Jim Jordan on Principles & Values
The new generation of pro-market, small government leaders filled such a need that in October 2007, Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard profiled Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy and christened them the "young guns."
Kevin approached Eric & Paul about the idea of traveling together, as "Young Guns", to visit Republican candidates interested in a new approach for the party.
What began as an informal way to support like-minded candidates became a more formal structure. Once the three Representatives had studied the candidate and given their support to become a Young Gun, they committed to providing financial support through their campaign committees.
Existing House Republicans were approached with a simple pitch: Are we willing to help ourselves by being proactive and going on the offense to change this House? Dozens of our House Republican colleagues joined the Young Gun effort as one of the many signs that the Republican Party had shifted.
Organizational Self-Description: The Republican Study Committee (RSC) has served as the conservative caucus of House Republicans and a leading influencer on the Right since its original founding in 1973. It exists to bring like-minded House members together to promote a strong, principled legislative agenda that will limit government, strengthen our national defense, boost America's economy, preserve traditional values and balance our budget.
The RSC provides the tools and research that members of Congress need to craft and advance policies that will benefit the American people. It also provides a forum for like-minded members to join together to support common causes and challenge the status quo. By doing so, the RSC ensures that conservatives have a powerful voice on every issue coming before the House, whether it is the economy, health care, defense, social safety net reform, or Washington's dangerous, out-of-control spending.
We believe that the appropriate role of a limited government is to protect liberty, opportunity, and security, and that it is the responsibility of this generation to preserve them for the next. We believe that more government is the problem, not the sol
Excerpts from press release from House Freedom Caucus (HFC) founders (1/26/15): According to its mission statement, the HFC "gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans." HFC leader Rep. Mark Meadows said, "The HFC will work to provide a unified conservative voice in the House Republican Conference. I look forward to working with leadership to make the concerns of conservatives known as we work together to advance a pro-growth, limited government agenda in the House."
Excerpts from Wikipedia article on HFC: The HFC is a congressional caucus consisting of conservative Republican members of the US House of Representatives. It was formed by a group of Congressmen as a "smaller, more cohesive, more agile and more active" group of conservatives. Many members are also part of the Republican Study Committee, another conservative House group. The caucus is sympathetic to the Tea Party movement.
Supporting argument: (Heritage Foundation, "Conservatives and the HFC," by Jim DeMint, 11/9/2015): The HFC had the audacity to challenge the status quo in Congress, and in the eyes of Washington's elites, that's a serious offense. For years, Washington's chattering class has guarded the status quo Establishment. But despite the howls of media outrage, the HFC has fought to stop business-as-usual in Washington. They are dedicated to [ending] the irresponsible federal spending we've seen over the last decade. This support for commonsense policies has led the Establishment to brand them as "radical" and "ultra-conservative." In reality they are merely advocating for doing what Republican leaders pledged to do. The Freedom Caucus exists to serve as a strong, conservative conscience guiding Congress.
On November 8, 2016, nearly 63 million Americans from around the country chose Donald J. Trump to be the 45th President of the United States. Now, less than a year before the next presidential election, 231 House Democrats in Washington, D.C., are trying to undo the will of the American people.
The Democrats' impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system. The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump's policy initiatives and processes. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats were discomforted by an elected President's telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats chafed at an elected President's "outside the beltway" approach to diplomacy.
Impeachment of American president demands the accuser prioritize legitimacy and thoroughness over expediency. In the impeachment inquiries for Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton the facts had been established and agreed upon by the time Articles of Impeachment were considered. Due to years-long investigations into the allegations against Nixon and Clinton, the only question to answer was what Congress would do to confront the findings.
The evidence uncovered in this impeachment, by contrast, shows the case is not only weak, but dangerously lowers the bar for future impeachment. The record put forth by the Majority is based on inferences built upon presumptions and hearsay. In short, the Majority has failed to make a credible, factually-based allegation against this president that merits impeachment.
