Mark Meadows re-elected by his fellow House Freedom Caucus members as Chairman

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), a strong conservative and ally of President Donald Trump’s in Congress, was re-elected by his fellow House Freedom Caucus members as Chairman of that organization on Monday.

Meadows, who is the group’s second chairman since its founding in 2015, has taken the Caucus to new levels that its also powerful first chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) did not yet reach in the first two years.

Meadows has leveraged the Freedom Caucus’s 40-something votes to punish the establishment in Washington during big picture negotiations, fighting to ensure that Democrats and establishment Republican cannot effectively sideline Trump’s and other conservative views when Congress makes federal policy.

The affable Meadows first rose to national prominence in 2015, when he introduced what is known as a “motion to vacate the chair,” a resolution that if voted upon and passed would have removed then-Speaker John Boehner from office. Meadows introduced the resolution after Boehner retaliated against him and other conservatives for voting against leadership on major legislation during the Barack Obama presidency, sparking a grassroots revolution that eventually ended in Boehner resigning from the job before being forcibly removed by the cavalry of conservatives Meadows amassed.

During that fight, Breitbart News profiled Meadows in his district in western North Carolina, traveling with him during a day of constituent meetings and an evening town hall. In the interview in his district, Meadows told Breitbart News his mission is to make Congress more accountable to the people.

“I think everybody starts out doing that, because they’re real sensitive to the fact that they just got into office and say, ‘Golly, I want to be a voice for the people,’” Meadows said. “The longer they’re there, the less likely you are to listen. For me, I’ve had to redouble my effort and not say, okay, pay attention to what are the priorities in Washington, D.C., but really try to listen to what are the priorities here?”

Meadows’ efforts to remove Boehner proved successful. Boehner resigned in the fall of 2015, as Trump–a fellow outsider, like Meadows–was similarly on the rise on the presidential campaign trail. While Boehner’s ouster cleared the way for his establishment ally, now former Speaker Paul Ryan assumed command in the House. With Ryan’s efforts to push establishment priorities–frequently at odds with the campaign vision laid out by President Trump–it was Meadows who often kept the Speaker in check.

In early 2017, as President Trump began an effort to repeal and replace Obamacare–one that would ultimately fail in the Senate thanks to obstruction by the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in one of his last acts–Ryan’s initial plan was near collapse in the House.

Ryan had been losing GOP members for weeks leading up to the first votes on the healthcare bill, and he struggled to pull enough together to pass it. Initial votes on it were canceled, and it seemed the effort to repeal Obamacare had died in the House before Meadows emerged with a solution.

He negotiated with the moderate GOP Tuesday Group’s then-co-chairman then Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) to develop some big-picture changes to the leadership bill, and then it achieved final passage. Meadows’ role in getting this done was not lost on Trump, as the president held a Rose Garden ceremony at the White House with all the House GOP leadership to celebrate the House passage of the bill–at which Meadows was, along with MacArthur, afforded a speaking slot.

It was not just healthcare where Meadows has had Trump’s back at key moments in the House in the first couple years of his administration. Meadows was a key champion of the Trump tax cuts and has also been one of Trump’s main wing men on fighting corruption at the center of the scandal now known as “Spygate”– wherin Department of Justice and FBI officials, hellbent on taking Trump down first during the presidential campaign in 2016 then after he won– seemingly abused their positions of power to surveil the president and peddle inaccurate dirt on him in what would eventually lead to the formation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Meadows has also advised the president on key matters of spending bill fights, including Trump’s fight for a border wall, steadfastly remaining front and center pushing for the interests of Trump’s agenda even when other Republicans threw in the towel or refused to fight at all.

Now that Democrats have retaken the House, and Nancy Pelosi has reclaimed the Speaker’s gavel, Meadows remaining in the Freedom Caucus chair position is perhaps more vital than ever for the president. Pelosi got a pound of flesh from Trump in her first battle with him, securing a three-week spending bill deal that ended the longest government shutdown in U.S. history–a deal that contains zero dollars for the president’s planned wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. Trump insists he is still fighting, and he may win in the end, but having allies like Meadows in key positions throughout the minority in the House may prove crucial at key moments yet to unfold in the fight.

