Congress Says THIS Time We Really Mean It!

There’s a bill being lovingly preserved by Mitch McConnell, Curator of the Senate, that’s one of those ‘bi–partisan’ efforts the media loves to celebrate.

Senators John Cornyn (R–TX) and Chris Murphy (D–CT) have introduced legislation I’m sure they’ll be featuring in future campaign commercials. According to CNN the bill “aims to strengthen how state and federal governments report offenses that could prohibit people from buying a gun.”

Nate Beeler, The Columbus Dispatch

Specifically, “It would ensure that federal and state authorities comply with existing law and require them to report criminal history records to the NICS.”

Strangely enough, we already have a law, passed by Congress, that requires just that. Yet no one ever asks what makes the esteemed senators believe the federal bureaucracy will follow this new law when they are failing to obey the old law?

Or why the legislative branch allows the bureaucracy to get away with ignoring the law without consequence in the first place?

Nothing demonstrates the impotency of the GOP congressional leadership like introducing a new, stringent law when these political eunuchs can’t seem to convince the bureaucracy to adhere to law already on the books.

Federal statutes require criminal history be reported to the NICS in a timely fashion now. It’s vitally important a potential gun purchaser’s records be current when the dealer runs a background check.

Why don’t these overpaid ‘leaders’ who assure us they are ‘fighting for you’ force the bloated, unresponsive, inert federal government to be accountable to current law? Why are they so comfortable with being ignored by the government they assure us they are leading? Is it because most of these barnacles have been in office so long they think of themselves as government employees?

Or is it fear of angering the federal workforce? If that’s it, I’ve got news for Republicans: Swamp bureaucrats already vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers. Virginia’s 2017 state election is all the proof one requires.

A smart political solution would be to take the side of the taxpayer and demand current law be obeyed.

Cornyn and Murphy’s bill is a hand–wringing response to the Air Force’s failure to prevent the Sutherland Springs church shooter from buying a weapon. The shooter had been convicted by the USAF of domestic abuse, child abuse and had been dishonorably discharged. If any one of those three records had been entered into NICS, he would have failed the background check and would’ve been prevented from buying a rifle.

Because of Air Force negligence 26 people are dead and absolutely NOTHING happened in response. I suppose taxpayers shouldn’t be surprised. Since no one lost their job after 9/11, how can we expect repercussions for the relative handful of dead in Texas?

A Senate or House that was truly interested in establishing a climate of responsibility and accountability in the federal government would have come down on the USAF like the Wrath of God.

Could the Senate have done something? Certainly, but it requires work. For starters, the committees dealing with the services could have begun an investigation and held hearings. And I don’t mean a hearing where the Secretary of the Air Force and his entourage enters the room and delivers suitably contrite and take–no–specific–responsibility sound bites.

I mean a hearing where the entire chain of command at the base where the paperwork failure occurred is subpoenaed, sworn in and grilled in televised hearings. I want the incompetent clerk, the supervisor and all the rest of the base chain of command on the stand being interrogated. And when base personnel are rung out, we can move up to those in the Pentagon who are responsible for records.

Only afterwards does the Secretary of the Air Force make his appearance.

In addition, committee investigators must refuse to accept “we can’t answer personnel questions due to privacy” dodge. That shuffle is beloved by bureaucrats because it allows them to escape scrutiny and accountability. If these people are in ‘public service’ then what they do is public, too.

Settling for the ‘privacy’ excuse denies the public accountability in two ways. They never learn the identity of the miscreant or what the consequences, if any, were. Plus, ‘privacy’ is also a cover–up for the supervisor, because we never learn if he lifted so much as a finger to fire or punish the guilty.

I want the full weight of public shame and notoriety to be hung around the all the aider’s and abettor’s necks. As far as I’m concerned if an employee values his privacy, he can work in the private sector.

Passing more laws to require adherence to previous laws is ridiculous on its face. As is a Congress that believes it’s doing its job by passing laws and then assuming the role of a bystander.


2nd Becomes the ‘It Depends’ Amendment

Dick’s and Dunkleberger’s have decided the 2nd Amendment contains a hitherto unknown age restriction on the sale of rifles. In the future only customers over the age of 21 will be able to buy a scary–looking long gun in those stores.

