Preface: I am starting soon a YouTube podcast (link), linked to the blog (link), in which I discuss local political and social issues, and my experiences talking regularly to the City Council. This will be from the perspective of having grown up an Okie from the countryside in Broken Arrow, OK, and as a traditional, conservative Catholic Christian, pro-Trump, pro-MAGA strict constitutionalist. This will at the very least be, for a while, an extension of the work of the locally oriented blog I’ve written for ten years and connected to it, at the secular and local level.
It would also be the platform in which I would formally announce, if/when I decide to run, my candidacy before the next April, 2027 elections. If I decide to run, the plan is to announce it this April 7th, 2026, in front of BA City Hall, exactly one year before the next elections. And post that video. It’s Stay tuned.
Edit:
I am including here new information gained from emails sent to me by the City Manager (he also cc’d the Mayor and City Council!) giving a long, formal response after consulting the City Clerk’s office, in response to my inquiries before posting this. His response now clearly confirms the below conclusions in this article, me now arriving at what is called “practical certainty.”
I also received no response sent to the mayor, vice mayor, or other Councilors, nor any response for requests for written or podcast interviews with them. (If they ever do, I will update)
It is clear certain of them would have known about this scandal before and during the event. Everything I write here and in related articles is a kind of blogger citizen journalist protected by freedom of the press, and as a potential candidate campaigning for office.
There are as of yet no admissions nor apologies to The People, as asked.
Per his email:
a) He actually admitted in writing, which surprised me, that the group favoring Islam and the building of a local mosque OWNED by a federally identified funder of state terrorism (NAIT), AND also the main known opposition group focusing on land use/infrastructure criticisms (Constitutional Grounds group [CG]) were actually contacted in advance before the meeting. They encouraged them to sign up early before the ACTUAL event, that is separate from those who arrived per the City announcement before the doors opened at 5 pm.
He did not deny the written statement and therefore it seems accepts the statement as true, that the COUNCIL weeks before made it known TO the CG group (as stated on their FB page on 12/30) that the Council wants to hear land use arguments “FIRST before ANY OTHER arguments and from ANY OTHER city’s citizens.” I told him this he a vital piece of evidence, and he did not deny this was the agenda.
THIS (link) was his “formal” response to me asking why most who spoke were clearly not in the first come first serve group who stood in line since about 4 pm (doors opening at 5, the meeting at 6), somehow insisting this doesn’t violate the First Amendment and Open Meetings Act.
b) stated the City let the general public know to sign up early, but that was to sign up AT THE EVENT, which isn’t even in dispute, but clearly the two select groups signed up at an EARLIER time, NOT announced to the public to also sign up.
Pic
c) claims the standard is he and the unelected administration are responsible for answering these objections to the public, not the mayor or other Councilors when emailed by their constituency, when in fact THEY the elected officials are most responsible for violations of speaker order, being the primary leaders legally directing the meeting,
d) says they follow this publication for meeting rules, when asked: The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition.
e) implied I’m to find this book on my own for the answer to my question what explicit written rules they follow for SPEAKER ORDER, without telling me what the book actually SAYS, and implies there are no other rules as far as speaker order they follow, which I requested.
f) He only cc’d a Guidelines pamphlet I had already read during my research, which only talked about signing up AT and just BEFORE the meeting, and NOT rules for speaker order. AS ASKED. Therefore, again obviously one CANNOT sign up earlier in the day or days before. There are no written rules that allow that. Otherwise large groups could sign up far in advance to dominate and win the debate, and he would have told me the book says that is possible.
g) The standard in Oklahoma are Robert’s Rules (link) that direct that speakers are called to speak on a first come first serve basis, based on the ORDER of SIGNING UP. He literally verified throughout his emails the decision was discriminatory, while simultaneously denying discrimination or lack of transparency existed.
h) I’m assuming that book he referenced does not encourage a government to privately, effectively arrange a set of speakers to be the main speakers at a public council meeting, favoring a certain point of view (ex: land use objections vs. objections about extremist teachings in the Koran, the groups links to global terrorism, preserving western Christian culture, Islam’s treatment of women and children, etc). Government and city councils are required to maintain neutrality when it comes to hearing from public speakers to not violate some people’s right to freedom of speech (many Supreme Court rulings address this right).