No Meetings in November and December, Next Meeting Jan. 14th, 2019

The Executive Committee has voted to suspend our November and December monthly meetings this year.

Our next scheduled meeting will be January 14, 2019 at 6:30 pm in Ryan’s Restaurant located at 1000 Brevard Road, Asheville.

At that meeting please be prepared to discuss our plans for the Golden Elephant event and fund-raising ideas for the coming year.

Thank you!
Aubrey Woodard
Chairman
NC 11th Congressional District GOP
828.577.0220

“Be VOCAL, be VISIBLE and VOTE”

How the Myth of the ‘Robber Barons’ Began—and Why It Persists

Fee – The widely-accepted “history” of America’s Gilded Age was grossly inaccurate, but it told a compelling story that many fell for hook, line, and sinker.

The widely-accepted “history” of America’s Gilded Age was grossly inaccurate, but it told a compelling story that many fell for hook, line, and sinker.

Culture Gilded Age Robber Barons History Marxism Myths

Note from the President: Burton W. Folsom is more than just my favorite historian. He’s also one of my very best friends. So I admit to some personal bias when I endorse his classic book, The Myth of the Robber Barons, as I’ve done on dozens of occasions. But even if I didn’t know him or didn’t like him, I would still say that it’s one of the best, most insightful books on American business and political history of the last century. The distinction he draws out between “market entrepreneurs” and “political entrepreneurs” has permanently altered historical interpretations of a crucial era in our past—for the better and with increasing effect as the years have gone by since the book’s first edition in 1991.

Now, a new edition—the eighth—makes its appearance with a new final chapter, excerpted here. What you’ll read below is about a third of that chapter, but it’s an excellent sample. Here, Dr. Folsom explores the question of how and why so many historians get the “robber baron” era precisely wrong, with a special focus on the deleterious impact of Matthew Josephson and his error-filled but influential book from the 1930s.

— Lawrence W. Reed, President, Foundation for Economic Education

Capitalism Worked, but We Were Told It Didn’t

We study history to learn from it. If we can discover what worked and what didn’t work, we can use this knowledge wisely to create a better future. Studying the triumph of American industry, for example, is important because it is the story of how the United States became the world’s leading economic power. “Free markets worked well; government intervention usually failed.

The years when this happened, from 1865 to the early 1900s, saw the U.S. encourage entrepreneurs indirectly by limiting government. Slavery was abolished and so was the income tax. Federal spending was slashed and federal budgets had surpluses almost every year in the late 1800s. In other words, the federal government created more freedom and a stable marketplace in which entrepreneurs could operate.

To some extent, during the late 1800s—a period historians call the “Gilded Age”—American politicians learned from the past. They had dabbled in federal subsidies from steamships to transcontinental railroads, and those experiments dismally failed. Politicians then turned to free markets as a better strategy for economic development. The world-dominating achievements of Cornelius Vanderbilt, James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Charles Schwab validated America’s unprecedented limited government. And when politicians sometimes veered off course later with government interventions for tariffs, high income taxes, anti-trust laws, and an effort to run a steel plant to make armor for war—the results again often hindered American economic progress. Free markets worked well; government intervention usually failed.

Why is it, then, that for so many years, most historians have been teaching the opposite lesson? They have made no distinction between political entrepreneurs, who tried to succeed through federal aid, and market entrepreneurs, who avoided subsidies and sought to create better products at lower prices. Instead, most historians have preached that many, if not all, entrepreneurs were “robber barons.” They did not enrich the U.S. with their investments; instead, they bilked the public and corrupted political and economic life in America. Therefore, government intervention in the economy was needed to save the country from these greedy businessmen. To read more click here.