Walmart, L.L. Bean and Florida also are banking on age discrimination as a civil rights violation understanding judges will be happy to overlook. Or should turning a biased eye meet with too much pushback, our robed rulers will quickly discover a provision hidden between the lines of the Constitution that legalizes a 2nd Amendment age qualification.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle

I’m opposed to knee–jerk ageism as currently proposed, but with just a few tweaks to the regime, I could become an enthusiastic supporter. And I don’t mean by limiting the age restriction. Indeed, I want to expand it.

If lawmakers and commercial interests think America would be safer if citizens under age 21 aren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment, I can think of many ways the country would benefit from expanding this philosophy to other portions of the Constitution.

Let’s start with the 1st Amendment. Think how much more mature and less profane culture would be if free speech rights were denied teens and pre–adults. Not being forced to listen to or read about Parkland media darling David Hogg is enough to convince me.

If that overly–opinionated and under–matured agitator for gun confiscation had to wait four years before free speech rights were conferred, it might give him time to cool off and grow up. Emphasis on the ‘might.’

Making free speech privileges a right–of–passage, like one’s first sip of Jack Daniel’s, would immediately eliminate lawsuits regarding obscene t–shirts in schools; along with obscene caps, dress codes, offensive posters, offensive chants, cleavage, yoga pants, thongs, saggy pants, baggy ideology — in other words, the whole works!

Parents and infants who identify as adults will be quick to point out you can’t shut a teenager up. 1st Amendment or no. True, but if under 21s aren’t covered by the 1st Amendment, then they also aren’t protected by case law regarding libel and slander. Add a provision specifying media outlets giving a platform to under–21s are liable for any slanderous or libelous statements and bingo, you’ve got a blackout!

I can’t think of any discussion of a major issue in our past where under–21s have brought new light to the debate. Mucho heat, yes, innovative thinking, no.

Besides spouting off, what other limitations do I want as a price for my support? Voting for one. Raising the voting age to 21 will eliminate all the tired, recycled, thumb–sucking news coverage of ‘the youth vote.’ People start voting regularly when they reach the age of 35. Before that time only a lunatic with a handout — Bernie comes to mind — will motivate youth to put their game controller down long enough to go to the polls.

With any luck a 21–year–old minimum voting age will also end that perpetual money–raising, results lacking racket: “Rock the Vote”.

The 4th Amendment could also use an age limitation. The majority of American teenagers would benefit from a few random locker searches. The same goes for their cell phones and computers. Maintaining privacy at that age is usually a cover for activities parents forbid or discourage. Letting the sunshine in and completely eliminating this misplaced concern for Junior’s privacy, replacing it with a mild sense of paranoia, would go a long way toward reestablishing cultural and moral standards parents and other authority figures have allowed to degrade.

The left won’t agree to my proposal because to a large extent it has already silenced conservatives who are under 21. For that beleaguered class the 2nd isn’t the only ‘it depends’ amendment. Young conservatives have discovered their 1st Amendment rights are conditional, too.

Before his death Andrew Breitbart observed, “Politics is downstream of culture.” Conservatives are living in that fetid marsh today. The left runs higher and lower education. It controls Hollywood, cable TV and broadcast TV. It controls all the legacy networks with the exception of Fox. (There its control is confined to the entertainment side, while the news side skews conservative — for now.)

Music — country, rock and rap — is controlled by Cultural Marxists. Social media is another preserve of the left.

Conservatives are limited to radio, a handful of websites, even fewer publications and Trump’s twitter feed.

Gun ownership is witnessing the same kind of squeeze. During the Obama administration they tried to put an age ceiling on guns by using the Social Security Administration. This year’s goal is an age floor. If they continue to narrow the window, soon the ‘Productive Years’ and the ‘Golden Years’ will be joined by the ‘Gun–owning Years’ as brief periods during an individual’s life.

Parkland School Shooting Is Your Government at Rest

During his nationwide ‘Don’t Blame Me’ Tour, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told the Miami Herald he was unable to arrest the Parkland school shooter prior to the attack because “his deputies were legally ‘handcuffed.’”

Sheriff Fife should know, since he personally bought the handcuffs.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

It’s becoming obvious as the investigation continues that rather than a random killing spree, the death toll is collateral damage resulting from Democrat efforts to introduce protected categories into the criminal justice system by ending the ‘school to prison pipeline.’