Maybe in places like North Korea, but not in the United States.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Ok, that was my “Edit” to set the stage for the Investigative Report below, which I already wrote before I consulted the City in fairness, before posting.
Introduction: The Great Facade within BA City Government
The various grave scandals of this event, to be explained in detail below, demonstrate what most in Broken Arrow already certainly assume, that there is corruption at the level of Broken Arrow government and the City Council, that is a certain state of grave evil and dishonesty, for personal gain in all its forms. Not necessarily by all, of course, but a dominate force running throughout the organization.
And by the way, to clarify my metric, I consider for example the endless government approval of Walmart Super-centers and similar big box stores (Home Depot, etc) across nearly every city to be materially and culturally evil. This is especially because monopolies are economically evil, as is government cooperation working with them, whether by Democrats or Republicans.
To reference another example of how I measure good vs. evil at the level of government, I likewise consider BA’s approval of its LGBTQ Pride group to use a city park for its annual events not only to be unconstitutional, that is not truly required of the city government by the constitution, but also the same as opening up an outright diabolical portal from hell releasing legions of demons onto the City at every one of their events. Just so you know my traditional, conservative, Christian perspective on all forms of government corruption.
Why not automatically assume our local government is corrupt?
Government corruption is everywhere, at all levels. Strict constant adherence to our Constitution, the law, and the commandments of God, and His wisdom about how society and government should be ordered, practically mean nothing to government nowadays, as a whole. As a System.
Let’s put it this way. If the popular ancient Roman philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius were alive today, he’d likely compare the corrupt government of his time, which he sought to reform, with heaven on Earth in comparison to the 9nth Circle of Hell that is today’s government.
Federal, State, AND Local.
Our System has largely lost its way. It has diametrically and intentionally departed from God, and our traditional Christian, traditional American, and traditional Western roots. This is what President Trump and the MAGA movement is in
in part defending, however much you might like or dislike Trump. He is inspiring us all by example to defend our nation, traditional faith and morals, heritage, and local communities from radical leftists and globalist elites trying to fully dismantle what is left of the traditional U.S.A.
The Need for a Long Term MAGA Movement and Coalition in BA:
MAGA in its essence is not a revolution to overthrow government and replace it with pure libertarian “leave me the hell alone” anarchy. Rather, in its design, organization, and core leadership, it is a “kind” of political “party” within the GOP and beyond, like the GOP Tea party, being fundamentally Christian, a political counter-revolution to stop liberalism and socialism from completely usurping government and society, while helping to restore our Christian, Western cultural tradition.
This is the very best political group we have right now in history, despite its flaws, and that of its Founder. Trump gave the name MAGA represented by the Red Hats, but he would admit he is sitting on the shoulders of giants like President Reagan or Thomas Jefferson. This patriotic movement for freedom and limited, honest, government did not start with Trump. He is simply the present Torch bearer leading the March to one day drain the Swamp.
Next it will probably be J.D. Vance with Trump still somehow leading the MAGA movement. Perhaps Maralago will eventually become formally MAGA headquarters. This is unless they can find a legal way for Trump to run again in 2028, which is more of a hilarious, benign troll tactic than a real possibility. Hypothetically at some point there could be a constitutional amendment.
Pro-Trump, Pro-MAGA citizens should run for Office against the establishment elites. In Republican cities like BA, let a MAGA coalition be formed to serve as a counterweight to the establishment elites, the RINOs, and the Neo-Cons.
That is anti-establishment populists appearing out of the wood work to engage in heavy competition with GOP loyalists.This situation is cause for ordinary truth-tellers and freedom-fighters to come outside from the shadows and run for Office on a traditional, conservative Christian, constitutionalist platform. Which I hope to be in a position to do.
To help restore true liberty and honest government, and ultimately re-elevate our community to standards that would consistently please God, despite our tendency towards sin. And with the creative power of the internet, social media, blogs, and podcasts, and grass root movements, ordinary men living pay check to pay check can get elected nowadays, at least at first at the local level.
