Joy Hofmeister: we will fight to restore baby murder

RINO-turned Democrat Joy Hofmeister continues to reveal her true colors now that she's running for Governor as a Democrat. 

While Oklahomans celebrate the confirmation by the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade has always been unconstitutional, Hofmeister says she'll fight to "restore" the fight to murder babies in the womb:

"i'Ve NoT cHaNgEd My VaLuEs SiNcE sWiTcHinNg To DeMoCrAt"

Joy Hofmeister is, and always has been, a con-woman fraud: https://t.co/jMvrXOSOwj #okgov https://t.co/essZnAvfcY

— Jamison Faught (@JamisonFaught) June 24, 2022

"The court’s decision today means millions of Oklahoma women have lost agency over their own lives and health care. 

We will fight to get it back. And we will ensure Oklahoma has a governor who will protect women and doctors. Today is a day to be strong. I will not be deterred."

I detailed more about Hofmeister's con act in this post, Hofmeister's Long Con: running for Gov as the Dem she's always been.

Not everyone who proclaims themselves to be a conservative (like Hofmeister did in 2014) is actually a conservative. As I posted the other day, a lot of them are frauds.

Reject Hofmeister.

Supreme Court kills Roe v Wade; Oklahoma leaders rejoice

Though anticipated since the leak of a draft opinion in May, the United States Supreme Court has overturned and affirmed the complete and total unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade. The death toll since that wicked ruling in 1973 is somewhere well north of 60,000,000.

While this is something to praise God for, the fight is not over. The right to live on God's green earth as He has given life is not a right that can be legislated by a governing body, or bestowed by a court. It is a natural right given to us by our Creator, and we will continue pressing on until abortion is abolished from sea to shining sea, and beyond.

Across the state, elected officials and leaders are praising the death of Roe. I'll try to update this post with additional statements throughout the day as they come in.

Rep. Hern plans legislative action to withhold funding for implementation of Biden's unconstitional mandate

Hern plans legislative action against Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate

Tulsa, OK (September 16th) – Representative Kevin Hern (OK-01) held a press conference this afternoon after meeting with local business leaders to discuss President Biden’s recent vaccine mandate on all employers with 100+ employees.

While the President has the power to issue Executive Orders, it is up to Congress to fund them. Rep. Hern plans to take legislative action to withhold funding from the Department of Labor for the implementation of this mandate. Rep. Hern has not ruled out legal action.

You can watch the video here:

House, Senate pass competing bills to challenge unconstitutional federal actions

Drama in the Oklahoma legislature as both chambers pass competing versions of related ideas while bashing the other for perceived issues with their measures (for what it's worth, I side with the House on this). NonDoc has a decent write-up on the kerfluffle here.

So, here are three press releases on the issue. First we'll see the Senate side, then the House side, then OCPA hopping in on the Senate's behalf. Be sure to read the whole thing, as House Speaker McCall really puts a zinger in on Senate President Treat. 🔥

Senate advances Pro Tem Treat’s bill to fight federal overreach

OKLAHOMA CITY (April 20th) – The Oklahoma Senate advanced a measure from Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat to protect Oklahoma from federal overreach.

State House Health Committee Chair: time to let Oklahomans go back to work

STATEMENT: Rep. Sean Roberts on COVID-19

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Sean Roberts (R-Hominy) today released the following statement regarding COVID-19:

“When we started this journey a month ago, I issued a statement regarding COVID-19, also known as coronavirus. We as the Legislature, and I as Chairman of Public Health in the State House of Representatives, urged people to take precautions to protect themselves, their loved ones and the public as a whole. God has heard our prayers. I want to congratulate Governor Stitt and President Trump in flattening the curve and saving countless lives while not infringing on Americans’ constitutional rights. While in this time of national disaster, President Trump stood vigilant for the constitutional rights of the American people. Governor Stitt stood beside him. As the Public Health Chairman, I am very thankful and humbled that Oklahomans rallied together and decided to heed these warnings to flatten the curve of infections.

OCPA comments on federal judge ruling Obamacare unconstitional

OCPA statement on Obamacare case Texas v. United States

After a federal judge ruled Obamacare unconstitutional today, Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), released the following statement:

“Obamacare was sold on a lie. Oklahomans and millions of Americans have lost the plan or doctor they preferred and health insurance premiums and deductibles rose significantly because of Obamacare. The law was narrowly passed and on tenuous legal gymnastics and trickery.

