3 Dec

Conservatives removed from financial committees by GOP House leadership

Francesca Chambers @ Red Alert Politics:

The fissure between the GOP establishment and Tea Party members in Congress blew wide open Monday evening when conservative members of Congress were suddenly removed from House financial committees.

RedState’s Erick Erickson was the first reliable source to share that conservatives were reportedly being removed from the House’s finance related committees by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Shortly after, Roll Call reported that Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona had been removed from from the Financial Services Committee “for bucking the party line too often.”

“This morning Congressman Schweikert learned there was a price to be paid for voting based on principle. That price was the removal from the House Financial Services Committee,” Rachel Semmel, Schweikert’s spokesman,told POLITICO. “We are obviously disappointed that Leadership chose to take this course, but Rep. Schweikert remains committed to fighting for the conservative principles that brought him here.”

Curiously, conservative Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina was selected to replace Schwikert on the committee, potentially undercutting conservative’s complaints that Schweikert was removed for political reasons. Likewise, sources with knowledge of the situation indicated to both POLITICO and Roll Call that committee changes were made at the request of committee chairs. Meaning incoming Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who is currently the GOP Conference chair, not Boehner, could be responsible for snubbing Schweikert.

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

4 Responses to Conservatives removed from financial committees by GOP House leadership

  1. JustAl says: 1

    A great reminder of what the GOP is. . . another facet of the democrat party. The same great minds who Gerrymandered Alan West out of office. I’ve not missed an election since Nixon and voted GOP 90% of the time. Didn’t vote for a single GOP candidate this time, and won’t again.

    People can caterwaul all they want about me “wasting my vote”, but at least my Libertarian vote reflects my values. . . how about you folks who keep Boehner in power?

    ReplyReply
  2. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 2

    @JustAl: The word ‘libertarian’ was coined around the time of the French Revolution and its meaning was closest to that of the liberal party of today. It was co-opted by the conservatives in the 1960′s because it sounded good. When used to define conservative politics, it should be used with the qualifier ‘conservative’—Conservative Libertarian.

    ReplyReply
  3. Ditto says: 3

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    First known use of “Libertarian” was in 1789, “one who holds the doctrine of free will” (opposed to necessitarian), from liberty (q.v.) on model of unitarian, etc. (See William Belsham below)

    “… its meaning was closest to that of the liberal party of today.”

    As usual you are way off base. If you are referencing the Democratic party, you’re full of horse doody. You are clearly referring to the first political adoption of the word 1, rather than the first known philosophical literary usage of the word. There are big differences between the classic meaning of “libertarian” and the French word “La Libertaire” which was used to describe a (circa 1857, 155 years ago) French socialistic-anarchy movement publication. The left-wing French communist Joseph Déjacque coined the political term “Libertarianism” to refer to the belief system of the radical anarchist left. The radical Whig historian William Belsham wrote Essays, Philosophical, Historical, and Literary, two vols. 1789–91, where He used the term libertarian in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views. This predates the first French socialist movement’s adoption of the term by some 70 years (in fact, 223 years ago). The philosophical roots of libertarian thought goes back even farther, supporting the rights and freedom of the individual over the power of the elite classes.

    lib·er·tar·i·an: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

    Well that certainly isn’t ideology of the Democratic Party of today nor of the 19th century French Libertaire movement.

    Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure a society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism.

    “Liberal” is no longer an applicable term for the far-left devotees of the Democratic party. Which is why I refuse to use that term to describe them. They are in fact very fervently and stringently conservative to their pro-statism ideologies of the power of the state superseding the rights and freedoms of the individual. The Democratic(-socialist) party of today is in other words, on the exact opposite end of the scale from classic libertarian philosophy.