Consider my chosen model, if this becomes my formal commitment:
1) attend city council meetings, including remotely
2) post recordings and analysis of those talks to the council, online,
3) start a local, engaging political podcast,
4) sell MAGA and patriotic merch on the side of the road (and online) at strategic spots around the City on Saturdays, to pay for campaign expenses while also campaigning.
5) Then save up what I can for ads and signs,
6) challenge the opponent to a debate, and
7) have meet-and-greets, like Saturday morning discussions over coffee at Panera Bread near 71st and Aspen.
Do it grassroots style reaching out to all nearby churches, local businesses, and social media influencers who are the most pro-Trump, pro-MAGA.
If I don’t do this, then you or someone you know should do it. Wherever you live, you could do the same. Whether in Hulbert, Wagoner, Coweta, Tulsa, Berryhill, Edmond, or Bethany, Oklahoma (this is a church reference to certain like-minded Okie Catholic Christians who sometimes read this blog, who attend the Traditional Latin Mass, one of the themes of this blog).
Or do this anywhere.
As long as your health and finances basically permit it, you are sane (more or less) and law abiding, it fits your current state in life and vocation, and you have a righteous and true vision and commitment, most any Average Joe can step up to the plate for a few years of their life, at least part time sitting on the City Council as a gadfly crusader for truth and justice against “the System.” It would be something to tell the grand kids or great grand kids about one day, bouncing them on your knee. Or reminisce about when, God forbid, you’re lying in your nursing home bed sipping Ensure waiting in isolation for Judgment Day.
Here is my initial analysis of this meeting: LINK.
Evidence of a Political Facade, in 10 points:
- After much study, analysis, weighing of evidence, and careful thought about this, I can say that it appears that one or more members of the Council, without directly naming individuals at this time, possibly including city staff, ultimately under the legal authority and supervision of Mayor Debra Wimpee, and Vice Mayor, “Member-at-large” Councilman Johnnie Parks, seemingly, unfairly enabled in some way a certain long list of speakers to speak, who essentially wound up unfairly at the head of the line ahead of others who had the right to speak first. Your imagination is as good as mine, how that would have gone down. The result was a false narrative of what certain people wanted news outlets to hear, who were there that night. That is a narrative that, by my reasoning, helps defend the City from a potential future lawsuit filed by the Muslims, highlighting all of the land use or infrastructure criticisms, while simultaneously suppressing too right wing, higher thinking, philosophical, or controversial points of view that could have also contributed that night to a potential lawsuit. This was done by helping to present the BA Muslim community as extraordinarily upstanding citizens, and therefore to not fear them building a mosque as a “religion of peace.” That is if the Council in the end decided to permit the build, which in the end they surprisingly for now denied, at the 129th street South location at least. In my opinion as a local blogger for ten years, it seems as a kind of occasional citizen journalist, and a potential political candidate, who for weeks aimed this blog at this controversial issue, including in the flesh, when it came to the overall organization and sequence of speakers, it appears political expediency won over the law and the Constitution, namely Freedom of Speech. The Council resorting to this shady strategy communicated to The People that this is “business as usual” and beyond impunity. The methods employed appear to have been politically correct legal damage control or risk management due to weeks of social media frenzy that was largely shaping the debate, mostly by those on the Right against the mosque, including, truth be told, some local nutters giving BA a bad reputation as backward bigots. Some still do exist, the subtle remnants of Southern ignorance and prejudice still existing at times within the local fabric. The apparent social engineering that went down that night went against the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, the 1st amendment right to free speech, the 14th amendment right to due process, and the very meaning of Christian democracy. The whole point of allowing The People to come out and speak, is to influence the Council’s Vote through fair and open debate, not simply to pat The People on the head like little children, allowing them merely to satisfy their compulsion to talk. What went down that night also could potentially rise to the level of a crime in Oklahoma. Again, I’m not pointing the finger directly or indirectly at any individual. If I did, or will, it would be as a witness in court or at a local legal public hearing. But you are certainly free to make your own list of most likely suspects, as I have done privately within the internal recesses of my brain. Anyone in authority can honestly investigate this further. I for one have filed ethics complaints with the Oklahoma Republican Party, and intend to also do so with the state Attorney General.
