paul and his latest earmarks, I went to Citizens Against Government Waste to check his record in the 2008 Pig Book. I wasn't exactly prepared for what I saw.

Let us compare the 2008 figures of the Oklahoma representatives and Ron Paul.

• John Sullivan (R, 1st District): 15 projects, $42,300,000
  
• Dan Boren (D, 2nd District): 11 projects, $10,500,000
  
• Frank Lucas (R, 3rd District): 24 projects, $17,200,000
  
• Tom Cole (R, 4th District): 15 projects, $13,200,000
  
• Marry Fallin (R, 5th District): 13 projects, $5,500,000
  
• Ron Paul (R, 14th District): 8 projects, $22,700,000

Ron Paul had more earmark money than any of the Oklahoma delegation except John Sullivan. Paul had more earmark money than Fallin and Boren combined, and Fallin and Cole combined, one million dollars less than Boren and Cole combined, and the same amount as Fallin and Lucas combined.

But I forgot. He's never voted for an earmark; he just requests them. Who ever heard of an earmark that didn't get allocated? Reminds me of this debate of Senator Coburn had on the senate floor once regarding an authorization bill. "If it's not appropriated, that's right [Sen. Domenici said if the money is not appropriated, it doesn't cost anything]. But we're not passing these bills on the assumption that they're not going to be appropriated, we're passing these bills on the assumption that they will be appropriated." Earmarks are not submitted with the assumption that they won't be allocated. Ron Paul does not expect his earmarks to fail; he knows that they will pass, because they're earmarks.

Joseph Farrah's column ends with this: "While portraying himself as cleaner than the wind-driven snow, a man standing up against the machine, a courageous freedom fighter, it turns out Ron Paul is just another politician using the system for his own empowerment, his own ego and defending this abuse of the Constitution with his own relativistic moral code."

I concur. On the earmark issue, Congressman Ron Paul is nothing but a hypocrite.