    Libertarians are not to be confused with the so-called “civil libertarians” which typify the membership and leadership of the American Civil Liberties Union. It is true that the ACLU has come to the defense of freedom of speech for certain minorities (e.g., nazis, communists, and anarchists) and this is commendable – but the podium has often been at taxpayers’ expense, which is a contradiction from the real libertarian perspective. Many “civil libertarians” believe that some people have a “right” to violate the rights of others; they claim there is a “right to a job” or a “right” to welfare payments or a “right” to “free education” or a “right” to free child care – all at the expense of the people (usually the taxpayers) who are forced to pay for these so-called “rights.” Real libertarians are for true freedom, not “freedom” at the forced expense of others. The only obligation that true rights impose on the citizen is of a negative kind: not to interfere with the rights of other peaceful people – i.e., to refrain from the initiation of the use of coercion. This is the core principle of libertarianism and is sometimes called the ‘Non-Aggression Axiom’.

    Welfare-state “liberals” and “civil libertarians” speak of “rights” of people as members of specially privileged groups, such as “women’s rights” or “gay rights” or “rights of the handicapped” or even so-called “animal rights”! Real libertarians know that there are only individual rights, not group rights. There is no such thing as “gay rights” or “black rights” or “white rights” or left-handed Martian rights. Government must not be used to dish out special privileges to any group for any reason, since government cannot give anyone anything unless it takes it away from others by force, thereby violating their rights. There can be no such thing as a “right” to violate the rights of others.

    Note that the ACLU has never defended the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    Our (American) revolution’s watch-words were “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The watch-words of the French Revolution were “liberty, equality, brotherhood.” In other words, the Americans understood freedom to be an individual right while the French saw it as a collective right. In order to bring about “equality” and “brotherhood” it is an absolutely necessary requirement to sacrifice individual sovereignty for the “greater good” and that can only be achieved by coercion.

    The philosophy of the earliest Libertarians (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon of “Cato’s Letters,” John Locke, ):

    The State, in short, was to be kept extremely small, with a very low, nearly negligible budget. The classical liberals never developed a theory of taxation, but every increase in a tax and every new kind of tax was fought bitterly – in America twice becoming the spark that led or almost led to the Revolution (the stamp tax, the tea tax).

    That doesn’t sound like the Democratic Party. More from pre-French Revolution libertarians:

    Trenchard and Gordon pointed out that government always tended toward such destruction of individual rights. According to “Cato’s Letters,” human history is a record of irrepressible conflict between Power and Liberty, with Power (government) always standing ready to increase its scope by invading people’s rights and encroaching upon their liberties. Therefore, Cato declared, Power must be kept small and faced with eternal vigilance and hostility on the part of the public to make sure that it always stays within its narrow bounds:

    Nor does that sound like today’s Democratic party. Cato’s Letters declare:

    “We know, by infinite Examples and Experience, that Men possessed of Power, rather than part with it, will do any thing, even the worst and the blackest, to keep it; and scarce ever any Man upon Earth went out of it as long as he could carry every thing his own Way in it…. This seems certain, That the Good of the World, or of their People, was not one of their Motives either for continuing in Power, or for quitting it.

    It is the Nature of Power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary Power, granted at particular Times, and upon particular Occasions, into an ordinary Power, to be used at all Times, and when there is no Occasion, nor does it ever part willingly with any Advantage….

    Now that does sound like Obama’s administration of government, today’s Democratic party and the government following the French Revolution.

    Alas! Power encroaches daily upon Liberty, with a Success too evident; and the Balance between them is almost lost. Tyranny has engrossed almost the whole Earth, and striking at Mankind Root and Branch, makes the World a Slaughterhouse; and will certainly go on to destroy, till it is either destroyed itself, or, which is most likely, has left nothing else to destroy.”

    Such warnings were eagerly imbibed by the American colonists, who reprinted “Cato’s Letters” many times throughout the colonies and down to the time of the Revolution. Such a deep-seated attitude led to what the historian Bernard Bailyn has aptly called the “transforming radical libertarianism” of the American Revolution.

