Don’t get me wrong, I personally like James Lankford. I suspect he was a very good Christian camp director. His politics certainly do not match mine nor I dare say any real conservative in the state of Oklahoma. He doesn’t even get close to articulating a limited government, constitutional philosophy. So if you were looking for another Dr. No. then I suggest you keep looking.
Let’s take a look at his bad votes over recent years and how he rates with one of the best ‘graders’ in the nation – the JBS. I love the reports in the New American and the fact that it is online too. You can review a complete summary of James Lankford’s votes on the Freedom Index.
Military collaboration with the Chinese regime will not diminish the security threat it poses to the United States but, if anything, heighten it.
Authorizing the president to use military force without a declaration of war is a shifting of responsibility from Congress to the executive branch that essentially allows the president to exercise dictator-like powers and should be opposed.
Blanket collection of electronic records of citizens who are not under investigation is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on search and seizure without a warrant.
H R 1947: Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
These subsidies have resulted in large market distortions as the government essentially picks winners and losers in the food production industry, and the fact that the number of people enrolled in food stamp programs has grown consistently illustrates that these programs do little to lift people out of poverty.
Under the National Defense Authorization Act, the president may abrogate these rights simply by designating terror suspects, including Americans, as “enemy combatants.” A government that would lock up anyone indefinitely without trial is certainly moving toward tyranny, and legislation to prevent this abuse of power is needed.
…the massive sharing of private citizens’ online data by Internet companies with federal government agencies authorized by this bill violates “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” as set forth in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
… passage of this mammoth continuing resolution provided a way for Congress to perpetuate its fiscally irresponsible, unconstitutional spending habits with a minimum of accountability to its constituents.
…the federal government should live within its means and because most of the spending responsible for the ballooning national debt is unconstitutional.
…passage of this mammoth continuing resolution provided a way for Congress to perpetuate its fiscally irresponsible, unconstitutional spending habits with a minimum of accountability to its constituents.
…because warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and violates privacy and individual liberty. While ostensibly carried out only on “foreign suspects” communicating with U.S. citizens, it is difficult to imagine this surveillance not extending to U.S. citizens.
H.Amdt. 1414 to H.R. 5856: An amendment to reduce appropriations made in Title IX of the bill by $20,843,869,000. The reduction shall not apply to the following accounts 1) Defense Health Program; 2) Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense; 3) Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund; and 4) Office of the Inspector General.
…the massive expenditure on undeclared foreign wars and nation building is unconstitutional and unaffordable.
…U.S. participation in the United Nations involves an unconstitutional delegation of our national sovereignty to the UN.
H.Amdt.1127 to H.R.4310: An amendment numbered 46 printed in House Report 112-485 to strike section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA and amend Section 1021 of same Act to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in U.S., territories or possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United states or by an appropriate State court.
…the War on Terror must not be allowed to destroy constitutional legal protections, including the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment) and the right to a trial (Sixth Amendment).
…the CISPA bill would permit government access to the private information of citizens, in violation of the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
…providing any form of line-item veto power to the President violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.
…many of the bill’s spending programs — e.g., education, housing, foreign aid, etc. — are unconstitutional. Moreover, passing this mammoth appropriations bill in light of the ongoing trillion-dollar annual deficits is grossly fiscally irresponsible. Furthermore, packaging the appropriations bills for so many large federal agencies into one mega-bill greatly reduces the accountability of the Congressmen to their constituents.
…agreements such as this one are intended to transfer trade (and other) powers to super-national arrangements binding the United States, despite the fact that under the Constitution only Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”
…the debt deal allows both the national debt and spending to continue their upward trajectories. Moreover, the budget process established by the legislation is clearly unconstitutional since no Congress can bind the actions of future Congresses via the so-called automatic cuts.
…not merely because Obama’s Libya deployment is now in violation of the War Powers Act’s 60-day requirement for congressional authorization, but also because it violates the Constitution, which clearly assigns to Congress the power “to declare war.”
…because the provisions that were extended, as well as the Patriot Act as a whole, violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Now lest you are thinking well, that is just the JBS. They are a little right wing. Here’s what the Senate Conservative Fund says – oh and the Senate is no bastion of real conservative thought either as you well know.
The Senate Conservatives Fund announced it will not back an Oklahoma Republican aiming for Senator Tom Coburn’s seat because of his voting record.
Oklahoma Representative James Lankford will announce his intentions later Monday afternoon for Senator Tom Coburn’s seat in the U.S. Senate. He’s expected to seek the election but he won’t have a key group supporting him.
The Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF) says Lankford’s voting history will prevent support from them.
“We won’t support Congressman Lankford’s bid for the Senate because of his past votes to increase the debt limit, raise taxes, and fund Obamacare,” said SCF Executive Director Matt Hoskins. “We have reviewed his record and it’s clear that conservatives cannot count on him to fight for their principles.”
The SCF sites a number of Lankford’s voting history that includes raising the debt limit, funding Obamacare, and supporting the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. (article reference here)
So are you beginning to understand why James Lankford should not be promoted? In fact he should be sent home with a copy of the constitution to read and study a lot more diligently if he ever wants to run for any office in the land in this author’s opinion. Rhetoric always sounds appealing in campaign season and TV ads always look good, but the proof is in the track record of the actual recorded votes. There it is folks. He did it to himself. Time to send James Lankford back to camp.