Wednesday, December 2, 2009








Our 12 noon luncheon for Wednesday, December 2nd will be held at Italiano’s restaurant, 4801 North Lincoln in OKC. I am still trying to contact Moshe Tal to speak this Wednesday before the MAPS III vote so our members can have some understanding as to how the “good old boy”

network in OKC operates. He went from the president of the brick town merchants association to worse than the dust of the earth, perhaps because he wouldn’t go along to get along. If he can’t be with us, we will show the DVD, Freedom on the Alter. This is an expose on the UN’s agenda toward religious freedoms.


TUESDAY - SOUTH OKC AREA - The next training session for legislative lobby training and being an effective member of the Republican party will be held at the Southern Oaks Library, 6900 South Walker in OKC on Tuesday, December 1st. The time will be 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.. The training is being conducted by conservative organizations with some of the speakers having many years of activism under their belts.

THURSDAY - TULSA AREA - Oklahomans For Sovereignty And Free Enterprise (OK-SAFE) will hold their monthly Action Forum in the Tulsa area on Thursday evening, December 3rd from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Hardesty Regional Library, 93rd and South Memorial in Tulsa. The subject will be about citizen involvement to make a difference in the state legislature. These training sessions are really important, especially for the many new activists as the legislature will convene in about 2 months.

FRIDAY - CENTRAL OKLAHOMA - The central Oklahoma members of the John Birch Society will host their annual Christmas dinner and fund raising auction, this Friday evening, December 4th, 7:00 p.m. at the Character First Center, 520 West Main in downtown OKC. The cost for the meal is $10 per person. Each family should bring a quality auction item, suggestions are homemade breads, pastries, home canned jams, sporting tickets, unused time share times, art, gift baskets or other items of interest.

Our annual Christmas dinner is always an enjoyable event and great opportunity to meet and visit with fellow Birch members as well as other friends. As always, I have a challenge. The man decked out with the most flashy Christmas tie or attire will receive their Christmas dinner on me. I lost this contest last year and am determined not to lose again. So wives, dress that hubby up to the hilt with Christmas “bling” and bring it on, I dare yah to try and beat me this year.

In all seriousness, this is our annual fund raiser for our many projects and information distribution for the next year. Don’t miss this fun event. So the food service can know how much food to prepare, please RSVP by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday the 2nd at 348-9991. Please call during office hours. I urge all Birch members and other friends to attend.


A couple of weeks ago I mentioned the risks of all the new activists getting caught up in an effort to convene a constitutional convention, better known as a con-con. During the legislative session earlier this year, Oklahoma passed legislation RECINDING all our previous calls for a con-con. We joined about a dozen other states that have done the same over the past 10 or 15 years. However, I am not sure many of the lawmakers now serving in state legislatures know of the real danger behind calling a con-con.

When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, we had to fight a though 8 year long war to make our independence stick.

Following the war we were governed by what was known as The Articles of Confederation. There were a couple of problems which existed, so a constitutional convention was convened to address these limited problems. Rather than tightening up the loose ends, the delegates to the convention threw out the Articles of Confederation and created a whole new government, with its parameters defined by our current Constitution. The point to note is the purpose for a con-con was limited, but the outcome was broad and wide, a new government.

While article 5 of our current Constitution allows for the states to call for a con-con, we have never done so since the one time in the 1780s. The danger in convening a con-con today is that it would be impossible to limit it to one or just a few limited issues. If a con- con were convened today it is VERY, VERY, VERY unlikely to have the caliber of delegates attending a con-con today that we had when our founders crafted our nation.

The pressure for a con-con today arises out of the understanding that we are facing serious problems in our nation. So people, perhaps well meaning folks, want to try and fix those problems by “adjusting” our system. However, our problems aren’t a result of a broken system, but rather a poor quality citizenry, the ones who operate the system. Our biggest problem is that elected officials and the Judiciary ignore or pervert the Constitution. If they pervert and ignore the highest “rule of law” today, what makes anyone think they will obey and uphold an adjusted Constitution?

As a matter of fact, I would suggest some of the previous amendments such as the 16th which created the income tax was a change that has led to the kind of oppressive control and favoritism we experience in our nation today. In addition, when we passed the 17th we allowed for direct election for U.S. Senators, rather than have the state legislators elect our Senators. That was the change that opened the door for the many massive unfunded mandates upon the states by the ever growing tyranny of the federal government. The average citizen is not well informed about un-funded mandates or how to stop them, but state lawmakers who have to scramble to obey them are well acquainted with those problems and they would make sure the Senate was controlled by people who were not inclined toward pushing the states around.

