From a friend: SQ777 Right to Farm - Chipping Away at American Principals. This morning I heard Mike Day on the Farm Bureau Oklahoma AG report speak briefly on SQ777. He made the comment that SQ777 will "grant rights to farmers that will rival that of the 1st and 2nd amendments". MAJOR problem with that statement is government cannot grant rights. The state cannot set the priority of rights. The liberals have taken control of the language and manipulated and misused it as such that most Americ

From a friend: SQ777 Right to Farm - Chipping Away at American Principals. This morning I heard Mike Day on the Farm Bureau Oklahoma AG report speak briefly on SQ777. He made the comment that SQ777 will "grant rights to farmers that will rival that of the 1st and 2nd amendments". MAJOR problem with that statement is government cannot grant rights. The state cannot set the priority of rights. The liberals have taken control of the language and manipulated and misused it as such that most Americans no longer understand basic American principles and values. The government has authority to ONLY secure your rights for your free use not create and grant them. If they are ONLY to secure them for your free use then the words "without compelling stat interest" would not be found in the measure. SQ777 is not as straight forward as they say. Bottom line is farmers ALREADY HAVE THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO FARM. The government is currently infringing upon that right. SQ777 solidifies (or lays false claim) that the state can infringe on those rights if there is a "compelling state interest." At best SQ777 is a noble attempt gone horribly wrong and at worst a devious attempt for the state to secure YOUR rights with new state constitutional provisions so the state can dictate to us how and when they are to be used.

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense https://www.facebook.com/577803108906900/posts/1290188561001681

What's Wrong With the Electoral College?

Interest in our system for electing the President of the United States is high. I actually understand why voters feel disenfranchised by the Electoral College as it is presently constituted within …

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense http://okgrassroots.com/?p=642696

H/T to our friend Mark Thomas: The debate around 777 is a real case study to me. I have had people actually tell me that the language does not qualify our rights. Mark Yates, who is one of the original proponents of 777, told me that the use of the language " without a compelling state interest" places any legislation under higher scrutiny, that the courts will be able to strike down any legislation that does meet the compelling state interest test. When you look at the language in 777 and compa

H/T to our friend Mark Thomas: The debate around 777 is a real case study to me. I have had people actually tell me that the language does not qualify our rights. Mark Yates, who is one of the original proponents of 777, told me that the use of the language " without a compelling state interest" places any legislation under higher scrutiny, that the courts will be able to strike down any legislation that does meet the compelling state interest test. When you look at the language in 777 and compare it to the language found in the second amendment of the US Constitution, this argument of the compelling state interest setting a "higher" level of scrutiny just doesn't fly. The language in the second amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed". The phrase "shall not' is an emphatic denial or refusal of the verb "be infringed". The test of high scrutiny gets no higher than that. The other argument is that the phrase compelling state interest doesn't qualify the ability of the legislature to act. Here is the language right of the ballot description of the question: no law can interfere with these rights, unless the law is justified by a compelling state interest—a clearly identified state interest of the highest order. Additionally, the law must be necessary to serve that compelling state interest. The Oklahoma State Attorney just said in it's explanation that your right could be interfered with, and told you just how it would happen, by justification of the compelling state interest, and yet supporters of 777 say it can't happen. Let that sink in a minute. So the whole debate is 777 won't qualify your rights, even though we know that the same concept of compelling state interest set out in 777 has already been proven to do that by the US Supreme Court, and the same is acknowledged by the Oklahoma Attorney General in it's ballot description of 777's intent. Tell me how that is rational because I can't see it.

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense https://www.facebook.com/577803108906900/posts/1287852617901942

Sandra

http://okgrassroots.com/?p=641113 pondering an up date on SQ 792 at present. Studying for the test next week now...

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense http://okgrassroots.com/?p=641113

Photo

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense https://www.facebook.com/LibertyHangout/photos/a.1642726269274289.1073741828.1642685862611663/1817134481833466/?type=3

Video - Why the electoral college and not the popular vote? Here is the explanation.

Why the electoral college and not the popular vote? Here is the explanation.

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU&sns=fb

State Supt. Hofmeister, 4 others charged with conspiracy, violating campaign finance laws

A top-ranked Oklahoma conservative political blog, authored by Jamison Faught.

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense http://www.muskogeepolitico.com/2016/11/state-supt-hofmeister-4-others-charged.html?m=1