Rep. Jim Jordan welcomes Tea Party Patriots and Members-elect to Washington
November 19, 2012 at 8:28 pm in News by Dustin Siggins 10 Comments
Last Friday, Tea Party Patriots was proud to welcome Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) to its second Freshman Orientation in Washington, D.C. Jordan spoke for over 15 minutes to new Members and over 100 Tea Party leaders.
Again, his speech about 3/4 way through he suggest a Balanced Budget Amendment. This opens the door to a Constitutional Convention, long promoted by Jenny Beth and the Tea Party Patriots. Coincidentally, many leading liberals are salivating at the prospect of a con-con… why? ( if you bother with the research, it may surprise you.
To quote Admiral Ackbar (Star Wars), “it’s a trap”.
I don’t know from where you are receiving your information, but Tea Party Patriots has never, ever, promoted a Constitutional Convention.
Respectfully, Mansfield Tea Party, the Tea Party Patriots did indeed co-sponsor a Constitutional Convention at Harvard in September of 2011. If the word “promote” bothers you then we can just call it “co-sponsored”. This is easy to research.
What is not disputed, on this very website, and Jenny Beth’s book (it’s actually #1 on the agenda going forward) is the Tea Party Patriots push for the Balanced Budget Amendment. This course of action can quickly snowball and result in a Constitutional Convention. By default, the TPP is opening Pandora’s Box. Additionally, a BBA guarantees (legally) UNCONSTITUTIONAL spending…. for anything, forever.
Lets just be honest here. In my researched opinion, the Tea Party Patriots is a heavily co-opted, CNP controlled, GOP neocon cheerleading machine and has been from the start. Regardless of the rhetoric, look at the actions taken. Awaken to the reality that is. This response will be deleted, because the TPP (national organization) can’t have light shown on them. Question for you MTP: is the likely possibility of a con-con from the heavy promotion of a BBA ( by the TPP) going to help or hurt the Republic? Is the Republic (Constitution) worth risking? And furthermore, does this align with the stated principles of the TPP Constitutionally limited government and fiscal responsibility?… or does it mock them to the point of absurdity.
I agree with much that you state.
Having the Constitution say something, and the government adhering to it are two different things. It seems the current Republican leadership is negotiating away the Constitution for temporary concessions.
An example is the National Defense Authorization Act.
The National Defense Authorization Act helps to preserve the status quo established a decade ago with the original provisions in the PATRIOT Act giving the government broad new powers in today’s so-called War on Terror, which seems confusing considering how Obama seems to be assisting the enemy. In part the bill expands those powers, codifying the use of indefinite detention of US citizens arrested at home. The bill expands the use of the US military on domestic soil.
The Posse Comitatus law is no longer in existence.
The Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens. Obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, for whatever reason they choose. Because Americans can be detained indefinitely, there is no requirement for notification or exercise of any other rights.
In short, today, the president has the authority to identify at his whim any individual American citizen within the borders of the United States and order the standing Armed Forces to invade their home/privacy/whatever and detain them indefinitely without charges until it is the whim of the president to release them.
This is so obviously unconstitutional, it is shocking that it emerged from Congress. Yet, our Republican leadership negotiated away the right to the writ of habeas corpus.
Article I Section 9
“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
The NDAA never referenced anything like rebellion or invasion. It just gives the president the authority to have anyone arrested and made to disappear.
The current Republican leadership in Congress agreed to this.
We need a new Speaker of the House.
Paul Ryan should be our next Speaker.
Mansfield Tea Party is correct.
See below, Mansfield Tea Party is incorrect.
We don’t need an Amendment to the Constitution. All we need are grown-ups running the government. Spending more than you have when there isn’t a direct reason, like a large-scale war being fought like when Bush was in office, and the only plan being considered is to continually borrow money to fund increasing entitlements isn’t an adult approach to governing.
Somebody has to step forward and draw a line in the sand and make everyone running our government grow up. Money doesn’t grow on trees.
NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON.
We need to change the leadership in Congress. The current Republican leadership has been woefully weak. We should expect no change in government if we do not change our leadership in Congress.