    And:

    In the process they … infused into American political culture … the major themes of eighteenth-century radical libertarianism brought to realization here. The first is the belief that power is evil, a necessity perhaps but an evil necessity; that it is infinitely corrupting; and that it must be controlled, limited, restricted in every way compatible with a minimum of civil order. Written constitutions; the separation of powers; bills of rights; limitations on executives, on legislatures, and courts; restrictions on the right to coerce and wage war – all express the profound distrust of power that lies at the ideological heart of the American Revolution and that has remained with us as a permanent legacy ever after.

    A libertarian is a person – any person – who consistently advocates individual freedom and consistently opposes the initiation of the use of coercion by anyone upon the person or property of anyone else for any reason. (Coercion is here defined as any action taken by a human being against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to his or her body or property. This includes murder, rape, kidnaping, assault, trespassing, burglary, robbery, arson and fraud.) Some libertarians (such as the late Robert LeFevre) not only oppose all forms of initiatory coercion, but also the use of retaliatory coercion (revenge or criminal justice). The vast majority of libertarians, however, maintain that physical force used in self-defense or defense of one’s family or property is fully justifiable.

    But, all libertarians, by definition, at least oppose the initiatory use of coercion. They support the rational principle of the individual human rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This means that each individual has the right to keep what he earns for himself and his family, and this includes the right to use, trade, sell, give away, or dispose of his property as he sees fit. A person who violates the rights of others by initiating coercion, violence, or fraud against them forfeits his right to be left alone by government and may be arrested, charged, tried, and imprisoned, deported or executed if convicted (depending on the nature of his or her crimes). The basic, proper function of lawful government is therefore limited to protecting these rights of the peaceful individual from criminals and foreign aggression, and in not violating these rights itself, for if government is allowed to go beyond this legitimate function and itself initiates force in violation of the rights of peaceful citizens, it necessarily contradicts the only rational justification for its own existence by acting criminally itself.

    Real libertarians take individual rights seriously – seriously enough to consistently uphold them against the initiation of the use of force by anyone (including government) for any reason. This means that government must be bound by the policy of “laissez faire” – which means that government has no business coercively interfering with the lives of peaceful (non-coercive) citizens in their private affairs and voluntary (market) relationships.

    The Tea Party movement of today is closest to the classical definition of “Libertarian” (The Libertarian Party differs in that it refuses to accept the power of government to regulate business or trade whatsoever.) More on Libertarianism Here is another very good description treatise of “libertarian”

    ReplyReply
  4. my humble opinion here is that I think from other days he had a chance to do it meaning,
    get the the blame where it belong , that is OBAMA,
    he let him go away with a lot, I go further to say that he has a responsibility part in the influence of showing up the values of the party, which his good guy style miss on a few occasions,
    the last time he came to FOX, HE WAS ANGRY, AND ALL HE HAD TO SAY WAS,
    I’m a nice guy, I ‘M ALWAYS POLITE AND GOOD MANNER , BUT OBAMA IS NOT RIGHT,
    HE DOESN’T WANT TO GIVE IN,
    he has the OPPONENT that is not for mister nice and well manner, maybe he is not of the caliber to exchange similar rhetoric, this is a jungle in there, you have to talk the language of the beast to make him understand that you mean business, not a game of GULF,
    rise the talking point, or delegate to a GINGRISH, or a TREY, or a CANTOR, OR ,THOSE KINDS OF TALKERS,
    one reason MITT ROMNEY LOST, TOO CLASSY, TOO NICE GUY, TO OFFEND HIS OPPONENT,
    THIS WAS NOT A ELECTION LIKE THE OTHERS, YOU WHERE DEALING WITH, TWO PERSONS SEEKING THE SEAT,
    THIS ONE WAS A MULTIPLE OF PERSON IN ONE BODY,
    BEING COUNSEL BY MANY OTHER
    LIKE THE BEAST WITH MANY HEADS FROM THE BIBLE,
    AGAINST ONE GOOD MAN HAVING BEEN FOUND TO HAVE THE SKILLS TO SERVE AND HELP THE PEOPLE
    TOO DEPRESS TO HELP THEMSELVES

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site