Instead of the NRA with blood on its hands, we find Broward County School Superintendent Robert Runcie and Sheriff Israel directly responsible for the death of 17 innocents.

Real Clear Investigations reports in 2013 — the year before the shooter entered high school — the Sheriff of Noddingham voluntarily signed a “collaborative agreement on school discipline.” This preemptive amnesty listed a series of misdemeanors that would no longer result in arrest.

The freebie offenses included vandalism, disorderly conduct, fighting, trespassing, criminal mischief, harassment, threats, alcohol infractions and possession of drug paraphernalia — all violations common to future valedictorians.

The overarching goal was to reduce the number of juvenile arrests. To make sure that happened, deputies were advised, “Emergency and other situations may arise that require the immediate involvement of law enforcement. In such instances, school officials and law enforcement should confer after the situation has been diffused…to ensure the most effective and least punitive means of discipline is being employed.” (my emphasis)

With the stroke of a pen deputies who formerly represented law enforcement, now represented selective enforcement.

Currently approximately 150 school systems nationwide — including many of the largest in the US — are operating under these avoid–arrest–at–all–cost rules. And not one of the sheriffs, police chiefs, school superintendents, or elected officials told voters an important part of their plan for the next term will be not arresting the bullies who steal your child’s lunch money.

Instead many of the victims will be sitting beside the victimizers to work out a ‘restorative justice’ solution. It’s almost as if a secondary goal of the program was to intimidate witnesses. If you see something, say nothing.

How does that happen? Where do public officials gain this authority to start not enforcing the law? We don’t get to choose which laws to obey, where do these petty tyrants get the idea they have the right to pick and choose the laws to enforce?

Sheriff Israel crowed, “We’re changing the culture, and what we’re doing is we are gonna make obsolete the term ‘zero tolerance.’” The sheriff also made the term ‘competent’ obsolete when used in connection with his department.

Law enforcement officers as a rule consider juvenile arrests to be a big pain in the behind. Juvie collars take more time, involve more rules and require reams of paperwork. Add that to a signed agreement by the sheriff that actively discourages arrest and officers who want to stay in good graces with Israel won’t be bucking the system by arresting students.

Sheriff Israel’s lax enforcement edict worked like a charm. The Boston Globe found in the year just prior to Israel’s emancipation proclamation the sheriff’s department recorded 1,056 school–based arrests. By the 2015–16 school year the number had plunged 63 percent.

The shooter’s repeated infractions were part of the non–enforcement regime.

Gun laws currently on the books would have been enough to prevent the shooter from buying a rifle in February 2017 had he been arrested and prosecuted even once.

The multiple murderer was reported to have said he “planned to shoot up the school.” That’s enough to get either an arrest or an investigation in most jurisdictions. In Broward the information was turned over to school resource officer Dep. Scot ‘Take Cover’ Peterson. Acting as judge, jury and exonerator, Peterson did nothing, which in his case is beginning to sound like a trend.

The shooter assaulted students twice with no arrest. Made repeated threats with no arrest. And threated to kill people with no arrest. Proving Sheriff Israel really knows how to make a ‘no arrest’ policy stick.

The department’s repeated failure to take the shooter to court meant there was no record in the NCIC system regarding his past run–ins with the law. Since he was a blank slate the shooter didn’t even get swept into the FBI’s ‘catch and release’ anti–terrorism program after the Bureau fielded a tip.

The sheriff department’s turn–your–child’s–other–cheek policy came to fruition when the gunfire broke out.

The fact is the country doesn’t need “sensible gun laws” or rifle bans. There were plenty of laws on the books that would have stopped this latest school shooting before it began.

Sheriff Israel just decided public relations and ‘social justice’ was more important than children’s lives.

GOP Avoids Becoming Piñata Through No Fault of Its Own

The stubborn intransigence of the Partido Demócrata de los Estados Unidos may have just cost it the 2018 midterm election. I’ll admit I’m in awe of the influence a large group of entitled, ungrateful and anti–American illegals has over Demócratas, but this time the slavish devotion leftist politicians have to these invaders backfired.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle

(Which brings to mind a related point. Shouldn’t the Partido Demócrata be required to register as a foreign agent? If Paul Manafort can be indicted by Robert ‘Ahab’ Mueller for failing to register in connection with work for the Ukraine — a nation with zero influence in Congress — it seems only fair that a political party which spends most of its time representing non–citizen lawbreakers should be forced to register, too.