- The hardest evidence is that approximately 40 out of the 45 people I counted able to speak that night, distinct from certain official speakers who talked in the first 30 minutes, seen in the recording of the hearing available on YouTube, were NOT in the photos I took earlier of the front of the line (about the first 60 people in front of me). I say this after hours of very careful observation, including attending the entire event in person, later watching it again twice online, examining many times the photos I took, and examining my conscience before allowing myself to publicly make this statement. Those approximately 40 people were NOT among those people who got there early to stand in line to sign up to speak first come, first serve. Security video would show the same major discrepancy. Many who got there early never got to speak, whereas these 40 people somehow did. The online video announcement of the event put out the week before by the City, which I analyzed three times, said the event starts at 6 pm with doors opening at 5 pm, giving the deadline of 5:50 pm to turn in your sign up form to speak (green or yellow). The public announcement said nothing about people being able to sign up earlier that day or days before, if that was hypothetically the case, that is before the time reasonably expected for a line to form outside the door (before 5 pm). That absurd scenario itself would give certain people in-the-know with high stakes an unfair advantage compared to the general public. Therefore, the most logical explanation instead is that this particular group of speakers were… somehow…pre-arranged. To ensure my conclusions were reasonable, I did an exhaustive analysis twice on different days using AI that gave each time this same result, confirming my own common sense conclusion. This conclusion is greater than 95% certain per Artificial Intelligence, whatever Artificial Intelligence is, you know, worth to you, given its current superhuman level of knowledge and scientific analysis, after plugging into it every little detail and variable to evaluate my suspicion, which you can actually do yourself.
- This is even more obvious considering that there were many Muslim professionals speaking to promote their mosque, in particular doctors, engineers, professors, and self-professed wealthy businessmen, speaking somewhat close to one another in the line of speakers, or in an organized flow mainly towards the beginning, and not scattered among all the speakers during the entire time. These people again were NOT in these photos of the front of the line, in front of me. I literally watched the entire meeting a second time, comparing the face of every speaker to every face in the photos I took of the first section of the line leading up to the only entrance, again around 60 people. Also, consider that the main people on the Council who were keeping track of the sign up forms to speak and announcing who was next to speak were Mayor Wimpee and Vice Mayor, At-large Councilman Parks. As for Parks, consider the facts that he has been in his current position for 15 years, in BA city government across 45 years, and was the only person to vote Yes for the mosque permit. He likely will run again for the At-large position, which would mean I would be running against him if I choose to run. A MAGA anti-establishment conservative political outsider, age 51, running against an incumbent, establishment Republican in his early 70’s.
- Also, consider that the main opposition group “Constitutional Grounds” (CG) led by Republican officer David Oldham and the newly elected Republican state senator Christi Gillespie (said to be the mayor’s close friend) were deliberately given preference in the order of speakers, distinct from those who signed up early “first come, first serve,” standing in line outside early. In other words, they essentially were allowed to “butt in line.” There are two pieces of evidence this is the case. First my own photos of the roughly 60 people at the front of line right in front of me (the line ended up very long, winding around buildings and sections of the university parking lot) cross-referenced with the faces of everyone who talked that night in the video posted online. Second, the CG group literally put it in writing on their FB page (I took a screenshot) that they learned from the city council that they decided to “FIRST” hear those speakers focusing on land use issues (that would be them) literally saying those with other points of view would be allowed later to speak. This decision was never announced at or before the January 12th Special Council Meeting. And the Supreme Court has already ruled many times on scenarios like this, that the government was violating First Amendment rights.
Pic
- Also, despite the stated rule by the mayor that one person FOR the permit would be allowed to speak, followed immediately by one person AGAINST it, and so on, in that order, there was a verifiable pattern from the very beginning showing preference to the PRO side, many times there being 2, 3, or even 4 in a row FOR the mosque. Even after several in the audience called out that the mayor wasn’t following her own rule, she almost immediately continued the same pattern minutes later. And Parks did not stop her, nor anyone else.