“A number of provisions or executive actions regarding Obamacare have been ultimately ruled unconstitutional. It's no surprise that once again the law has been found unconstitutional.”

State Senate appears to advance another unconstitutional tax hike

Yesterday, the Oklahoma Senate passed HB1035X, a measure that raises taxes by over $440M (perhaps even over $500M; still awaiting final fiscal analysis). I believe that this vote, and this measure if advanced further, may have been unconstitutional.

Here is a summary of the process which HB1035X took:

9/25/17: authored in the House of Representatives

10/24/17: passed House Joint Committee on Appropriations

10/25/17: passed House floor 55-44, but failed to receive 3/4ths affirmative vote required by Article 5, Section 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution

10/28/17: referred to the Senate

11/6/17: brought to Senate floor, gutted, replaced with a substitute, passed 37-5

Here is a quote from the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in August (paragraph 6):

"Two of the four [cigarette tax] proposals received a floor vote in the House and garnered majority support, but none of the proposals advanced, due to their failure to receive the three-fourths support required by Article V, Section 33 [emphasis mine]."

The Senate was not sent a measure that complied with Article V, Section 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution, as HB1035X failed to receive the 3/4ths vote in the House that is required to bypass a vote of the people at the next general election. HB1035X is in the exact same situation as the measures that Justice Wyrick referred to in the above quote from the majority opinion in Naifeh v. State of Oklahoma; it received a majority vote but not three-fourths, and thus was not eligible for advancement save as a ballot question.

By virtue of failing to receive the requisite vote, the Senate's only option with HB1035X is to pass it as a ballot question for the November 2018 election. Only after the House sends a 3/4ths-approved tax increase measure can the Senate lawfully take it up.

Governor Fallin and Senate leadership are passing this Senate vote off as the solution to the budget impasse, but it will simply end up back in front of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and should by all rights be struck down.

Supreme Court overturns electric/hybrid car tax; Fallin, Richardson comment

Governor Mary Fallin Statement on the Oklahoma Supreme Court Striking Down Electric, Hybrid Vehicle Registration Fee

OKLAHOMA CITY – Governor Mary Fallin today issued the following statement in response to the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down a registration fee for electric and hybrid vehicles:

 “I’m disappointed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down the registration fee for electric and hybrid vehicles. Fortunately, lawmakers are in special session now working on how to adjust a shortfall of $215 million of state appropriations caused when the state Supreme Court earlier this year struck down a proposed smoking cessation fee.”

[Governor's Press Office] Note: House Bill 1449 would have established a $100 fee for the registration of an electric vehicle and a $30 fee for a hybrid vehicle. Revenue from the fees, which was to have gone into effect Jan. 1, would have gone to the state's highway construction and maintenance fund. The measure was projected to raise more than $506,000 for the current 2018 fiscal year, and $1.01 million for the 2019 fiscal year. The measure passed the House, 61-36, and the Senate, 29-11.

Richardson Successfully Overturns Electric Car Tax Increase [*]

Tulsa, OK, October 24, 2017 – Gary Richardson, Republican candidate for Governor,  celebrated the overturning of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Fee that he challenged in the Oklahoma Supreme Court this summer.

"I am thankful that the State Supreme Court recognized that the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Fee leveed on hybrid and electric vehicles was an illegal tax increase," said Richardson.  Richardson referred to the ruling in favor of the Sierra Club, which challenged the same fee as Richardson did in his suit.

"Oklahoma deserves a leader who puts their words into actions," said Richardson.  "I am the only candidate for Governor who even attempted to stop the tax increases and I'm not even an elected official like some of my opponents.  Imagine what will happen when I get elected as Governor."


[* - I wouldn't call the headline 'Richardson Successfully Overturns' strictly accurate. While Richardson's lawsuit was practically identical in argument to the Sierra Club's, the Court did not rule on his lawsuit, choosing the other instead.]

Oklahoma Supreme Court strikes down cigarette tax

In a swift and unanimous decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the Cigarette Tax Smoking Cessation Fee passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Fallin violated the Oklahoma Constitution.