Besides, it’s becoming obvious there was no significant Russian 2016 election meddling or “collusion.” While evidence of the influence Mexico has on elections goes completely uninvestigated.)

It would have been easy enough for Demócratas to agree to partial funding for Trump’s wall —  AKA the Muro de Humillación —and then conveniently forget about it just as they did after Reagan’s “one–time–only” amnesty.

This strategy would have had two advantages. It would have cleared Demócratas’ offices of the screaming, aggressive moochers known as ‘Soñadores’, while almost guaranteeing a midterm Republican wipeout.

The promise of a wall in the future would not have been enough to overcome an amnesty in the present for conservatives. While energized leftists descended on the polls, enervated conservatives would’ve stayed home. Passive–aggressive Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell would have returned to minority status, along with Paul Rino.

That didn’t happen. Not because crony conservatives decided to represent citizens instead of the Chamber of Commerce and the Kochs. The GOP wasn’t opposed to the citizenship giveaway. McConnell and Ryan would’ve been happy to simultaneously display their “compassion” and political death wish by passing a DACA/Soñadores amnesty.

What prevented amnesty was Trump’s promise to veto any bill that didn’t contain funding for the wall. The GOP Jellyfish caucus didn’t suddenly become immigration hardliners who believe citizenship is more than a cheap geography prize that can be traded for votes.

Republicans didn’t want to be embarrassed by a Trump veto. In turn, Trump was saved from betraying his base by Demócratas’ anti–citizen fanaticism.

Even though the DACA amnistía was temporarily defeated, the existing political situation for conservatives remains unchanged.

Country club Republicans running the House and Senate continue to view the conservative base the same way arrogant explorers viewed natives in Africa: Conservatives are dangerous savages useful for toting ballot boxes on their head while the master is in the bush, but they must be thoroughly house–broken before being allowed into polite society.

Conservatives are stuck in a situation that’s worse than the French in 1942. We’re ruled by a Vichy government filled with accommodationist weaklings and our D–Day reinforced the enemy instead of providing victory.

The only way the political situation will change is if conservatives act unilaterally to change it. And this brings us back to my “Lose the House to Win the Future” strategy.

The cocktail conservatives of the GOP establishment must be sent a message that will smash the impervious barrier of complacency and arrogance that surrounds their Capitol Hill offices. Conservatives must change their voting behavior in November 2018.

Instead of holding your nose and voting for some caretaker conservative, I want you to cast a write–in ballot for Mark Meadows, chairman of the genuinely conservative House Freedom Caucus. Resist the temptation to write in Mickey Mouse or some other cartoon character. That’s a mistake that will result in your vote being dismissed as a frivolous vote.

A nationwide write–in campaign where conservatives write Meadows’ name on the Congressional ballot will be a message that’s impossible for even the congenitally oblivious McConnell to ignore.

Losing the House will also help.

Let me stress House votes are the only change for conservatives. Votes for Senate GOP candidates remain unchanged, even if your only choice is a media parasite like Lindsey Graham (R–Amnesty). It simply takes too long to regain control of the Senate.

I know newly empowered House Demócratas will pass gun confiscation bills, grant illegal aliens citizenship and demand Baptists dance at same–sex weddings, but it won’t matter. The bills will die in the Senate or Trump will veto.

What will matter is seat–warming Republicans will see what their future holds if they continue to alienate conservatives. If the GOP proves they’ve embraced RINO Reform, then go back to voting as usual in 2020. Trump will win and for the first time he’ll have a genuinely conservative and motivated congressional majority with which to work.

My Genuine Bipartisan Compromise Offer

The nation just witnessed what the OpMedia and the Commentariat like to call “bipartisan legislation.” The occasion was the two–year spending–palooza that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell and The Boy Ryan passed.

It was bipartisan in the sense that country club conservatives let Democrats waste $150 billion on social programs, so they could waste an equal amount at the Pentagon Mall. It wasn’t a genuine compromise any more than two addicts agreeing to split stolen money between heroin and crack is a compromise.

What I’m offering is a genuine compromise. Conservatives will agree to the left’s public financing of campaigns, if the left will agree to support federal term limits.

Leftist voters have long supported term limits — see Maryland, for instance — it’s leftist incumbents who fight limits on their chair–warming harder than they ever fight for constituents. While all conservatives intensely dislike publicly financed political campaigns.

