Posted on 09/28/2015 5:05:58 AM PDT by 1010RD
September 16, 2015
Congressman Jim Jordan Chairman, House Freedom Caucus 1524 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Jim:
When the House Freedom Caucus formed in January, I fervently hoped that it would provide responsible and effective leadership to advance conservative principles in the House of Representatives.
I know that every member of the HFC sincerely supports these principles, but as I have expressed on many occasions during our meetings, I believe the tactics the HFC has employed have repeatedly undermined the House’s ability to advance them. Allow me to review a few examples.
On February 27th, we faced the imminent shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security over the funding of Obama’s unlawful amnesty orders for illegal immigrants. Although the American people overwhelmingly opposed these orders, they also overwhelmingly opposed shutting down DHS. House Republicans attempted to pass a three-week stop gap bill so we could avoid a catastrophic shutdown of our security agencies while continuing to bring public opinion to bear to de-fund the orders. At the behest of its board, most HFC members combined with House Democrats to defeat this effort, resulting in the full funding of these illegal orders for the fiscal year.
In May, the House had the opportunity to adopt the most important free trade bill in nearly two decades, restoring the long-standing and essential process that has made it possible for our nation to negotiate free trade agreements with other nations. At the behest of its board, most HFC members combined with the vast majority of House Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat this legislation.
Last week, the House was scheduled to adopt the Resolution of Disapproval of the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement – the only legally binding action available to Congress under the Corker Act. Once again, the House Freedom Caucus leadership threatened to combine with House Democrats to defeat the Resolution, forcing the House leadership to abandon it in favor of a symbolic and legally meaningless vote. Ironically, while Harry Reid and Senate Democrats blocked a vote on the Resolution of Disapproval in the Senate, the House Freedom Caucus leadership was instrumental in blocking its consideration in the House.
For several months, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have threatened to shut down the government on October 1st unless Congress unleashes another unsustainable cycle of tax increases and borrowing. Last week, the House Freedom Caucus formally vowed to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood.
I have strongly opposed the public funding of abortions throughout my 29 years in public office, but this tactic promises only to shield Senate Democrats from their responsibility for a government shutdown and to alienate the public from the pro-life cause at precisely the time when undercover videos of Planned Parenthood’s barbaric practices are turning public opinion in our favor. I suspect this is why the leading pro-life organizations have been conspicuously unwilling to endorse the HFC position.
A common theme through each of these incidents is a willingness – indeed, an eagerness – to strip the House Republican majority of its ability to set the House agenda by combining with House Democrats on procedural motions. As a result, it has thwarted vital conservative policy objectives and unwittingly become Nancy Pelosi’s tactical ally.
I feel honored to know and work with every member of the House Freedom Caucus. I have never served with a group of patriots more devoted to our country and dedicated to restoring American founding principles. However, I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.
Accordingly, I resign.
If we had 59 votes in the Senate, 300 in the House and a GOP President, the GOP would find a way to back down. If we had 75 votes in the Senate, we would still be told that we didn’t have enough to actually pass anything...
The real problem is that most of them do not WANT to oppose big government. They LOVE it!
You are a libertarian no doubt. I guess you also believe in the “free” movement of labor as well.
Interestingly, libertarians with teenage daughters do not believe in “free love”.
You used the present tense. Based on what McClintock is saying in this post, I think the past tense would have been more appropriate. He was a very principled conservative. That is why it is sad to see that DC has changed him. You, on the other hand, support Boehner and defend what he has done. That marks you as a supporter of the leftist agenda that Boehner has worked hard to advance.
If Trump murders the GOP, it’ll be liberals and Democrats who benefit, not conservatives.
********************
Respectfully, the above-captioned quote is the flaw in the argument you present.
It’s the current GOP that is murdering conservatives, and will continue to murder conservatives....ask Chris McDaniel.
McClintock is showing his true colors and they aren’t ‘red, white and blue’.
All of that is at the mercy of the DOJ and the federal black-robed Rat judicial tyrants that Lindsay Graham and Orrin Hatch rubber-stamped over the past 10 or so years. Get back to me when you can point out some recent meaningful Conservative successes in the federal Legislative branch.
McClintock actually has always been a bit nutty.
....ahh, that’s got to be the most dishonest, stupid and untrue statement I’ve seen on FR in years. Not even close and no basis for the slur. Go play at DU for a change, you’ll feel right at home.
ymmv
Thank you.
I now remember part of this.
Cheers,
‘Pod.
Hensarling declines to run.
Will support Price for Majority Leader.
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/648519368805085185/photo/1
What do you know about it Mr Texas?
I like McClintock, but he has always been a bit eccentric and his run for Governor was a opportunist move I didn’t like.
Still, he is whom I voted for.
In thinking about who might replace Boner I though of McClintock.
McClintock is a solid conservative fighter and has done more for California liberty than anybody there.
Bookmark
If we didn’t have the Corker bill, what would the options be for the Congress in opposing the Iran deal?
.
It is stunning how much Tom’s letter sounds like Ted Cruz’ book.
His description of the manipulation and deceit bears a strong resemblance to Cruz’ description of the same in the Senate GOP caucus.
.
.
>> “McClintock really turned out to be just another self-absorbed, lying GOP-E loser.” <<
.
That is an absurd comment.
You obviously don’t know Tom.
That’s an awful germane point, and a bigger topic than I can fairly handle.
Primarily though: the President has broad powers to conduct foreign affairs and most of what Obama wants to do, I believe, can be accomplished on his own authority.
Some of it can’t however because it is not within his power and/or laws have been passed that restrict him. I believe this includes many of the sanctions on Iran.
If Obama had followed the Corker bill he would have power to accomplish all he wished, by not doing so he limits himself to being able to do only what he could have done anyway.
I believe the impetus behind the Corker bill was to, firstly, get concessions for Republican donors from Obama and secondarily, to generally limit what he attempted to do with the power it afforded him.
In sum congress would have the same power- judicial determination of what a president can do on his own- as it does now. Only without the distraction of the Corker bill.
But it could have gone differently.
ty for the reply. I was thinking that BC (Before Corker) the congress would have had to approve the treaty and then Obama could sign it, as opposed to now AC (After Corker) where Obama agrees to the treaty and then the Congress has to have a super majority to override it.??
I also though I remember McClintock being in favor of the Corker Bill, which since I thought very highly of McClintock, struck me as unexpected.
Ofcourse, they call it an agreement instead of a treaty and that is allowed to nullify the Constitution. Anyway what I am trying to find out is if the GOP controlled congress, even by using a nuclear option in the Senate could have stopped the Iran deal?
Um, who is “we”, Hoss ? You’re not a Conservative.
72% of GOP voters would disagree with you. Perception is reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.