Tag Archives: lankford

Tomorrow

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

I find it only fitting that today is the 5th of November…

SAMPLE BALLOT for the 5th District of Oklahoma:
(Click or download for full resolution)
(Find your sample ballot here)

Page 1

My votes for candidates: Obama / Biden for President, Tom Guild for District 5 Representative, Richard Prawdzienski for State Senator District 41, John Whetsel for County Sheriff, and YES to retain all judges.

Page 2

My votes on the state questions: No on 758, 759, 765, and 766. Yes on 762 and 764.

Non-presidential voting information

United States Representative District 05:

Dr. Tom Guild’s website

Congressman James Lankford’s website

Pat Martin’s website (Right-wing Independent candidate, 5th district)

Robert Murphy’s website (Libertarian candidate, 5th district)

41st State Senate District of Oklahoma:

Senator Clark Jolley’s website

Richard Prawdzienski has no website (Libertarian candidate, 41st state senate district of Oklahoma), but here is the link to the Oklahoma Libertarian Party’s website with more information, or you can read my article about him.

County Sheriff:

Sheriff John Whetsel’s website (Democrat, incumbent County Sheriff)

Darrell Sorrels’ website (Republican, candidate for County Sheriff)

State Questions:

OKPolicy.org’s information on the state questions

My articles on the election

The Presidency

Both Candidates

Presidential Comparison Chart

What Are You Voting For?

A Knights and Knaves Puzzle

Electoral Escalations

Obama

Morality

Money, Power, Wall Street, and TIMMAH

Barack Obama Myth Busting

Barack Obama Myth Busting 2

Barack Obama Myth Busting 3

Followup: Barack Obama Myth Busting 3

Obama’s First Term – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Romney

Brace Yourself

To My Conservative Friends

The Definition of a Sociopath

The Definition of a Sucker

The Multi-Million Dollar Penny Drops

Romney’s Bainful Campaign

The Radical in Moderate’s Clothing

I Don’t Like Ann Romney

Federal Congress

Minimalist Politics

Is Lankford a Birther?

James Lankford is a Coward

Reply from Congressman Lankford – Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Lankford Choosing not to be Gay

Complete Guild vs. Lankford Chart

State Congress

An Eleventh Hour Decision

Is Your Right to Vote Worth $200?

Libertarian Smoke (and Mirrors)

Other State Elections (judges and sheriff)

Just One More Thing I Swear

State Questions

A Guide to the 2012 Oklahoma State Questions

The “Free Lunch” of the State

The Undermining of America

Is Lankford a Birther?

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

Damn it! Why couldn’t I have waited one more day to write my last piece?

I just received an e-mail today from Dr. Tom Guild, Lankford’s Democratic opponent. In it, he wrote about a message he received from someone who attended the recent Lankford town hall I mentioned in my previous article for the campaign. Apparently, during the town hall Lankford was asked by a woman about Obama being “outed” as “illegitimate to run for office,” strongly implying the outlandish claim that Obama wasn’t born in America, and therefore, doesn’t qualify to be President. Lankford’s response, to quote the message, was;

“Lankford looked down and walked away from the lady but said, ‘In time the truth will come out.’ Not surprisingly, there was applause.”

Looks like I may have my answer to my closing question from my last article; is Lankford an idiot, or a liar? Only a massive, massive buffoon of epic proportions actually believes the “birther” nonsense. For those of you that don’t know, Obama was in fact born in America. He disproved even the slightest doubt of this when he released his birth certificate a little over a year ago. A Hawaiian newspaper article announced his birth back in 1961. Here is an actual copy of the birth certificate, which I found here.

Despite the fact that… despite this FACT, there still is a tragically high number of people who don’t believe… who refuse to believe that Obama was born in America. FOX News fuels the fire with its usual propaganda, such as by publishing a story under the headline “White House Releases What It Says Is President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate,” obviously using language tricks as I’ve pointed out in the past to manipulate and mislead people; the exact opposite of what a real news station is supposed to do. Donald Trump is the king and leader of these buffoons, however, and worse, is a huge funder and supporter of the Romney campaign. Birtherism is so ridiculous that over 17,000 people are now petitioning the Arizona Secretary of State, a prominent supporter of birtherism, to investigate if Mitt Romney is actually a Unicorn, because such a demand is just as fair and justified as an investigation into whether or not Obama was born in America.

Keep in mind that Romney himself also recently came out saying he wants to pass a constitutional amendment that would make it law for only business owners and those on the side of management or employment to run for President (disqualifying several of our greatest Presidents like Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt, and possibly even Ronald Regan). Apparently, the “safe bet” Romney was supposed to be when opposed to the insanity of Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, or dozens of other possible nominees, turned out to be false, because Romney’s got his own brand of batshit he’s starting to dish out now that’ the nomination is secure.