The reason is simple. Government takes my coerced tax dollars and uses it to finance candidates I don’t know or support. Yet realistically, is that any worse than the current situation in the Senate where McConnell lets my tax dollars be used to help abort babies I don’t know?

Under my compromise strangers get my money, true, but the clock is ticking on how long they can use it. Term limits is so important to reestablishing government responsiveness that an unequal deal is worth it.

Public finance usually comes with spending limits, which means it’s also an incumbent protection racket. Challengers never have enough public money to overcome the built–in name recognition advantage that goes with holding office.

That’s one reason public finance is attractive to incumbents. It helps them by making wealthy, self–funding challengers look like they’re trying to buy the election. The other reason is incumbents are lazy and don’t like raising money.

The left also likes public finance because candidates who take the king’s shilling are either prohibited from accepting any other money or are prohibited from taking contributions over a certain amount. That’s supposed to remove temptation from our weak–willed officeholders and reduce the outsized influence contributors have.

My compromise won’t limit the total amount a donor can contribute in any year. That’s because the Supremes ruled political contributions are a form of speech, so limiting contributions limits speech. But it has not escaped my attention that the only families we seem to be hearing from these days are the Soros and the Kochs.

That’s why the public finance compromise will limit what candidates can accept and spend. To keep the program from becoming food stamps for exhibitionists, the compromise will require candidates to raise a threshold amount from small donors before public financing begins.

The weakness of public finance, as we’ve seen in presidential races, is candidates can opt out of the system without any penalty. A rich candidate can far outspend the public welfare candidate who stays within the public finance system.

My solution to that is in the general election if one of the candidates opts out of the public finance system, the candidate who stays in gets his public money AND the opt–out candidate’s money, plus he can also solicit donors. A triple whammy for those who don’t play by the rules.

Equally important I’m going to insist the new public finance system apply to primaries. This is crucial. Primaries are where the incumbent advantage is the greatest. Why do you think a pustule like McConnell, whose polling numbers in Kentucky are under water, remains in office?

How can these Congressional crony conservatives routinely ignore the conservative base? Easy, they don’t fear primary opponents, because in most instances they don’t exist. Big donors won’t give to a primary opponent because they fear retribution from the incumbent. And the party apparatus attacks challengers. You have to have a large fortune you’re willing to turn into a small fortune if you decide to file against an incumbent.

News coverage focuses on how many seats change hands, but the ideological direction of a party is determined in the primary. Public financing there would encourage challengers and make incumbents more fearful of the voters they are allegedly ‘fighting for.’ If I had to choose only one, I would take primary public campaign financing over the general election.

In return for public finance, conservatives want a hard 12–year, cumulative limit on federal office and once an incumbent terms out, there’s a lifetime prohibition on paid lobbying of Congress or any federal agency.

A nation that puts a sell–by date on bottled water can certainly put a discard date on politicians. Incumbents will fight this tooth–and–nail, so it’s going to take a genuine bipartisan effort at the grassroots level to force action. What do you say leftists, are you ready for a grand compromise?

God Bless This Abortion Mill

(Author’s Note: If you have any question regarding just how badly conservatives and ProLife believers have lost the Cultural Civil War, ponder this: Not a single one of the newspapers and websites that normally run my Cagle Syndicate column ran this one.)

A Maryland abortion mill recently held an audition that was so important the Washington Post covered it. And this wasn’t one of the friendly Planned Parenthood ‘clinics’ where they are so busy providing mammograms, check–ups, flu shots and underage marital counseling that abortion customers practically have to deliver in the waiting room before someone will see them.

This performance was at the Carhart ‘clinic’ in Bethesda, MD. There chief executioner LeRoy Carhart terminates the life of viable, unborn babies up to five months old. Although that limit is self–imposed. In the People’s Republic of Maryland, a woman can execute her unborn child even in the ninth month.

There were four individuals present, each trying to out–do the others in their unqualified support for killing the unborn. What made this audition so newsworthy was all four claimed to be religious authorities. The Rev. Carlton Veazey, Rabbi Charles Feinberg, Rev. Cari Jackson and Rev. Barbara Gerlach were present but evidently the priest of Moloch had a schedule conflict.

