What in the world happened…?

Last Tuesday’s election was to me – surprising. I was hopeful that Oklahomans would stand up for themselves and declare that they are in charge.

Well, I was proved wrong. Oklahomans declared that they are more than willing to be stepped upon – indeed, with much fanfare and hubdaloo. Why was this so? I have three reasons –

  1. Misinformation, or lack of information altogether. For instance, in the senate race, it seemed like most everyone thought it was between Shannon and Lankford. But there were some other very well qualified conservatives with better political values than Shannon and Lankford. Then too, the people challenging Fallin were little known outside of the liberty movement here in Oklahoma.
  2. People are afraid of changing the status quo. Or they don’t want to. They say they do – but the actions expressed in the privacy of the voting booth speak much louder than that. People don’t actually want to change things as much as they say they do. Either they’re afraid of what may happen or they are comfortable enough as it is. I don’t really know.
  3. “He doesn’t have a chance” If everyone who said that actually voted upon principle maybe we wouldn’t have such awful politicians. But, as we see, people are perfectly content with having candidates handed to them.

However, it isn’t all bad. We spread the message of liberty and it can only spread more and more. And, at least in the governor election, there is a ray of hope.

It has a name. Richard Prawdzienski. Libertarian running for the governor office, on the independent ticket – he seems to be known in Oklahoma liberty circles but more awareness needs to be raised outside of those circles.

But we have a bit of time to do so.

The alignment of Conservatism and Libertarianism…

Past couple of posts have been my comments on local – and very heated – politics. Taking a short break from that, I’d like to address something of great encouragement to all advocates of liberty – the alignment of conservatism and libertarianism.

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a republican candidate form at a Norman public library. Mr. Ewbank, Mr. Brogdon, and Mr. Moody were there, along with other speakers who all spoke very well.

All the republican candidates, conservatives by our standards, cast support to the idea of decriminalization of marijuana.

Now remember, this should never be the most important topic. It shouldn’t be the thing we go out and vote on. But it is, in a way, symbolic.

I noticed, in a small way, conservatism is evolving. Evolving from what I call the contradictory conservatism of decades past. The conservatism which advocates freedom but still seeks to regulate activities within the home. The conservatism which advocates for low public spending but still seeks to spend excessively on defense. Evolving slowly into the conservatism of reason, one that deals with contradictions and handles them in a reasonable manner.

A conservatism which does not legislate on what it likes and what it does not like, a conservatism which does not legislate personal morals, but instead legislates based on the idea that you are free to do as you please so long as it’s effects do not reach others. The greatest (true) compromise.

If the republican party were smart (and I speak as an outsider, personally I think political parties are harmful to freedom) it would embrace this evolution. Will they? The republican establishment wants nothing more than to loose, it seems, so likely not, not for a very long time.

Comments, always appreciated, by the author of this blog.-

Contradictions, and denial…

…words that describe the campaign of Lankford.

Well stated here at this Place and elsewhere, Lankford’s words so very often contradict his actions, and as the heat is building up in our figurative kitchen, Lankford supporters are going to extreme lengths to defend or justify this.

Yet then there is outright denial on the part of Lankford supporters. It’s almost amusing to hear what they say, but the future of Oklahoma and in a way, the U.S., is at stake.

TW Shannon is not a conservative either. I do admire that he is willing to stand up to Lankford and point out that Lankford isn’t all he’s cracked up to be. No doubt, however, that is only to advance his own campaign.

If you’re a conservative or libertarian (the two philosophies are aligning closer and closer, more words to come on that, later…) wondering who to vote for, it’s neither.

Lankford, as we know, had a 71 percent conservative voting record, and Shannon, 74 percent. That won’t help when times get tough in DC, and the country.

Lankford: “The issues that I’m being attacked on are issues that say, basically, you should close the government”

The government wasn’t closed! Essential functions were still in operation – and it should be asked, if they aren’t essential, why are they functions of the government to begin with? Perfect opportunity to stand up for his conservative principles and add backing to all his nice words, but, he blew it, compromising for a little peace in Washington.