Here's the summary from the opinion (which can be read in full at this link):

Petitioners, who are manufacturers, wholesalers, and consumers of cigarettes, challenged Senate Bill 845, alleging that it is a revenue bill enacted outside of the procedure mandated in Article V, Section 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The parties agree that the passage of SB 845 did not comply with Article V, Section 33; so the case turns on whether SB 845 is the kind of "revenue bill" that Article V, Section 33 governs. Applying the test we have utilized since 1908, we conclude that the primary purpose of Sections 2, 7, 8, and 9 of SB 845 is to raise new revenue for the support of state government through the assessment of a new $1.50 excise tax on cigarettes and that, in doing so, SB 845 levies a tax in the strict sense. As such, Sections 2, 7, 8, and 9 of SB 845 comprise a revenue bill enacted in violation of Article V, Section 33 and are unconstitutional.

The scathing opinion was written by Justice Patrick Wyrick, the newest addition to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and came less than 48 hours after the Court heard oral arguments on the case.

Some nuggets from the opinion:

[ś22] As a threshold matter, Petitioners present compelling contextual evidence in support of their claim that the Legislature's primary purpose in enacting SB 845 was to raise new revenues. The State Respondents urge us to ignore that evidence, and understandably so; it strongly indicates SB 845's passage was motivated by the Legislature's need to raise revenue so that it could satisfy its constitutional obligation to enact a balanced budget. We agree that a measure's purpose must be measured by its actual operation and effect, rather than by any legislator's statements as to what motivated his or her vote for the measure. But this dispute over the relevance of contextual evidence is ultimately of no consequence because SB 845's text-and text alone-conclusively demonstrates that the primary operation and effect of the measure is to raise new revenue to support state government.

More:

[ś42] The position taken by the State Respondents is, in this regard, extraordinary. In their view even a measure that explicitly levies a massive new tax, can evade Article V, Section 33's "revenue bill" requirements so long as the tax is enacted for a "regulatory" purpose. In this respect, the State Respondents are willing to go even further than the House of Representatives because, under their view, even a measure which explicitly levies a new excise tax on cigarettes - like the four failed House measures - could have been enacted with a bare majority vote. This is so, insist the State Respondents, because the purpose of the new $1.50 assessment has always been to discourage smoking. The logical end point of this position is that the Legislature can impose by bare majority any tax whose purpose is to discourage behavior disfavored by the government. One can imagine the gasoline tax being doubled "to reduce traffic congestion and wear and tear on our roads, the costs of which are overburdening the Department of Transportation," or the income tax on the top 1% being tripled "to reduce the societal ills that arise from income disparities among our citizens." Surely the people did not intend that the Legislature could blatantly tax them without complying with Article V, Section 33, by merely wordsmithing their bills to describe some "regulatory" purpose for the tax. Thus, we reiterate that whether a measure is "intended to raise revenue" must be the overarching consideration in determining whether a measure is a "revenue bill." If so, the Legislature must either muster enough votes to satisfy Article V, Section 33, or submit the measure to the people for their approval.

More:

[ś49] Lastly, were we to hold otherwise, the distinction between fees and taxes-and thus the protections against taxation provided by Article V, Section 33-would be meaningless. The State Respondents tell us that this is a common refrain from those raising such challenges, and one we should thus ignore. But despite any prior false alarms, this cry of "wolf!" rings true. If this quintessential excise tax can be transformed into a fee merely by calling it a fee and adding some regulatory gloss to the measure enacting it, then the promise of Article V, Section 33-a promise made to citizens in 1992 when they went to the polls and enacted the amended version-will be an empty one. The "tax relief" to be expected from the requirement that all "future bills 'intended to raise revenue' . . . be approved by either a vote of the people or a three-fourths majority in both houses of the Legislature" will have been illusory. And that, we think, would be an abject failure to carry out "the manifest purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it." 

Read the full opinion here.

This end result was very clear to anyone who was not dead-set on raising taxes on Oklahomans this past legislative session. The constitutional provisions regarding raising taxes are not rocket science, they're crystal clear, and it is beyond the pale that the Legislature (with some exceptions) and Governor sought to so blatantly violate the Constitution and the will of the people of Oklahoma.

If this measure was not struck down, the Legislature would have been given unlimited ability and power to raise taxes. The Supreme Court made the absolute right decision.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

Breaking: Federal judge in Virginia declares that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

Eastern Virginia U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the legislation. This particular lawsuit was filed by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and challenged the individual mandate found in the bill.

It is expected that ObamaCare will go all the way to the Supreme Court, but this is a victory nonetheless.