PEACEFUL PROTEST IS A PROTECTED RIGHT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

OBEY THE LAW!

by Steve Fair

 

 

On Saturday, a Minneapolis VA nurse, Alex Pretti who was carrying a licensed handgun was fatally shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent.  Authorities said Pretti resisted arrest after trying to intervene in the ICE operation.  Vice President JD Vance called the protests in Minnesota "engineered chaos" in the wake of the shooting.  Three observations:

First, the Constitution guarantees peaceful protest. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble.  It also guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, and the right to petition the government or redress of grievances.  Assembly is the only right in the First Amendment that requires more than a lone individual for its exercise. One can speak alone, but one cannot assemble alone. Moreover, while some assemblies occur spontaneously, most do not. For this reason, the right to assembly right extends to preparing to assembly activity, aka 'right of association,' by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).  The right to peaceably assembly is extended to all citizens and all political ideologies and the government is not to impede that right.

Second, the Constitution does not guarantee hostile assembly.  The protests in Minnesota- and in other states- against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been characterized by conflict, unrest, and confrontational conduct toward authorities.  Violent protest is not a guaranteed constitutional right.  Protestors must abide by the law when assembling.   Physically confronting law enforcement officers is usually not going to end well, and that has been the case in the two Minnesota shootings. 

Third, let the facts determine what happened.  The predictability of how elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum would react is a foregone conclusion. Immediately after the shooting, supporters and critics of ICE had formed a verdict about the situation and were espousing judgment or vindication.    Sadly, most elected officials are on auto-pilot, blindly following a predictable pattern. 

It is very possible the ICE agents in Minnesota overreacted and were in the wrong.  It is also very possible Pretti presented a threat to the agents.  The public would be wise to allow independent investigators, with no political agenda, conduct a through investigation and let the facts speak for themselves.  If the agents overreacted and are in the wrong, they should pay the price. 

One of the fundamental rights Americans have is the right to disagree with their government without fear of being punished or retaliated against.  It should concern every American when federal law enforcement officers shoot protestors.  An independent, unbiased investigation should be done and the chips fall where they may.

For years, Republicans referred to federal law enforcement as 'jackbooted federal agents.'  Conservative Republicans regularly criticized federal agents as acting too authoritarian, using heavy handed tactics and government overreach.  Ironically, many of those same people are now supporting the storm troopers in this battle. 

In May 1970, four unarmed college students were killed and nine wounded by the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State University campus, while protesting the expanding involvement in the Vietnam War.  It was an avoidable tragedy and while there was bad behavior on both sides, the unwillingness of the protestors to simply obey the law was the problem. 

Americans have a right to engage in 'organized chaos,' but they should remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence."

 

LEGISLATURE WANTS THAT TSET MONEY!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

END RUN OR FAKE PUNT?

by Steve Fair

 

The Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) is a public trust created in November 2000 after Oklahoma voters approved SQ#692 by a 59% margin.  TSET was created to manage monies from settlements or lawsuits against any tobacco company by the state of Oklahoma.  It specified that only 'earnings' from investments from TSET can be spent and only for tobacco prevention, cancer research, and other health related programs.  TSET was charged to use the money to improve the health for all Oklahomans.

The assets of TSET are invested at the direction of a five-member Board of Investors. That Board consists of the State Treasurer (Todd Russ), who serves as chair, and the designees of the Governor, Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the State Auditor.  The State Treasurer serves on the Board as long while in office and the appointed members serve four-year terms. 

The board of directors of TSET are appointed by seven statewide elected officials: the Governor, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of Senate, the Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Auditor and the State School Superintendent.  All members serve seven-year terms.  All appointed members serve seven-year terms.

There has to be at least one appointee from each Congressional district, and not more than two appointees from the same district.  In addition, not more than four appointees may be from any one political party. The board is responsible for spending the earnings from the trust.  They have normally spent about $50 million annually.

