President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio

President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio

WASHINGTON – A civil war is raging within the Republican Party, pitting House leaders against conservatives.

And “fed up” conservatives have now decided to fight back in public.

A congressional aide tells WND a group of House conservatives will discuss this week how to proceed, but a few of them have already decided to speak up publicly.

One tactic conservatives might employ would be voting with Democrats on procedural motions to derail legislation favored by leadership.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

The behind-the-scenes battle broke into open view on Friday when Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., was stripped of his chairmanship of a subcommittee for doing just that: voting against a House rule, in an unsuccessful attempt to slow down the rush to give President Obama virtually unchecked power to negotiate massive trade deals.

Radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham didn’t mince words in blasting the tactics of House Republican leaders: “This is what the mafia does. I’m sorry, but this is a political mafia on Capitol Hill.”

Laura Ingraham

Laura Ingraham

“I don’t see this as a Republican Party who represents people like me. And if they distance themselves from people like me, then I don’t see how [they’re] going to win the presidency.”

Meadows posted a scathing statement on Facebook:

“No one should be punished for voting their conscience and representing their constituents. I didn’t run for Congress to be a Yes vote for House Republican leadership. I came here to represent the people of Western North Carolina. My voting card may have my picture on it, but it belongs to the people of Western North Carolina and I will continue to listen to their voices regardless of the consequences. God bless.”

The congressman is getting support from top conservatives.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, tweeted: “What happened to @RepMarkMeadows is shameful. No one should be punished for voting his or her conscience.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Hucakbee issued a statement, reading, “In the face of enormous pressure from the House GOP leadership to vote for Obamatrade, Congressman Meadows voted his conscience. For this act, he was punished by party leaders and lost his subcommittee chairmanship.”

He added, “Congressman Meadows values convictions over committee assignments, principle over politics, and service to Americans over service for himself. In my book, you should be lauded-not loathed. Well done Congressman, well done!”

On Monday, Ingraham interviewed separately Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who said: “It’s completely wrong … Mark Meadows gets punished for voting his conscience for doing what he told the voters in North Carolina he was going to do.”

Jordan, who is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative House members, agreed with Ingraham that this did not seem the best way to recapture the White House.

And he let his frustration be known, telling her, “Mark Meadows, is a good man, a good friend, and what they did to him is exactly wrong, and there are a number of us who are fed up with it.”

Meadows downplayed the slight to him but stressed the importance of doing the will of his constituents, and he refused to apologize for doing what he said he was elected to do.

He called the loss of his chairmanship minor, saying, “This is about the voice of American people; they need to be heard.”

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.

But Meadows also had a few choice words for GOP House leadership.

“They wanted to continue to have a culture of fear of retribution and, yet, the speaker said he had learned his lesson and that he would be open to conservatives. Obviously that is not the case and so here we are today.”

Jordan also implied Boehner was breaking his promise to listen more to conservatives, by giving House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Democrats the amendment they wanted while ignoring an amendment proposed by conservatives, and covered in detail by WND, to give Congress more say in the trade deal.

“They (Democrats) got what they wanted. So someone who stood up and fought for his district loses his subcommittee chairmanship. What is going on here?” Jordan wondered aloud to Ingraham.

The Ohioan said the trade deal was just symptomatic of a much bigger problem for the GOP: “We aren’t doing what we said we would do.”

He noted the trade deal wasn’t even an issue in the 2014 elections that gave Republicans a landslide victory and control of the Senate in addition to the House. The top issues were stopping immigration amnesty and Obamacare.

“Why did they give us the largest majority in the house in 80 years?,” he asked rhetorically, noting it was not for leadership to move “heaven and earth” to give Obama even more unchecked power.

Referring to a recent Pew poll, Jordan said, “My bigger concern here, Laura, is you know why 65 percent of Republicans think Republican leadership is not doing what they said they would do? Because we aren’t doing what we said we would do.”

Meadows did not blame House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, for his demotion, but he pointed a finger at House leaders.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio

“This is not about Jason, he has had unbelievable pressure from leadership,” said the North Carolinian. “He said it is his decision, and indeed it is, but he had unbelievable pressure that leadership wanted this to happen.”

Chaffetz gave two reasons to Meadows for the demotion.

“One is I voted against the rule, against leadership. The other was that I, after they started targeting me with hits from a PAC (political action committee) that was very closely tied to the speaker, I told them I wasn’t going to give any more money to the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) until I had assurances that they weren’t going to run ads against me from my own team.”