- While I myself would have voted No until public safety issues and potential controversial political ideologies could (hypothetically) be first resolved (considering their links with global terrorism via the North American Islamic Trust), Wimpee and Parks nonsensically showed prejudice towards Muslims and people of Arabic ethnicity by many times laughing at the pronunciation of some Arabic names. Talk about Exhibit One if/when this goes to court. The rest of the Council was either silent to their laughter or joined in. While it is understandable not to know certain pronunciations, or even privately and modestly to find the very difficulty with certain pronunciations to be funny, their blatant public laughter—over and over again— further indicated not only certain prejudices, but once again that the hearing was arranged under false pretenses as a proper, respectable, truly democratic event. When it clearly was not. The false pretense was that The People there that night, on both sides of the question, would be truly respected, for democratically, actively contributing as citizens to our democratic process.
- While the previous month’s BA Planning Commission meeting let 70 people speak until late into the evening, ultimately voting to recommend the building permit (caving into political correctness), the Council itself on January 12th cut it short in comparison. It was suddenly and simply stated by one of the more junior Councilwomen that she “had heard enough,” with zero considerate words to the many still waiting to speak, or to hear others speak, including those who got there early to sign up. Even after the vote, there were dozens of people, starting with me, (most there that night were older and mature citizens) calling out in protest, including one Arabic woman and one former Muslim woman/Christian convert. They wanted the chance to talk about how Islam can contribute to domestic abuse of women. Very serious issues like potential abuse of women and children, or the current links to terrorism, were given little to no platform up until that point, effectively suppressed and silenced when the vote was called. It is clear now that was all planned.
- Considering all of the above, and the entire hearing and video of it, considering the totality of the facts, especially all of the photo and video evidence, it seems that two groups of speakers were artificially pre-arranged to create an artificial, unfair, undemocratic debate: 1) the Muslim group, and 2) the “Constitutional Grounds” local civic group opposing the permit almost entirely and nonsensically on the basis of dubious amateur criticisms of land use and infrastructure issues with the property. Yet it appears that a much larger third group was largely excluded. That group was the general population who got there early to stand in line outside to sign up, vs. these two particular groups, with their own bias and particular points of view (about how important land use issues are vs. the other issues, and regarding other specific points and criticisms). This third group were not following any particular group agenda or pre-programmed script, but were just there to speak their own mind, especially about the larger issues. Everything points to the Council having already before the “Special Meeting” basically decided on how to vote. This was a mere courtesy, a show to placate The People, in the end the Council being against the Muslim group in part based on their own obvious biases, but especially because in their mind a mosque in that precise location would interfere with certain people’s vision for future retail expansion, in yet another hedonism district just adjacent to the east of the property. If you really think about it, whether they voted Yes or No, either way the meeting was seemingly manipulated to try and appease the Muslims and leftists, to minimize the risk of a lawsuit, and to appease the majority in opposition to not risk being voted out of office. They obviously wanted to avoid a huge legal settlement, however they would finally vote, but also to avoid anything that would seemingly put a damper on their plans for economic development. That is a mosque exactly adjacent to another future suburban sprawl of fast food restaurants, convenience stores, big box stores, and marijuana dispensaries.