This week, TSET announced an award of $150 million through 14 grants to universities, clinics, and foundations throughout Oklahoma to strength health care systems in the Sooner state.  Using accumulated, unspent earnings from previous years, TSET exceeded the investment income provision in SQ#692.  Expect TSET's action to be challenged in court.  Three observations:

First, Oklahoma did the right thing in creating TSET.  Only two other states- Alaska and North Dakota did something similar and set aside their tobacco settlement money for prevention and reduction of tobacco use.  Most states used the money to fill budget holes or to pay off debt.  Two tobacco producing states- South Carolina and North Carolina- ironically used their settlement funds to help tobacco farmers.  Oklahoma voters chose to create an independent entity that would use the money for what it was intended- health care.  Crafters of SQ#692 knew if the legislature got their hands on the tobacco money, it wouldn't be used for what it was intended.  TSET was a wise decision.

Second, the legislature has been trying to do an end run on SQ#692 for years.  They have repeatedly tried to gain more control and access to TSET's funds.  After the TSET board, denied a request for an OU Health project, lawmakers passed HB#2783, authored by Rep. Trey Caldwell, (R-Lawton), and Sen. Chuck Hall, (R-Perry) in 2025.  HB#2783 allowed the statewide elected officials to remove their appointed TSET board members at will and ignore the term provisions of SQ#692.  HB#2783 passed the House on a vote of 60-30 and the Senate 36-8.  Gov. Stitt did not sign the bill, so it became law automatically in May 2025.  This week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, ruled HB#2783 unconstitutional.  They noted voters the guidelines for how the board members are appointed and the length of their term was clearly set forth in SQ#692 and in the state constitution. 

Third, TSET needs revision.  SQ#692 guidelines require a significant amount of the TSET earnings go to education.  Instead of running out of date TV ads urging kids to not smoke, TSET should be spending money in rural Oklahoma to improve health care.  But any change to how TSET is governed and earnings are used require a vote of the people, Voters would likely vote to remove many of the restrictions that were wise in 2000, but make little sense 25 years later.  But the legislature should stop trying to circumvent the will of the people.  Bypassing what voters have approved isn't revision- it's an end run.

The legislature's action may have spurred the TSET board to action and their granting of the $150 million.  If that was the case, HB#2783 wasn't an end run- it was a successful fake punt. 

Excavate the U.S. Department of Education!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

HOLLOW OUT!

by Steve Fair

 

In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed into law a bill that created a new federal agency and a cabinet position focused on education.  The bill was opposed by many in the GOP, who saw creation of the department as unconstitutional, unnecessary, and federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.  But alas, the United States Department of Education (USDOE) began operating in May 1980. 

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan called for the total elimination of the newly created U.S. Department of Education.  After he was elected, President Reagan reduced the budget at USDOE, but by the time he left office in 1989, the Gipper had increased the budget at USDOE.  To be clear, Republican leaders have been inconsistent on the elimination of USDOE.

In March, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) directing the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to facilitate the close of the USDOE and 'return education authority to the States.'  Permanent elimination of the USDOE requires 60 votes in the Senate, so until the GOP gets a few more seats in the upper chamber, USDOE will still exist.

Like all government agencies, the USDOE has grown over the years.  In 1980, the USDOE budget was $13 billion.  In 2024, it was $238 billion dollars.  At its creation, the agency had 3,000 employees.  Until President Trump's EO, the staff had grown to 4,133.  Trump's EO cut the staff to 2,183. 

In March 2023, a House Republican effort to abolish the USDOE failed because sixty (60) Republican members joined Democrats and voted against the measure.  Three observations:

First, education should be controlled at the local level.  Community control over curriculum, funding and operations will align public education with local values.  That has been the fundamental issue.  The USDOE has required local school districts to promote diversity, inclusion, and social issue ideologies inconsistent with local values to get federal funding.  Instead of encouraging more parental involvement, the USDOE's actions has created conflict rather than collaboration.  

Second, Oklahoma should be granted a Return to the States waiver.  Back in August, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was in Oklahoma on her 'Return Education to the States' tour.  She participated in Governor Stitt's signing of SB#796.  SB#796 prohibits institutions within the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education from using taxpayer money to support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs or activities.  McMahon has publicly supported local control of education.

Last week, McMahon announced Iowa was the first state approved for a 'Returning Education to the States' waiver.  It will give the state more control over nearly $9.5 million in federal education funding over the next four years.  Iowa had asked to control all $157 million they get from the feds, but only were granted control of $9.5 million, but that's a start. "We know that (one size fits all) mandates fail. States should lead. Washington should support their sound approaches and get out of the way," McMahon said. 