None of the four are exactly mainstream clergy, the mainstreamers are the ones across the street leading prayer vigils trying to prevent abortions. Consequently, abortion mills can’t be picky when it comes recruiting spiritual help. If they own a Bible and know where to put the “amen” in a prayer, it’s good enough for the ‘Choose Death’ industry.

Veazey has been described by Tucker Carlson as “an abortion fanatic” who claims abortion “is part of the basic tenet of our church.” Veazey talks less about the photo where he was “in a nude embrace with a woman who had come to him for ‘spiritual help.’” And the Washington Post reporter didn’t inquire into the circumstances of her subsequent suicide and Veazey’s ouster as pastor of the Zion Baptist Church in Washington, DC.

Rev. Jackson is a ‘married’ lesbian and Rev. Gerlach is a widow and old–time feminist. None of the four currently have a church or synagogue that provides a salary. If they were going to generate any paid speaking opportunities from their butcher shop blessing, news coverage would be crucial.

They began with spurious ‘religious’ justifications for abortion that reeked of modern misplaced moral authority: Achieving the goal comes at someone else’s expense. In this instance, the baby.

Veazey proclaimed, “Keep them safe and keep them strong. And may they always know that all that they do is for Thy glory.” Feinberg was reassuring, “Judaism has always said abortion is never murder. It may not be permitted, depending on the circumstances…but it is never murder.” True as far as it goes. Feinberg failed to note one of those times abortion is not permitted is after 40 days. Up to 40 days a woman can go to any abortion clinic, instead of Carhart’s Last Gasp Gynecology.

After 40 days the only Jewish justification for abortion is to save the mother’s life. And saving women from homicidal ‘clumps of cells’ is exactly what late–term abortion apologists would have you believe Carhart does.

Only that’s not true either. The abortion–friendly Guttmacher Institute published a study that found “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Late–termers get an abortion for the same reason first trimester women get one, only they aren’t as prompt or organized.

The other justification is late–term abortions are ‘only’ 2 percent of the total, which sounds small until one realizes in 2013 there were a total of 664,435 abortions reported to the feds. Two percent of that appalling total is 13,288 unborn children killed and as National Review points out, “To get a sense of scale, consider that the CDC reports that gun homicides claimed the lives of 11,208 people in the US that year.

Jackson may have won the audition with her rousing declaration, “We give honor to all of these women who choose to come to this space. We sanctify this space, and we honor this as holy.”

That proves these vile people most certainly not in the service of either God or Jesus Christ who said in Ecclesiastes 11:5: “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”

During the last 100 years the world has experienced two Holocausts. A quick one by the Nazis that killed in excess of 6 million Jews and a gradual accumulation of 60,166,484 unborn children killed by abortion since the Supreme Court decided Row v. Wade in 1973.

And when comparing the two one conclusion is inescapable: As bad as the Nazis were, to my knowledge, they never had a pastor bless the ovens.

More Evangelicals Selling Their Soul to Support a Loser

It’s sad to say another Christian group has decided to maintain access to DC power rather than tell the truth regarding the shortcomings of a prominent politician. Maybe it’s the ego rush when calls are returned. Or maybe it’s the meetings in off–limits–to–the–public Capitol hideaways that persuades these organizations to publically support a man who’s repeatedly failed to live up to expectations.

Their support would make perfect sense if I was referring to Donald Trump. His personal failings are legion, but he’s delivered. I’m talking about the Evangelical embrace of Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell. His personal life lacks ‘hos and handsy–ness, but his public life is steaming pile of defeat and insincere promises.

Christopher Weyant, The Boston Globe

McConnell’s failures are manifest in the Family Research Council’s scorecard on the 115th Congress. FRC tries manfully to make a silk purse out of McConnell’s ear, but the task is impossible. Once you get past the hyperbolic lead, “A record number — 245 Members of Congress — scored a perfect 100 percent…last year.” One realizes most of the votes counted for nothing.

If FRC rated on legislative effectiveness the scores would max out at 25 percent.

The House passed eight laws and one resolution used for scorecard evaluation. Four of those bills failed in the Senate. McConnell’s ‘accomplishments’ were so paltry, FRC had to use the routine confirmation of appointees for most of the scorecard.

That’s the legislative equivalent of giving participation trophies at the end of ballerina ball season.

Separating what the House passed from what the Senate failed to pass shows just how much damage McConnell single–handedly does to the conservative cause.