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘New Deal’ Is Closer to National Socialism than Democratic Socialism

FEE – Senator Warren is proposing “the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States, and nothing less.”
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Barry Brownstein

In an episode of the HBO comedy series Crashing, libertarian Penn Jillette offered this provocative opinion:

The most important revolution in human history, more important than agriculture, more important than writing, is the scientific revolution. The scientific revolution came down to these three words: I don’t know.

Jillette added, “No institution, no church, no king, no power structure had ever said in history, I don’t know.”

The Greek historian Thucydides put it this way: “Ignorance is bold, knowledge reserved.”

It’s hard to find a politician willing to say, “I don’t know.” Senator Elizabeth Warren is no exception. Her ignorance is bold. Recently she proposed The Accountable Capitalism Act. Under her proposed law, Warren and others in government will pretend to know much about that which they know nothing—running every large business in America.
The Accountable Capitalism Act

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senator Warren urges Americans to insist “on a new deal.” Under her Accountable Capitalism Act,

Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a federal corporate charter. The new charter requires corporate directors to consider the interests of all major corporate stakeholders—not only shareholders—in company decisions. Shareholders could sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations.

Click here to read more.

Henderson County Republican Events Coming Up

  • Saturday, August 18 (7:30-9:00): GOP Breakfast at Dixie Diner – no RSVP required
  • Saturday, August 25 (10a – 4p): Community Outreach for the children and families of our county at: JH Sullivan Park Ashe Street  Hendersonville, NC 28792. (Need Volunteers – Contact Haydin Fink if interested (hayden.fink1@gmail.com>)
  • Wednesday, August 22 (7:30-9:00) Henderson County Republican Men’s club breakfast at Dixie Diner – no RSVP required
  • Tuesday, August 28 (11:30 – 1:30): Henderson County Republican Women’s luncheon with NC Sen. Chuck Edwards guest speaker (Cedars – RSVP Doris Hawkins hawkinsg@bellsouth.net)
  • Fri-Sun, August 31 – September 2: (9a-6:30p) Apple Festival (Need Volunteers)
  • Monday, September 3 (time TBD): Apple Festival Parade (Need Volunteers)
  • Saturday, September 15 (12:00-3:00): Constitution Day at Bill Moore Community Park (formerly called Fletcher Town Park) (Need Volunteers)
  • Saturday, September 25 (TBD): Candidate Forum sponsored by League of Women Voters. City Operations Center (NEED ALL REPUBLICANS THERE – STANDING ROOM ONLY!!)
  • Saturday, October 6 (10-4): Farm City Day (Need Volunteers)

What the Internet Sales Tax Is All About

FEE – Just curious, but if a Washington, D.C. resident buys a pack of cigarettes in Arlington, VA, should this person pay a sales tax to the District of Columbia? Figure that cigarettes cost roughly $5.25/pack in Virginia versus $7.99 in D.C. Arlington retailers have a significant tax advantage over merchants in the District, so to “level the playing field” shouldn’t D.C. residents hand over the difference in taxes? The tax will ensure that Washington residents don’t cross the bridge in order to get a better deal, and in the process imperil Capitol-based businesses.

It all sounds right, doesn’t it? If businesses in low-tax areas exploit the tax difference, Washington’s retailers could be in a world of hurt, as will be its tax base.

Absent our ability to take our consumption elsewhere, what’s the incentive for local and state legislators to keep taxes low?

Except that tax competition among cities and states serves a very real purpose: it forces local taxing authorities to think long and hard before helping themselves to more of what we earn. Absent our ability to take our consumption elsewhere, what’s the incentive for local and state legislators to keep taxes low? Also, we seem to forget that local businesses, precisely because they’re local, have the ultimate sales advantage in that they’re nearby, sometimes walking distance, plus they enjoy name recognition that declines the farther the business is away from the consumer.

Click here to read more.