- Also, consider that I reported to the mayor and other’s on the Council by email before this meeting my plan to bring up during part of my three minute talk an important side concern. I was trying to get them to resolve this before the meeting, so it would not need to be addressed publicly. That concern was that the City should not even give the appearance of being motivated by bias, for legal purposes. This is because they would be listening principally to David Oldham leading the opposition speakers that night, who had gone on a 1 1/2 minute, utterly ridiculous anti-Catholic screed recorded by local news and still online (therefore exhibiting a general attitude of prejudice) at their Opposition meeting the week before. He refused to me to apologize to local Catholics at that meeting or watching it online. In addition, the Council would also be especially listening to his colleague BA state Senator Guillespie who did not correct him at their meeting, nor would she disavow herself of those comments after I emailed her, to this day, as ultimately communicated to me by her secretary. As I was around # 60 in line, out of many hundreds in line (1000 people reportedly attended, taking up two auditoriums), having arrived between 4 and 4:30 pm, before the 6 pm meeting, with many not even signing up to talk, and many who did sign up never came forward to talk, I expected after three hours to certainly have been one of the people out of 45 who talked. So did the two ladies I later sat with who stood with me in line around spots # 58 and # 59 in line, right in front of me. This also includes a young man in a suit, at # 57, I talked to about his prepared speech, who like the 3 of us was also given the shaft, never being allowed to speak. The flow of speakers was very steady, with about a four minute average per speaker including time to call people down to the microphone. So I calculate we three should have spoken after an hour or an hour-and-a half at the latest. But by the end of hour 3 when it abruptly ended, in effect silencing the one guy(me) who was about to bring up concerns about anti-Catholic and therefore likely anti-Muslim motives (both small minorities in BA) from political, opposition leaders who already spoke (Oldham and Gillespie), who were friends with the mayor and Council, does raise a major red flag. I’m not going to accuse anybody at this time for legal reasons, but you can draw your own conclusion just on this point. Had I spoken, that would have necessarily aised the debate to a higher level of controversy, which the Council clearly did not want. There was too much potential lawsuit money was at stake, the Constitution be damned. After I had stood up and protested near the end, after the sudden call for a vote, saying “please don’t do this…you need to listen to the people of Broken Arrow” (at that point the mayor scolded me “you need to be quiet”) then giving my age and name, saying I was born and raised in Broken Arrow, she then literally ordered the police to remove me without proper, proportional cause, without any due warning, violating my 1st amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and petition. And effectively preventing me from confronting the anti-Catholicism and other prejudices of her political friends. I was speaking at a measured volume and tone, with zero threats or insults. Ask yourself what are the statistical odds my green form signing up to speak was flagged, such that I never got to speak, because they already knew about my blog posts, my controversial talking points, and wanted those silenced?
- Last but not least, refer to the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court rulings.
Conclusion:
My conclusion is that our incompetent local government set the City up for a huge lawsuit with these serious shenanigans (MILLIONS) they/we will likely lose, motivated by a lack of concern for the law, due process, transparency, and the Constitution, but instead we’re motivated by personal, questionable interests in the future real estate of that area (as in $$$). And in the end, the BA mosque will soon enough be built, but now without the group first disentangling itself from global terrorism, if that is even possible. Since the City sidelined this central issue, they couldn’t credibly bring it up next time the group files for a mosque permit.
Good job.
Other LEGAL reasons should have been given besides land use or in..fra..stru..cture concerns, considering that, you know, the city engineers already cleared the land, as did a professional architect, and the group was only asking for a CONDITIONAL permit. Once granted, they could then commit themselves to the required $80,000 to survey the land and find civil engineering solutions. They emphasized this in their Presentation, hello. This fact alone results in a lawsuit the City will lose.
But instead, the strategy was the shady Good Old Boys and Good Old Girls would base their official decision mainly on issues raised by amateur architects sent into the meeting by Oldham and Gillespie, while violating Freedom of Speech with regards to the general citizenship signed up to speak. So next time around, even if the Attorney General presently investigating the group, finds sleeper cells, or that they publicly support Iran as soon as the war officially begins (it’s coming!), the crony Good Old Boys and Good Old Girls will in the end be forced by Political Correctness and fear of losing another lawsuit, and cave in to the next request to build.
Good job, my fellow Okies.
This whole damn situation reflects the fact Oklahoma is now # 50 in the nation for education.
There is Even More:
Note, it is not irrelevant that Mayor Wimpee’s career has been in local real estate, owns a public BA news website that makes money from growing local business, featuring her as the mayor, and is a member of a whopping 18 different local organizational boards while holding Office (red flag). It is also not irrelevant that her reportedly best friend now state Senator Christi Gillespie when she ran for BA City Council, made it her agenda to improve infrastructure ($$$ business $$$) in south BA where the mosque would have been built.
Gillespie and several other local political leaders got to speak that night against the mosque build, she using her role that night as state Senator (just elected Senator last November, then leaving her position as BA Vice Mayor/Councilor) to advise her BFF the mayor and the rest to vote No, essentially because a mosque would interfere with their/her future plans for yet another suburban sprawl retail district (commercialism, materialism) just to the east of the building site.