By deciding to pursue impeachment first and build a case second, the Majority has created a challenge for itself. In the face of new information that exculpates or exonerates the President, the Majority must choose: either accept that the impeachment inquiry’s findings do not merit impeachment and face the political consequences or, alternatively, ignore those facts. Regrettably, the Majority has chosen the latter.
The Majority [in the Congressional Report of the Judiciary Committee on Impeachment] has not only ignored exculpatory evidence but proclaims the facts are "uncontested." The facts are contested, and, in many areas, the Majority's claims are directly contradicted by the evidence. That assertion is further contradicted by the Articles of Impeachment themselves. Not one of the criminal accusations level of the President over the past year--including bribery, extortion, collusion/conspiracy with foreign enemies, or obstruction of justice--has found a place in the Articles. The Majority has not made the case for impeachment in part due to his decision to impeach being rooted less in a concern for the nation that the debasement of the President
History will record the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump as a signal that even the gravest constitutional remedy is not beyond political exploitation. The Articles of Impeachment alone, drafted by the Majority in haste to meet a self-imposed December deadline, underscore the Majority's anemic impeachment case. The Majority's actions are unprecedented, unjustifiable, and will only dilute the significance of the dire recourse that is impeachment. The ramifications for future president so not difficult to surmise. If partisan passions or not restrained, the House of Representatives will be thrown into an endless cycle of impeachment, forgoing its duty to legislate, and usurping the place of the American people in electing their president.
|2017-18 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Principles & Values:||Jim Jordan on other issues:|
Freshman class of 2019:
"Freshman class" means "not in Congress in January 2017", with exceptions:
* Special election, so sworn in other than Jan. 2019
** Served in Congress in a previous term
*** Lost recount or general election
Freshman class of January 2019 (Republicans):
FL-6:Waltz ; FL-15:Spano ; FL-17:Steube
MN-1:Hagedorn ; MN-8:Stauber
OH-12*:Balderson ; OH-16:Gonzalez
PA-9:Meuser ; PA-11**:Smucker ; PA-12*:Keller ; PA-13:Joyce ; PA-14:Reschenthaler
TN-2:Burchett ; TN-6:Rose ; TN-7:Green
TX-2:Crenshaw ; TX-3:Taylor ; TX-5:Gooden ; TX-6:Wright ; TX-21:Roy ; TX-27*:Cloud
VA-5:Riggleman ; VA-6:Cline
Freshman class of January 2019 (Democrats):
AZ-2**:Kirkpatrick ; AZ-9:Stanton
CA-49:Levin ; CA-10:Harder ; CA-21:Cox ; CA-25:Hill ; CA-39:Cisneros ; CA-45:Porter ; CA-48:Rouda
CO-2:Neguse ; CO-6:Crow
FL-26:Mucarsel-Powell ; FL-27:Shalala
IA-1:Finkenauer ; IA-3:Axne
IL-4:Garcia ; IL-6:Casten ; IL-14:Underwood
MA-3:Trahan ; MA-7:Pressley
MI-8:Slotkin ; MI-9:Levin ; MI-13:Tlaib ; MI-13*:Jones ; MI-11:Stevens
MN-2:Craig ; MN-3:Phillips ; MN-5:Omar
NJ-2:Van Drew ; NJ-3:Kim ; NJ-7:Malinowski ; NJ-11:Sherrill
NM-1:Haaland ; NM-2:Torres Small
NV-3:Lee ; NV-4**:Horsford
NY-14:Ocasio-Cortez ; NY-11:Rose ; NY-19:Delgado ; NY-22:Brindisi ; NY-25:Morelle
PA-4:Dean ; PA-5:Scanlon ; PA-6:Houlahan ; PA-7:Wild ; PA-17*:Lamb
TX-7:Fletcher ; TX-16:Escobar ; TX-29:Garcia ; TX-32:Allred
VA-2:Luria ; VA-7:Spanberger ; VA-10:Wexton
Cannon HOB 515, Washington, DC 20515