The waiver allows the Iowa Department of Education to give local school districts local flexibility in how their federal money is spent.  Expect federal educational dollars to be pushed to the local level over the next three years under the Trump administration.

Third, the USDOE should be eliminated.  The Republican Party's consistent stated position for the past 45 years has been one of opposition to a large federal role in education, but the walk hasn't matched the talk.  Virtually every GOP candidate campaigns for the elimination or significant downsizing of the USDOE, but it still exists. 

Getting moderate Republicans in the House and Senate to terminate the agency are not likely to happen.  Trump understands that so his strategy is to 'hollow out' the USDOE.

A significant percentage of federal education tax dollars are spent on red tape (compliance).  According to McMahon, teachers leave the profession because they spend too much time filling out compliance forms and neglect actual teaching. 

It's past time to excavate the USDOE and leave a shell.

 

DON'T CALIFORNIA OUR OKLAHOMA!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

by Steve Fair

 

Benjamin Franklin said, "the world is run by those that show up."  Talking and having good intentions don't cut it.  Sporadic, inconsistent, patchy involvement produces little. True meaningful influence and progress are the fruit of people who consistently put in the effort and do the work.  Most who 'show up' are not flamboyant or theatrical.  They are methodical and structured.  They are not influenced by hyperbole, exaggeration, and sensationalism.  They walk the walk, not just talk the talk. 

 Advocates for changing Oklahoma's primary election system point to the state's low voter turnout, which ranked last nationally in 2024.  They claim going to a California model primary system will increase voter turnout.  But that hasn't been the case in California.  California’s turnout was down (-5%) in 2024, so that theory is flawed.  Three observations:

 First, voter turnout is a science.  It's also big business.  Political operatives charge big bucks to help campaigns determine who will vote. They charge more money to 'get out the vote.'  The goal is to get 'their voters' to the polls.  They will use whatever means necessary.  For them, it's a game of numbers.  By getting their voters to the polls at a higher rate than their opponent, their odds of winning increases.  Many campaigns aren't above lying, cheating or stealing to 'get the vote out.'  Sadly, situational ethics reign in politics.    

 Second, Oklahoma has a turnout problem.  In 1992, Oklahoma's voter turnout was 58.8% and ranked 24th in the country- 4 points higher than the national average.  It has steadily declined through the years.  In 2024, only 55.3% of voters cast a ballot in the Sooner state- dead last in U.S.  There are a variety of reasons people don't vote, but the solution isn't revamping a primary system that is both fair and logical.  The fix is to educate fellow citizens and encourage more people to show up.  But that requires long term commitment by citizens and political leaders, something neither has proven to embrace.  Until Okies take more equity in their own government, expect turnout to be an embarrassment.  FYI- until 2024, Texas voter turnout has consistently been lower than Oklahoma.

 Third, low information voters are easily manipulated.  Poorly informed voters represent a huge opportunity for political operatives.  By using emotional appeals and misleading tactics to influence voter behavior, the uninformed become simply a tool to win.  Misleading, caricatured distortions of opponent’s positions rule the day.  The principled practice unprincipled tactics to win.  Capitalizing on voter's laziness and unencumbered with integrity, political ads, mailers and messaging placate and kowtow potential voters.

 Some believe low information voters should simply stay home, but that is not the answer.  The solution is to encourage, educate, and develop fellow citizens into strong-willed, resolute, unimpressionable voters that can't be exploited, but that requires too much work for most politicos.      

 Three things to remember about the SQ#836 petition: (1) Oklahoma's current primary system isn't broken or unfair.  (2) Changing to a California style primary system will not increase voter turnout.  (3) SQ#836 would increase the number of 'low information' voters.

 Don't sign the SQ#836 petition.  Don't California our Oklahoma!  Start showing up!

A MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS IS AMERICAN!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS

by Steve Fair

 

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Express (FIRE) is a group founded in 1999 by a college history professor and a civil rights attorney.  Their goal is to defend the right of free speech on college campuses.  FIRE fights censorship on campuses and attacks on individual fundamental freedoms. 

For the sixth year in a row, FIRE surveyed college undergraduates about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.