Paul Ryan should be the next Speaker of the House.
Wait a minute Sir Paleocon. Concerning the previous summers constitutional convention, there were only two conservatives that sat on that panel and someone had to be there to represent some kind of opposition to that stacked deck, AND Mark Meckler was appraised very highly for his position and representation.
The Tea Party Patriots has tried very hard to make it clear that they are not in favor of promoting a balanced budget amendment. WHY is the question, right? Because we do not believe you should make an amendment when simply making it a law to have a balanced budget is all that is needed.
The TPP has never promoted a balanced budget amendment. you might be confusing some individual statements by some elected officials and some local coordinators or posters who have taken up this idea. It is not however official with the TPP
Never???????? how about one short year ago???? This following post by Keli Carender (National Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots…. Board Member too????) was Nov.15, 2011.
The House Republican leadership has decided to bring the so-called “clean” Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) up for a vote this week, despite all 47 GOP Senators and almost all of the coalition groups supporting the “strong” BBA. In a nutshell, the “clean” or “weak” BBA only requires a balanced budget. It places no caps on spending and would almost guarantee tax increases to balance the budget, because when was the last time you saw a politician willing to actually cut spending? The weak BBA would also allow judges to force Congress to raise taxes if the budget wasn’t balanced. Can you say activist judges?!
Word on the street is that Boehner and company has decided to go with the weak BBA because they can get Democrats to vote for it. But this makes no sense, neither policy-wise nor politically. The policy problem stems from the fact that this is an amendment to our Constitution and should make the country better – not worse – and it’s not something to take lightly. The weak BBA practically guarantees continued overspending, increased taxes, and hyper-activist judges. Is that what Speaker Boehner thinks will make the country better?
On the political side, it’s just as bad. This vote will give cover to fiscally irresponsible congressmen of both parties, while forcing true conservatives and fiscally responsible members to vote no, thereby making them vulnerable to attack ads during the election. Got that? Fiscally irresponsible members will get to run on “I voted for a BBA! I totally think the budget should be balanced!” next November. At the same time, the members truly committed to fiscal responsibility and limited government will be forced to vote against the BBA, opening them up to misleading attacks during the election. How much do you want to bet that the mainstream media will delve into the details of the BBA, explaining the nuances about why some people voted against it? Yeah… I wouldn’t bet a lot.
They know a BBA will never pass the Reid Senate, so why not pass the tougher BBA and make a stand? There are two reasons why Boehner isn’t going with the strong BBA. First, he is trying to get something through that looks as “bipartisan” as possible. Second – and this is even sleazier – Boehner is allowing the weak BBA to move forward because he personally doesn’t want a strong BBA. He is perfectly content with the size and scope of the federal government. He is not a fiscally responsible, limited government kind of guy. All you have to do is look at his district to see it’s filled with rent seeking industries that feed off of the federal trough. He is protecting himself and his big government friends in both parties, allowing them to put a notch on their “fiscal responsibility” belts just in time for the elections next year.
You see, while Boehner derides Obama for playing political games with his jobs bill, Boehner is doing the same thing with the BBA. It is sickening that they would be willing to play around with our Constitution like this, just for some political gamesmanship. A weak BBA now means that if Congress ever gets a chance to actually pass it through both chambers and there is a President that will sign it, it will most assuredly be the weak version. Once they put out the weak version, they won’t be able to go back to a strong one. Here’s an even scarier thought: what if the weak one passes through the House and the Senate… and then President Obama decides to support it as it heads out to the state legislatures for approval? He’ll get to run on being fiscally responsible while knowing that the weak BBA would allow him to push for increased taxes with renewed authority and credibility.
Call your member of Congress today and tomorrow and tell them you want a strong BBA, and tweet @SpeakerBoehner to tell him that the weak BBA is unacceptable.
Keli Carender
Tea Party Patriots
FreedomWorks supports the Balanced Budget Amendment…. FreedomWorks controls/runs/funds the Tea Party Patriots…. research it.