[For my further words on Compromise, I will direct you to a past blog article, written before the heat up of the election season https://alexallenblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/compromise-isnt-actually-all-that-great/  ]

I have said much against Lankford lately, but I’m going to take this opportunity to build another up.

It’s always the honest candidates not talked about in the mainstream. They don’t have the millions of dollars from super pacs or dark money behind them. Rather, they rely upon dedicated support of honest people willing to do political homework, and not to take them at words only.

Randy Brogdon is that sort of candidate, who does not operate his campaign on dark money but rather on the support of average Oklahomans. He has a 93% conservative action rate. And for those who say he does not have a chance: if everyone who said that voted for him, he would actually have a chance.

Your comments, always appreciated, by the author of this blog. –

Lankford isn’t all he’s cracked up to be…

…dare I say it?

On June 24 droves of Oklahomans will mozy on out to the polls and vote, and a great majority of them will vote for Lankford, based on what he has said and what he did with their beloved Falls Creek.

TW Shannon, not a man I support, but apparently one to say things as they are, has sent out all sorts of “negative” or “attack” ads against Lankford, the supposed conservative candidate.

And instead of addressing these accusations (all seem to be true) Lankford instead goes and sits in the corner and cries that negativity is being added to the race. His recent facebook post:

“More attack/negative mail on me hit mailboxes around the state. They have spent over a million dollars just on negative attacks. This is truly becoming a test in Oklahoma if negative attack mail / ads “work” – As Oklahomans we say we don’t like negative campaigns, we can prove it one week from today and change the direction of all future campaigns.”

Pretty words, but: is it negative if it’s true?

Facts are dependable things. And the facts state that thrice he voted to raise the debt ceiling in the name of ‘compromise’ (now well established, here at this place and elsewhere, really means giving in) to the tune of trillions plundered from everyone. Inadvertently, he allowed through these debt ceiling raises, over five hundred million dollars to go to Planned Parenthood. Now, how’s that for a Falls Creek director?

He dodges questions, he dances around them. Town halls hosted by him are a farce at best; questions are screened prior to the discussion.

I for one cannot understand the allure of Lankford to Oklahomans. Now, we see people are in denial – “it can’t be true that he doesn’t practice what he preaches!”

Folks, Shannon and Lankford aren’t the only two involved in this race. Randy Brogdon, a man of faith and principle, is a true conservative/liberty candidate who will actually act his ideals, not just talk about them. Why not consider him for the primary vote? Or do we want the continued reign of Lankford, who installed air conditioners and comfy seats in an amphitheater within an overrated church camp?

 

The intellectual absurdity of the concept of ‘legalization’

A very smug article was published in the daily disappointment (The Oklahoman) of July 6th if I’m not mistaken. Rather, an editorial, which questioned the “qualifying conditions” of medical marijuana use. (Specifically, constitutional amendment 37 which would legalize marijuana for medical purposes in Oklahoma.)

I will quote a bit. “Other provisions of the proposal provide cause for skepticism about the initiative’s true goal. Under the proposal, anyone who lacks a medical marijuana license but is caught in possession of up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana (or up to six cannabis plants) would have only a misdemeanor charge if that individual ‘can state a qualifying medical condition…’

“In other words, as long as you can remember to say ‘dude, I have chronic headaches,’ marijuana cultivation would be only a misdemeanor, not a felony, even if you have no license. “

Funny how some people like to think they know what’s best for other people.  Maybe the person in question (if we are to stoop to hypotheticals) actually thinks that marijuana has a positive effect on headaches.

I don’t personally think weed is all that good of an idea, but because I am not a doctor nor am a scientist, I can’t question its medical effectiveness. Nor can I say anything about possible harm.

But I can say that if you think weed is a good idea, and that you enjoy regular use of it, more power to you – just be sure to take the consequences of those actions, which could either be positive or negative.

While we’re here I would also like to make another point. Weed activists question why weed is illegal – the moderate ones question the illegality of medical marijuana, the others question the illegality of marijuana for normal use. But should they not be questioning – on an intellectual level at least – the power of a government to make such things illegal to begin with?

I hold that shouldn’t be within a government’s scope of power. Always eager to hear your thoughts on this, in the comment forum on this article, preferably –