This political mastermind is responsible for the defeat of bills designed to stop funding Planned Parenthood and forcing Christian organizations to provide contraception coverage that conflicts with their Christian belief. McConnell is responsible for the defeat of the clean Obamacare repeal and it’s ‘skinny’ brother. And just this week McConnell passively watched the Pain–Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’s defeat even though it had a majority of 51 votes.

Yet there is zero criticism of McConnell’s serial failures! Instead FRC blandly refers to defeats requiring 60 votes without explaining why a simple majority of 51 isn’t enough.

This self–imposed 60–vote requirement is an internal Senate rule that only dates back to 1975. Before if a bill was scheduled to come to the floor and a senator or party opposed the measure, they had to conduct a genuine filibuster. This meant the senator had to hold the floor, blocking consideration of any other legislation or Senate business.

Senators read aloud, told stories or simply listened to the music of their own voice during their time at the podium. The filibuster was an around–the–clock affair and sympathetic senators had to continue the delaying drone by volunteering to take a shift. This took a physical toll and many filibusters ended because the opposition simply ran out of gas.

The other way to conclude a filibuster was a cloture vote to end debate. That’s what requires 60 votes.

Today if the minority party wants to filibuster a bill it simply informs McConnell and he considers the bill blocked until 60 votes materialize to bring it to the floor. McConnell could revert to the pre–1975 filibuster this week if he wished. Changing the rule only requires a majority and he has 51 votes.

Democrats would be forced to go public with their obstructionism. Voters would see which party is blocking the function of government and I don’t think Schumer could stand the heat.

But this small–minded, political coward won’t make the change. McConnell is a double–minded man who in his heart doesn’t believe in the conservative principles he claims to support. McConnell is a defeatist who fears success. That’s why he told AP “Republicans will welcome the [post 1975] filibuster when they return to the minority.” And he’s just the man to lead them there.

The thought that Republicans could pass conservative legislation that rolls back at least some of leftism’s excesses and puts the onus on Democrats to repeal those bills never enters McConnell’s mind. He just keeps the furniture dusted until his inevitable Democrat take over.

McConnell’s wasted an entire year in which Republicans controlled the presidency, House and Senate. It may well be one half of the time during the Trump administration when the GOP controlled all three branches.

An accurate FRC scorecard would give every GOP senator a zero rating, because their votes keep McConnell Majority Leader.

McConnell is a weakling who will never change Senate rules unless he’s pushed and pushed hard. It’s time conservative and Christian organizations told the truth about the man who is single–handedly blocking the agenda of the people who sent Republicans to Washington.

Beware the ‘Conservative’ Who Grows in Office

The maddening problem facing conservatives fighting the growth of Big Government is that much of the growth is fertilized by former conservatives who start growing first. The phenomena is most evident in benighted lands that don’t impose term limits and have legislative bodies that meet year around.

And just as a cancerous growth is no respecter of persons, politician growth isn’t limited to the federal government.

State Sen. Bill Stanley (R–Clueless) busy growing in office.

Symptoms are evident on the state and local level. In Virginia we have a politician who initially ran for office as a small–government, conservative and unfortunately failed to resist temptation to meddle and build a ‘legacy’ the longer he stayed in the capital.

Bill Stanley promised to “fight to reduce state spending and the size of state government” in his first race for the Virginia Senate. Two crucial promises that work in tandem. Without increased spending, government can’t grow and expand its interference. Cutting spending also cuts the size of government since the Commonwealth must balance its budget.

Stanley’s first legislative session was promising, considering he’s a defense lawyer. He introduced a bill that would require local courts to try repeat juvenile violent offenders as adults. Choosing the right health insurance policy may be so daunting that it takes 26 years to prepare for the decision, but choosing between right and wrong is binary and consequences should apply at a much earlier age.

Six years later it appears Stanley’s fallen under the influence of Social Justice Warriors. He’s gone from tough–on–crime to touchy–feely.

He’s introduced a bill that would forbid local school districts from suspending any student in preschool through the third grade.

I wanted to ask the senator a number of questions regarding this state government expansion into the affairs of local school boards, but eight days wasn’t long enough to work me into the schedule. I did speak with a staffer and as far as he knew there is no epidemic of pint–sized suspensions in the district.