Meadows said he was told it had nothing to do with his job performance.

“In fact, I think if you asked everybody, they’ll say that I am a valuable member of the team. But I am not going to just roll over and wave the white flag when it comes to leadership. If this is price I have to pay for representing the American people, then so be it. I gladly pay the price.”

The GOP fratricide flared into the open over opposition among many House conservatives to the Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, bill that would give the president authority to negotiate massive trade deals with other countries, cut Congress out of the negotiations and limit lawmakers’ participation to a simple yes or no vote when such treaties are concluded.

GOP leadership also took revenge last week against three representatives who voted against giving Obama “fast track” trade authority. Reps. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., Steve Pearce, N.M., and Trent Franks, Ariz., were kicked off the House Republicans’ “whip team,” responsible for drumming up votes.

The final vote on TPA is Tuesday in the Senate, where it is expected to pass.

Meadows said 95 percent of his colleagues didn’t read the TPA.

“I am one of the few that did,” he said. “When you really look at it, this fast track had 150 suggestions. I say suggestions because they’re not mandates. The president could do anything he wanted to do, and the only person who can hold him accountable would have been Chairman Paul Ryan.”

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.

TPA would allow the House Ways and Means Committee, which Ryan chairs, to vote on proposed changes to “fast-track” trade bills, but not the full Congress.

“It is giving away our constitutional abilities,” charged Meadows. “I have a problem with that, and the American people have a problem with that.”

Ingraham said to Jordan, “I personally have not seen GOP leadership work as hard on something and devote as much time as they’ve devoted to this trade issue, and behind the scenes, lots of arm twisting has been going on by Paul Ryan and Boehner himself.”

Jordan had similar observations, noting, ” I don’t know that I’ve seen leadership turn on the juice like they did. I mean, they really want to get this done.”

“I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the intensity for a piece legislation, not something like the funding bill, the omnibus bill … but something that’s just a piece legislation, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the intensity that we saw on display here the last couple weeks with this legislation.”

Jordan has repeatedly said he wanted a free-trade deal, telling WND two weeks ago that he understood the importance of trade and what it means for businesses in his Ohio district as well as across the country.

“But you want to do it right,” Jordan said.

“And so,” he told Ingraham, “a number of us conservatives say, if you’re going to do it, at least do it with some checks and safeguards so we can keep a better eye on this president who, frankly, has a history that is not real good about negotiating deals, that we think, are in the best interest of our constituents.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has been leading the charge against TPA, his greatest concern being that it would create an international legal body, akin to the European Union, that would have vast powers to change U.S. law, outside of the control of Congress.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

He has said one effect would be the bypassing of U.S. immigration laws, greatly increasing the number of foreign workers allowed into the country, costing Americans jobs and depressing wages.

Sessions penned an open letter on Sunday that claimed reams of new information have been exposed since the Senate last voted on TPA more than four weeks ago, including “information that was either not known or understood when the vote was held.”

Much of that information regards the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, a monumental trade deal between the U.S. and Pacific Rim nations that would almost certainly be passed into law, as would all “fast-tracked” trade deals, should TPA become law.

Sessions listed the problems:

  • TPP includes the administration’s pledge to impose “environmental governance.”
  • TPP would lead to the formation of a new Pacific Union, “an enduring, self-governing political entity with vast regulatory power. Yet fast-track – which has led without fail to the adoption of every covered agreement since its inception – would rush it through with less legislative scrutiny than a Post Office reform bill.”
  • “The president has refused to answer the most simple but crucial questions about how he plans to use fast-track powers. He will not even answer whether he believes his plan will increase or reduce the trade deficit, increase or reduce manufacturing jobs, or increase or reduce wages.”
  • “In addition to the TPP are the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). Together they encompass three-fourths of the world economy, and up to ninety percent of the world economy when including countries whose membership is being courted.”
  • “The texts of TTIP and TiSA remain completely secret –unreviewable by lawmakers themselves – yet fast-track would authorize the executive to sign them before Congress votes.”
  • “The president would send Congress legislation to change U.S. law to comport with these new agreements, legislation which cannot be amended, which senators cannot filibuster, cannot receive a two-thirds treaty vote, and cannot be debated for more than 20 hours.”
  • “The Ways and Means Committee has also now conceded that, as an unprecedented ‘Living Agreement,’ the union could change its structure, rules, regulations and enforcement mechanisms after final ratification – a dangerous and unjustifiable power.”
  • “TiSA would seek foreign worker mobility among 50 nations, including between the United States, Turkey and Pakistan.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.