This year’s survey includes 68,510 students from 257 colleges across the nation.  The results can be read at https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2026-college-free-speech-rankings.

The survey showed a record number of students say it’s okay for students to shout down speakers, obstruct event entrances, or use violence to stop opposing views.  166 of the 257 schools received a failing grade on free speech.  Another 64 got a 'D' grade.  Many of those getting an 'F' were the most prestigious institutions in the country.  Three observations:

First, colleges have become institutions of indoctrination.   College used to be a place for the free and robust exchange of ideas.  Critical thinking was taught.  Professors challenged students to defend their positions by encouraging them to form their own opinions.  College professors demand conformity, abidance, and compliance.  Freedom of thought or disagreeing with the views of the text or teacher is not tolerated.  All in the name of tolerance.  Many conservative college students just regurgitate what the liberal prof expects to get through the class.  Rather than waste their time arguing with someone who requires total agreement with their views, students humor the idiot and move on.  That's not higher education, that's brainwashing.   

In 1967, the University of Chicago issued the Kalven Report in response to student protests over the war in Vietnam.  It argued that universities should remain neutral on political and social issues to foster lively debate.  "The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic," the report concluded. 

Second, free speech is not a partisan issue.  Free speech cuts both ways.  No matter the political ideology, everyone in America is constitutionally guaranteed the right to their opinion- and the right to express it.  Liberals and conservatives should be united in protecting the right of everyone to free speech.  They should embrace the right of someone to be wrong.  Sadly, attacks are free speech come from every corner of political ideology.   

Third, a marketplace of ideas is an American ideal.  America's founders believed open debate allowed for the testing and refining of ideas, that led to the discovery of truth and better judgment.  They did not believe in suppressing opposing viewpoints. 

The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, the Founders believed “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”

The disturbing finding in the poll was that a significant number of current college students believe violence is an acceptable response to someone having a differing view from theirs.  Violence is never the answer to disagreement in politics.  Dr. Martin Luther King said, "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy." 

In 2026, Americans better learn to agree to disagree without bloodshed. Otherwise, our way of life will be in jeopardy.

Taxpayers beware! Schemes to eliminate taxes just shift collection!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

THE DEVIL YOU KNOW

by Steve Fair

 

Oklahomans pay property tax administered at county level.  Property taxes are a funding source for local services like public schools, county government, career tech, and rural firefighting.  About 70% of property tax paid in Oklahoma goes to education.   The amount of property tax is determined by the value of a property's fair market value, assessment ratio, any exemptions, and the local millage rate.

State Senator David Bullard, (R- Durant) has introduced Senate Joint Resolution #23.(SJR23) aka the 'Ad Valorem Reform Act of 2026,." aka SQ#841.  Bullard is proposing Oklahoma voters be given the chance to vote on freezing and/or completing eliminating property tax for homeowners.  To make up the lost revenue, SJR23 would eliminate, he proposes citizens pay more in sales tax.

“For far too long, Oklahomans have essentially been renting their property from the government.  After all, do we really own our property if we pay taxes on it?" Bullard asks.

Bullard said any changes to the tax system would need to be implemented gradually to avoid destabilizing local budgets.  “We can eliminate this unjust tax, but any changes must be implemented slowly and carefully to ensure we don’t defund our schools or counties,” he said.   Three observations:

First, Bullard makes a good point about property tax.  If a citizen's property can be seized for non-payment of taxes, does the owner truly own it?  It's a good question, but not a new one.  It's been debated since the founding of America.  A settled aspect of the law is paying taxes is considered a reasonable condition of property ownership.  Courts have consistently ruled the government has the ability to seize property for lawful debts (with due process).

SJR23 seeks to shift simply collection of the lost revenue to another place- it wouldn't eliminate taxes.  It is possible citizens could pay more taxes to fund the listed entities. 

Second, a consumption tax is the most transparent.  With a consumption tax, citizens pay taxes when they choose to spend money.  The decision on how much tax you pay is through spending habits.  A consumption tax encourages savings, which boosts the economy and increases productivity and wages for all income levels. 