But I digress. When Lankford said “in time, the truth will come out,” just what is he implying? Is he actually a birther? I wouldn’t put it past him, but there was something in the e-mail that caught my eye. At first, Lankford apparently looked down and walked away, indicating hesitance. Obviously, from my last article, that is to be expected of Lankford when he’s asked any question at a public forum, but to his defense (if you could call it defense), that hesitance, in this case, could imply plain and simple dishonesty rather than ignorance. He knows that the birther issue is one that really heats up a lot of his base, and to douse that flame could cost him politically by demoralizing some of his followers. Of course, even Lankford must know that the only people who believe the birther nonsense would never vote for a Democrat anyway, so he doesn’t have to worry about losing votes if he came out against birtherism, not to mention he’d just be doing the ethically right thing.

Then again, our own President seems incapable of understanding this political logic sometimes when it comes to disenfranchising a voter base…

Whether Lankford’s ignorant or a liar, whether he believes the actual words coming out of his mouth or not, it doesn’t really matter; Lankford is now tacitly saying that he is a birther and that he believes Obama was not born in America, when such a claim is inarguably untrue. My closing question from my last piece may not be answered, but Lankford is definitely digging himself deeper and deeper into this quagmire of petty politics and lies.

I had to write Congressman Lankford again after hearing about this, just to see what his office would say. Below is the letter I sent him.

Full Text (of message to Congressman Lankford)

Dear Congressman Lankford,

Thank you for reading my e-mail. I know you’re busy so I’ll be extremely brief in this letter. At a recent town hall, you were asked about the legitimacy of Obama’s Presidency given the massive controversy regarding the location of his birth. In response, you said “in time the truth will come out.” Might I ask of what truth you spoke? Do you believe that Obama was born in the United States? Do you believe him to be a legitimate candidate for President?

Thank you for your time.

- Jay Hansen

James Lankford is a Coward

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

Originally I just wanted this post to be a funny picture I made after receiving another one of Congressman Lankford’s “invitations” to a public forum he would be hearing. After making it, though, a few other thoughts occurred to me, so I thought I’d make this a very short article.

Let’s start off with what I came here to do;

Obviously, the reason this is funny is because Lankford continuously informs people on his e-mail list that he will be holding public forums and town halls less than 24 hours before the meeting is to take place. Doing it so close to the time of the meeting greatly reduces the number of people that will even see the message, let alone actually be able to attend on such short notice. This way Lankford can get away with saying that he holds town halls, but not actually have to face a significant chunk of the public. Had it just been one time I’d have just brushed it under the rug, but this e-mail was the third one exactly like this; less than one day’s notice of a public forum several towns over.

It doesn’t end there though. After making this picture I remembered something; all the way back in April Dr. Tom Guild, Lankford’s Democratic opponent in the race for the 5th Congressional District of Oklahoma, challenged Lankford to five public debates between then and the November general election. Dr. Guild’s only stipulation was that the moderator of these debates be a fair, unbiased one, which almost goes without saying for a real debate. Now, one month and a reiteration of this public challenge later and we still don’t have a debate on the schedule. Lankford seems unwilling to accept any sort of fair debate. It could be because he’s so cocky he’s convinced himself he’s invincible in this district, and therefore won’t even take the time to acknowledge his opponent (which in and of itself says something about the man), but based on what we’ve seen before it’s more likely he’s just a coward. He’s afraid of a real, fair, public debate with a moderator that would actually test them on facts, and not GOP talking points or provide Lankford with the questions prior to the debate, among other unfair advantage.

If you’re still not convinced that he’s a coward, look back at my article James Lankford and the Culture of Ignorance. In it, I shared the story of Marilyn Rainwater’s encounter with the Congressman for the first time, which I will now share again;

He made a campaign stop in Seminole right before the last election. I asked him how the state of Oklahoma, with its own serious budget shortfall, would make up the difference in federal funding that he and other GOP candidates were proposing. I explained that I had retired from DHS, and was aware of how many depended on Medicaid for nursing home care, medical care for the poor, and the foster children in state custody; that the working people impacted by the recession depended on food assistance. He heard me out, then his sole response was “Well, we don’t want a nanny state”. And then he walked off. That will forever be my impression of James Lankford.