Video:

Supreme Court Rules That States Can Force Online Retailers to Charge Sales Tax

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1 – The Legislative Branch, Section 9 – Limits on Congress states: No tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state. Export means articles or items shipped over state lines to any other state or country. (See Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce). *Some feel this applies only to the Federal Government and not the states. Q: How do you feel about it after reading the “Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce”? The following is from “Federalist Papers: In Modern Language”: #11 An important objective of this power was to give relief to the states that import and export through other States and are forced to pay improper contributions levied on them. #12 In Switzerland, where the union is very slight, each canton(state) must allow merchandise passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without additional tolls. Note: To the best of my knowledge before 1992, States were not allowed to charge sales tax on purchases being shipped over state lines. Why was that if not for unencumbered trade in a UNITED nation? This so-called law is nothing more but a way for the poorly run state governments trying to bail themselves out on the backs of sovereign of citizens of other states.

Article 1, Section 10 states: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or exports,…….

For those that think that an online Sales Tax is not a duty on an import think again it is a tax on items being imported into a state. THEREFORE IT IS AN IMPORT TAX. What happens, to the economy, if the States start changing their States sales tax on an items leaving (export duty) their State and the State the item is being shipped to also collects their States Sales Tax (import tax)?

Did you know there are as of 2014 9,998 different sales tax jurisdictions in the United States. Wonder how many there are now in 2018?

In Amendment 14 it is stated: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND the State wherein they reside. (No state you do not physically live in or physically do business in should be able to tax you as you are not a citizen of that State. – Fremont’s opinion)

As, you know: U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 1 – All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. NOT ONE word about the Executive or Judaical Branches having any power to make law. So, it is QUITE clear the U.S. Executive and Judaical Branches have NO LAW MAKING POWER!

Meadows Supporting Rep. Jim Jordan’s Bid for Speaker

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) released the following statement:

“When I arrived in Congress, Jim Jordan was one of the first colleagues I got to know—and in the time since, I can honestly say Jim is one of the most honorable, thoughtful, and principled men I’ve met in Washington. Jim is a fighter, a leader, and a true conservative in every way. He never backs down from a fight when his values are on the line. He listens to and cares about his colleagues. Most importantly, he remembers the most critical voice—the voice of the voters—in every single decision he makes. If the people entrust Republicans with the House this November, Jim Jordan would be a Speaker who would fight for real changes in Congress that would allow the people’s House to truly work for Main Street Americans. I fully support his candidacy.”

House Passes Rep. Meadows’ Amendment to Eliminate Obamacare’s Multi-State Plan Program

Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, the House passed an amendment authored by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) to prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to administer Obamacare’s ‘Multi-State Plan Program.’ The amendment passed with a bipartisan majority by a vote of 223-192.

Section 1334 of the Affordable Care Act requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with at least two national health plans, one of which must be a non-profit plan, to compete directly with private plans in every state. These plans are called multi-state plans, or MSP’s. The law requires they be available in all 50 states as of 2017.

Multi-state plans were intended to drive competition on the health care exchanges. However, the program has failed to meet the Obama administration’s 750,000 enrollment projection or the 50-state statutory requirement. The program has been so unsuccessful that in 2018, there is only one participating state (Arkansas).

Elimination of the program is supported by the OPM and the National Active Retired Federal Employees Association, among other groups. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have also conceded that eliminating funding for the plans will not affect the level of competition or premiums in the insurance market place, nor would it affect any Obamacare subsidies.

Rep. Meadows released the following statement on the amendment:

“The Multi-State Plan program amounts to a textbook waste of taxpayer dollars and needs to be eliminated. It makes no sense for the OPM to dedicate funds to a program that does nothing other than spend money and stifle competition in the marketplace. Bottom line: the program was a poorly conceived provision of an even more poorly conceived bill in Obamacare, and repealing it is a positive step in the right direction of improving America’s healthcare markets. I appreciate the support of my colleagues.”

 To watch Rep. Meadows floor speech on the amendment, click here.

 Rep. Meadows speaks in support of his amendment