The reality is, the delegates of a modern day con-con could completely throw out our current Constitution and the Bill of Rights to create something very different, something very inferior to our current Constitution. Advocates of a con-con explain; any new document would have to be ratified by three fourths of the states. That requirement is a part of our current document, a new document might not require that at all. In addition, given the current historical, economic and constitutional ignorance, I am not so sure there wouldn’t be three fourths of the states that would be willing to ratify a very different form of government. Do you want to take that chance?

Talk radio host Neal Bortz, having grown impatient with the efforts to bring about the Fair Tax (something I really support), has become a proponent for a con-con. One day while listening to his program dedicated to such an effort, one caller after another called in with an idea of one more issue to add to a constitutional convention.

Believe me, those ideas for just one more issue will be the demands on a convention and that is why is will get OUT of control if one is convened.

An Oklahoma lawmaker recently forwarded me an e-mail he received from a person representing an organization promoting a con-con. The president of the organization listed 6 proposed amendments (some of them are really bad, intended to move us toward a direct democracy).

In addition he offered to provide model legislation for each state to use to call for a con-con. The e-mail went on to inform, that all 7,400 lawmakers in the various states were being sent the e-mail and a web-site was being created for constituents to be able to determine if their personal lawmaker was on board with a con-con.

Our problem in America today is that of a poor quality citizenry, largely ignorant of history, economics and having a post Christian moral code. We don’t have a problem with our system, we have a people problem. To try and solve our problem by changing our system rather than educating people is like a person on a highway with a destination in mind. That person becomes distracted and takes a rabbit trail down into a deep ditch on the LEFT side of the road, a trail that leads him on a wild goose chase through a briar patch. God help us, we must say no to any attempt at a con-con as it is completely off base in any effort to fix our nation.


This past legislative session I found myself in the middle of a growing divide between liberty minded conservatives on the one hand who don’t want to live in a “big brother” surveillance society, and conservatives who were very concerned with the threats to our nation and culture as a result of the massive invasion of illegal aliens.

This past week, Carol Helm, founder and director of the organization Immigration Reform in Oklahoma Now (IRON) sent out an e-mail. I believe it had as an intention to harm or pressure State Senator Randy Brogdon , also a candidate for governor, into support for an increased level of a surveillance society. I am a former supporter of IRON and am just as concerned today as I was over the past few years about the many problems associated with illegal aliens. I was a supporter of HB 1804, the legislation passed during the 2007 legislative session which deals, on a state level, with the problems associated with the illegal alien invasion. I am still a supporter of HB 1804 with the exception of the electronic verification (E-VERIFY) provision in the legislation.

In Carol Helm’s attack on Senator Brogdon, she failed to quote his full statement. Brogdon said “I co-authored HB 1804 but my concern is the federal government could use the information illegally much like Real ID. I have a real problem with E-Verify and I’ll tell you why, it requires that you give up your personal information that can be shared with the government database.”

We have done many programs at OCPAC on the illegal alien problems as well as programs on the threat of an international ID system using biometric facial imaging. The serious danger is turning that facial recognition system used on our driver’s licenses into being used for an international identification system. Those of us opposed to the invasion of illegal aliens are simply going to have to find a way to solve this problem without using E-Verify or other bio-metric imaging systems. However, I don’t believe Carol Helm or State Representative Randy Terrill are willing abandon that system.

Representative Terrill did a masterful job in pushing HB 1804 through the legislative process and I strongly support his efforts to allow us to vote next November to establish English as the official language for the state of Oklahoma. In many ways he has been a conservative hero, but if he doesn’t back off the efforts to turn us into a surveillance society then he will change from a hero to a goat.

Fortunately Senator Brogdon is not so focused on one problem that he is willing to put us at risk with the far greater problem, the threat to our liberty and the ability to live in a free society, not continually under the watchful eye of big brother. Speaking of big brother, have you seen the news reports about the installation of cameras to read the bar codes on our tags to determine if we have insurance? Not having insurance is a problem, but cameras watching our every move is not the answer.


So far there are only two Republican candidates for Governor, State Senator Randy Brogdon and U.S. Representative Mary Fallin. There are only 2 candidates for Lt. Governor, State Senator Todd Lamb and State Representative John Wright. The Attorney General Race has attorney Ryan Leonard from OKC and State Senator Clark Jolley of Edmond.