Lankford is simply scared of his own voters. He’s scared of real questions. That’s why he’s scared of a public debate now; he could never answer a real question when put on the spot either because he knows his real policies are deeply unpopular such as voucherizing Medicare, supporting subsidies for big oil companies, and reducing transparency in elections and campaigning, or because he’s just an idiot. Given that he doesn’t believe in science, be it his theory that global climate change is a massive planet-wide conspiracy for scientists to gain control of the world’s governments, or his belief that medical science is just wrong in its study of human sexuality with no evidence or proof to back it up, I’m actually not quite sure which of these two possibilities it is. In other words, the question is does he actually believe the patently untrue things he says, or is he just lying to us? Ignorant, or a liar? More importantly, are either fit to represent us in the federal government?

Reply from Congressman Lankford – Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

This is Congressman James Lankford’s response to my letter asking about discriminatory hiring practices in regards to religion. I wrote him the letter after an interview with Think Progress where he says that members of the LGBT community should not have legal protections from discriminatory hiring practices.

Summary: Lankford did not address my question at all. He seems to have one automated response he sends to anyone e-mailing him about discrimination in the past 24 hours or so because of the massive influx of mail he is receiving, which is at least partially understandable. At least, it is for e-mails about the LGBT rights and sexual identity. Mine was not in that same pool, so my question went unanswered. Immediately, I wrote him back, which is at the end of this page.

Full Text:

May 16, 2012

Dear Mr. Hansen,

Thank you for contacting me about discrimination in the workplace.  As this is an important issue, I would like to take a moment to explain my thoughts on employee’s rights and my support for the traditional institution of marriage.

As you know, Think Progress, the internet blog run by Center for American Progress Action Fund, recently posted about a comment I made as one of their video surrogates caught me outside the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington.  Misconceptions are being wildly spun regarding what I actually said and meant in the Think Progress video clip.  At no point in the video, nor anywhere else, have I ever stated that employers should be able to fire an employee based on outside-the-office sexual behavior.  I emphatically believe that employment decisions should be based solely on performance in the workplace.  An employee’s personal sexual preference has no place in that conversation.  I did state that I believe the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, and I do firmly believe in the traditional view of marriage between one man and one woman.

After the President and Vice President’s recently-made statements supporting same-sex marriage, the fight for traditional marriage has come under attack nationwide. For some time, the Administration has continued to ignore Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act—the current law of the land. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton after being passed in both chambers of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan majorities.  Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and to date, more than half of the nation’s state governments have codified their Constitutions to legally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  My background and convictions also support the traditional institution of marriage as stated in the law.

Recent actions by the Administration have led to a unilateral decision of President Obama and the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a slap in the face to our constitutional framework.  No president gets to pick and choose different laws to enforce or not to enforce. The personal views of the President do not override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land.  President Obama does not have the right to abandon the defense of this law.

As the President attempts to bring about “change” in our nation, he is redefining key terms along the way—marriage being a prime example.  The outcry expressed over my conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman is telling of the state of our culture. Misrepresenting my position on workplace hiring to advance the President’s attempt to redefine marriage is disingenuous and an affront to my right to free speech.

I appreciate hearing your concerns, and I want to take this last opportunity to communicate clearly to you. I fully support workplace equality; I believe wholeheartedly in strictly performance-based employment decisions; and I will unequivocally defend the traditional view of marriage between one man and one woman.

As the 112 th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your comments with me.  Please, contact me via email for a faster response.  To keep up with my work in Congress, I encourage you to visit my website at  www.lankford.house.gov .

     In God We Trust,

James Lankford
MEMBER OF CONGRESS

My Response

Dear Congressman Lankford,

Thank you for responding to my letter so quickly. I understand correspondence is difficult for you now given this controversy, so I would like to assure you feel free to take your time in this response. I just watched your interview with the local CBS affiliate and I now have another question. In the interview, you said that employees should only be fired or punished based on work performance. While this may be true, and it may be what you would do as an employer, do you understand that not all employers think or act in such a way? As you said, they should judge an employee based off of his or her performance, but some simply don’t work that way. That is why we have legal protections for discrimination and wrongful termination, to make those employers that would judge an employee in such an inappropriate way in violation of the law. Do you believe that a gay or lesbian employee that (within reasonable suspicion thereof) is fired because of his or her sexual preference is entitled to a wrongful termination suit and due process? You seemed to be in support of discrimination laws regarding race and other factors that are immediately noticeable, but what about those regarding religion, as I asked in my original letter?

Also, as much as you may tire of seeing these statistics in the past couple of days I must ask, you are aware that nearly all accredited medical and psychological organizations in America agree that there is little to no choice in one’s sexual identity? How do you justify, and what credentials do you have, to refute such a clear majority of certified medical and scientific professionals?

Thank you for your time. I will try to condense my letters as much as possible in this correspondence with you.

- Jay Hansen