That's the problem with an income tax.  According to a study by the CATO institute, the current progressive tax system in America has the top half of income earners in the U.S. paid 97.1% of the $4.9 trillion of the federal income tax collected last year.  31.2% of Americans pay zero federal income tax.  A consumption tax simplifies taxes, eliminates deductions, and loopholes, making government more transparent. But few citizens track how much sales tax they pay. 

Third, Oklahoma's property tax is about average in the U.S.  The Sooner state ranks #25 nationally in property tax.  Oklahomans pay 0.77% of assessed value annually in property tax.  Texas ranks #7 in property tax, Kansas #12, but neither of those states have a state income tax.  Colorado and New Mexico have lower property tax rates- Missouri about the same.  Oklahoma's tax burden is #21 in the country.  The Sooner state ranks #43 in per capita income.  Therein lays the problem- Oklahomans remain overtaxed and underpaid.

Three things are certain- death, taxes, and politicians talking about taxes.  No one likes taxes, but making radical changes on how revenue is collected should be taken very seriously.  Oklahomans may not like paying taxes on property they own, but they can see how much they pay each year.  They are not likely to track how much sales tax they will pay each year to replace property tax.

SJR#23 has appeal in theory, but implementation is too sketchy.  Oklahomans should probably stick with the devil they know. 

WHERE WAS FAIRNESS WHEN DEMOCRATS RULED OKLAHOMA?

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

CAN’T BEAT ‘EM, JOIN ‘EM

by Steve Fair

 

For almost a century after statehood, the Democrat Party dominated Oklahoma politics.  From statehood (1907) until 1973, Democrats held over 80% of the seats in the state legislature.  The first eighteen governors after statehood were Democrats.  For over 65 years, the majority of Oklahoma's members of Congress were Democrats.  When Okies went to register to vote, they were told by election board officials they 'had to register Democrat,' or they wouldn't get to vote in county elections. Giving out that counsel was illegal, but it was common practice. 

 

When Ronald Reagan ran in 1976, that changed.  Reagan appealed to conservative Democrats and they changed their registration.  In 2004, Republicans gained a majority in the State House and they haven't looked back.  Republicans currently hold all statewide elected offices, both U.S. Senate seats, all U.S. House districts, and have supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature.  As of January 2025, over 52% of registered voters in Oklahoma are Republican, while only about 26% are registered Democrats.  Oklahoma has voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1968 (except for the Lyndon Johnson landslide in 1964), and no Democratic candidate has won a single county in the state in any election since 2004. 

To say the tide has turned is an understatement.

 

Tired of losing, Democrat leaders embraced a different strategy.  Recognizing the only way to win was to be an R, they encouraged former Democrats to join the Republican Party.  Their motto has become; if you can't beat them, join 'em.  The result has been a large number of RINOs (Republican in Name Only) being elected .  But Democrats still were losing.  Their next step was to claim Republicans were unfair for not allowing non-Republicans to select their Parties' nominee.  They want to change Oklahoma's closed primary system to a California style primary, where everyone runs in the primary- no matter Party affiliation- and the top two vote getters go the general election.  SQ #836 supporters are out in force and have until the end of January to get the necessary signatures to get it on the ballot.  Three observations:

 

First, Democrats didn't complain when they dominated Oklahoma politics.  In fact, they fought an effort to make county offices non-partisan.  When they were winning, they were uncooperative and ignored Republicans. 

 

Second, Oklahoma does have an apathy issue.  Oklahoma was dead last in the country in voter turnout for the last two presidential elections (2020 and 2024).  But the solution is not SQ#836- it's education.  It's encouraging fellow citizens to pay attention to what elected officials do after they are elected and holding them accountable.  That takes time and effort. 

 

Oklahoma has a substantial number of voters registered Independent.  Independents are traditionally not faithful voters.  In a closed primary state, a voter should pick a side and align with the Party that best represents their values. 

 

Third, SQQ#836 would move Oklahoma to the left.  That Is the whole point of SQ#836.  It isn't about fairness or increasing voter turnout.  It's about changing Oklahoma to a more liberal state. 

 

In the next couple of weeks, signature solicitors will be stationed at retail outlets telling voters Oklahoma's primary system is unfair.  But recognize SQ#836 is just the Democrat's effort to win elections.  They could care less about fairness.  Don't sign the petition!