Reliable sources have told me former State Senator Scott Pruitt is still looking at the AG race. Janet Barresi of Edmond and Shawn Hime of Enid are both running for State Superintendent of Schools. Jason Reese, an OKC attorney is running for State Labor Commissioner.

Sources have told me former Edmond Mayor Saundra Naifeh is also considering the labor commissioner race. I am sure Dana Murphy will run for re-election for the Corporation Commission seat that is up for this election cycle. Thus far, former State Senator Owen Laughlin of Woodward and current State Representative Ken Miller of Edmond are the two candidates for State Treasurer.

I believe the only state wide race that the Republicans have no candidate for is the very important State Auditor’s race. While this is not an open seat, it is one a quality candidate could pick up as the current auditor is a recent gubernatorial appointee to replace the recently convicted former auditor Jeff McMahan. This past week current Republican State Party Chair, Gary Jones filed a law suit seeking damages against McMahan, former auditor Clifton Scott, and former Senator Gene Stipe for their alleged roles in cheating Jones out of a fair election.

I am wondering if Jones is positioning himself through the lawsuit for another run for Auditor? During the campaign for State Chair earlier this year he promised he would not run for that position again. Next year should be a huge year for Oklahoma Republicans, so I hope we can come up with a quality candidate for auditor. To have a good chance at cleaning up some of the deeply embedded corruption in the state, it will be imperative to have an independent thinking attorney general and state auditor working together in a spirit of cooperation.

When we get to the federal government races, we don’t see any challengers to U.S. Senator Tom Coburn. In the first congressional district, incumbent John Sullivan of Tulsa picked up a conservative challenger by the name of Nathan Dahm. Many of the grassroots activists who helped elect Sullivan have abandoned him for his lack of consistency. Dahm has an engineering background and spent several years in Romania as a Christian Missionary. He was one of the speakers at the END THE FED rally a week ago Sunday and was most impressive. I believe there may also be additional candidates get into this race.

In the second district, Democrat Congressman Boren has drawn at least

5 Republican challengers. Some of these folks are working very hard to unseat our lone Democrat in Washington. I believe the strongest candidate will emerge and if that candidate is able to raise enough money to be viable, that person will have a real chance to defeat little Dan with the Boren’s big last name.

There does not seem to be a Republican challenger in the 3rd district to challenge Congressman Frank Lucas. That may be because Lucas was the only U.S. Representative from Oklahoma to vote against the $700 billion TARP bail out legislation.

U.S. Representative Tom Cole of the 4th district may have the most difficult primary race of any of the Republican incumbents. Cole is our most liberal Republican Congressman and drew a challenger about a year ago. The challenger is a war veteran and current law student, R.J. Harris of Norman. I also just received an e-mail from Jeff Pritchard of Mustang that he will enter the race for Cole’s seat.

Pritchard describes himself as a Constitutionalist. There may be more to get into this race before it is all over.

The 5th District race, being vacated by Representative Mary Fallin will be a most interesting race. I believe the first Republican to announce was former State Representative Kevin Calvey of Del City.

Current State Representative Mike Thompson of OKC was the second candidate and Dr. Johnny Roy, of Edmond was the third candidate to announce. He was followed by Bethany businessman Rick Flannigan and then the Falls Creek Youth Camp Director, James Lankford. Mr. Lankford announced in September. About a month ago Corporation Commissioner Jeff Cloud announced he intentions and then a week ago a fellow by the name of Paul Arabie threw his hat in the ring. There may be more to come.

Starting in February of next year we will invite all of the candidates for an interview process. Our voting members will vote to endorse a candidate in all of these races or vote not to make an endorsement.

Next year’s election process should be most interesting. It will be important to see if the tea party and 912 folks will make a significant contribution toward electing conservative candidates rather than just the run of the mill good old boy Republicans or whacky Democrats.

I look forward to seeing everyone this Wednesday.

Charlie Meadows

1 comment:

Bill Walker said...

The author makes several statements about an Article V Convention which are either misstatements or in some cases lies. I suspect he actually does not know the truth because he quotes sources who have taken the time to support a convention that he references.

To refute all of his statements simply would require too much space for reply. Instead, I suggest you go to and read the 750 applications from all 50 states for an Article V Convention. Then ask if the states were so afraid of a convention why would they submit some 20 times the number of applications required by the Constitution to call a convention? Congress of course has refused to obey the Constitution which obviously the author supports.

The author is a constitutional hypocrite. If you read his work he urges the Constitution be obeyed. But then he also urges it be vetoed by the government. How can he say he supports something he is on public record as opposing?

As to the John Birch Society, I suggest you read: and