In the district in which she lives and ran for office. It is also not irrelevant that Guillespie also owns a business with her daughter in the prized downtown Rose district which was renovated by the City Council. Her opposition sidekick Oldham is also a business owner.
Way too many red flags. Way too many reasons to hold the whole bunch as suspect and untrustworthy.
And that is really the issue. God knows, or the law may one day officially determine if there was the actual breaking of civil or criminal laws at this city council meeting.
But all these issues in total simply show extreme untrustworthiness. That is the bottom line.
My Questions:
Therefore certain questions are in order. To what degree, if any, did Wimpee or Parks engage in fraudulent activity, intentionally or not? Or at least morally fraudulent behavior? In coordination with the Constitutional Grounds organizer David Oldham and Senator Gillespie? Or with the unelected city manager, who by the way makes twice what our governor makes, 300 K vs 150 K, paid the big bucks to bring in big business.
Did the other Councilors know about this? Was there any personal gain to be had down the road in terms of money or other kick backs, there being endless ways to get rewarded by the powers that be? On any level?
There are way too many reasons already to suspect the answer to those questions.
If they would be willing to seemingly, publicly commit different kinds of unethical, unconstitutional behavior RIGHT IN FRONT of everyone’s face, the video still being on YouTube, then how deep does the political corruption and pride go in BA? When the City’s focus is on more tax $$$ and property, and endless infrastructure expansion, to what degree are they honestly working for the common good of PEOPLE verses serving their own private interests and worldliness, which if they opened their Bible, they’d know God is not okay with, especially by those in power.
Anybody with common sense would connect the dots and raise the same red flags. However individually guilty, or not at all, the fact they operated in such way is grounds for major reforms and restorations.
At the very least, this apparent facade at this meeting, however big or small, gave the scandalous impression of grave abuse of authority. It tells The People that despite the COMMUNITY of BA being relatively one of the most family friendly, peaceful, down to earth places to live, its local government is not to be trusted. And needs major rehabilitation.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are establishment politicians, just like in D.C., loyal more to Party elites than to The People. They are in bed with monopolies and special interests. We need a Mayor The People actually directly elect, term limits, and the likes of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to continuously investigate and clean up the corruption, waste, and Good Old Boy-Good Old Girl “politics as usual. “
To “drain The Swamp.”
ACTION PLAN:
We need a directly elected Mayor to use the power of the executive branch to investigate and remove once and for all any cancerous tumor that has embedded its roots deeply into our local government. That includes fraud, corruption, political malpractice and neglect, anything violating any law or the Constitution, and any waste of Broken Arrow citizens’ hard earned money.
We need someone with the vision and commitment of our president, President Trump. Pray for this, because I’m hearing nothing about anybody locally considering running for Office on this kind of platform, with this kind of approach, which rightfully angers me.
There are many people like me much more competent and poised to do this, but there is nobody doing this in my home town of Broken Arrow, the 4th largest but best city in the state. This relative oasis compared to much of the country and world is worth defending before one day, God forbid, it should fully melt into the godless, liberal, secularist urban collective that is Tulsa.
Whereas we should be strategically building new nearby towns to restore rural and small town life, and accommodate a growing population, there being plenty of land, instead the government is letting BA become so overrun and overpopulated by people moving from Tulsa and other areas that it will cease to exist as a town-like community with conservative values.
If nobody steps up to the plate, to take on Goliath, that’s exactly what will happen in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, we may be forced to fully conform to the urban collective, or vice versa retreat to the boon docks to preserve our sanity, and most importantly our soul.
Let’s instead Make Broken Arrow Great Again!!
Let’s Make American Great Again!!
One city and town at a time!!!
(P.S. If Mayor Debra Wimpee, At-large Councilor/VM Johnnie Parks, and/or the City Manager want to clarify anything, or come on my new Make Broken Arrow Great Again Podcast, they already know they are certainly welcome. In the meantime, I have already filed complaints with the OK GOP, and next with the OK Attorney General).