It might have been useful for Stanley to interview a few teachers before he began meddling. My daughter is and teacher’s classroom discipline experiences are instructive. For example, there is the third–grade boy who made an obscene gesture as he exited the bus and entered school. This violation was reported and when the vice principal asked him about it, the boy struck the principal.

That earned him his third suspension for this year. One might be tempted to say that three suspensions prove suspensions don’t work. It’s time to try the gentle Stanley Rule, which would force elementary schools to create an alternative, in–school behavior program.

That ignores the immediate benefit of a suspension: It gives his teacher a break.

When not taking a swing at administrators, this child routinely shouts in class disrupting the room and destroying the learning environment. He bullies other children and exhibits disrespectful behavior that other, easily–led boys imitate.

The prospect of his moving into fourth grade is so foreboding that more than one fourth grade teacher has applied for a transfer to another school.

Taking away suspensions removes the only leverage administrators have these days. (Historical note: When I was in elementary school, discipline problems were solved with a paddle. That’s why there were routinely 35 students in a class. Today, teachers ask for UN Peacekeepers when they have more than 25.)

Suspending this kid doesn’t bother him bit, but it bothers the parents a great deal. It means stay home from work, arrange short–term daycare or dial 1–800–Im–Ur–Jailer. Enough suspensions and parents may finally become engaged and discipline their delinquent. Stanley’s meddling means the punishment is inflicted on the children in the delinquent darling’s classroom who obey the rules and are trying to learn. An impossibility because the teacher’s time and attention is spent trying to deal with Rosemary’s Baby.

Stanley’s staffer contends the outbursts “mean there are other issues going on at home.” Exactly. And a conservative response, that respected the rights of well–behaved children, would have directed school administrators to make a referral to the dreaded Child Protective Services after the second suspension.

Classroom decorum is preserved and conditions in the home are investigated without disrupting the school or creating in–house discipline programs that siphon more money away from the education of the kids who aren’t a constant problem.

Conservative legislation seeks to serve the law–abiding, rule–following majority without imposing new burdens or taking away their ability to act independently.

Stanley’s bill fails that simple test. It’s legislation in search of a problem. It also may put him in search of a new job when the parents of kids who follow the rules learn what he’s done to their child’s classroom.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Shutdown?

This weekend the United States Treasury will bump up against the “debt ceiling.” This debt ceiling is to the government like the credit card limit is to your dreams of really furnishing your man cave.

When your credit card is maxed out it’s no use going to The Big Screen Store to buy the new 90” TV for the Super Bowl. Your card will be declined shortly after its swiped. For the feds reaching the debt limit means the Chinese will get some temporary relief from Uncle Sam putting the bite on them for another series of loans.

There the similarity ends. You can’t borrow additional money until you either pay down your credit card debt or the postman delivers another credit card application that’s “reserved just for you!” Congress can start borrowing again just as soon as both houses pass a bill that increases the debt limit without any provision for debt payment. For politicians, operators are always standing by.

If the debt limit increase isn’t passed by this weekend the government enters “shutdown” mode and Trump will have to buy a burner phone to get back on Twitter. Or so the Opposition Media would have us believe.

The facts are these shutdowns were non–events until recently. Over the years there have been a number of shutdowns and the republic was none the worse for wear. Normal people went about their normal business, while the political class had a nervous breakdown.

The last time the government ground to a halt in 2013, Obama was in the White House and racial peace reigned throughout the land. Then the sinister Ted Cruz filibustered the debt increase and the feds were without funding for a harrowing 16 days. During that fortnight plus two Mexico annexed a defenseless Texas, the Bundy Gang seized much of the public land in Southern Nevada and rioting middle income taxpayers burned down Obamacare enrollment offices to protest skyrocketing insurance premiums.

You don’t recall that? That’s because it’s Fake News. Nothing much happened. It was so quiet the Obama administration decided to punish taxpayers by closing the Mall, national parks and other facilities that didn’t require closing. The goal was twofold: Generate hysterical shutdown news coverage and mobilize the dependent class to call a politician.

The truth is bumping up against the debt limit doesn’t shut off the money spigot. The feds are collecting tax money every day. Just before the Great Cruz Control Experiment the Washington Post published an interactive page where readers could take the $172.4 billion available even after the shutdown and decide who gets paid and who doesn’t.

I took the money and paid all the essentials: Social Security; T–bill debt service; Medicare; Medicaid; federal salaries and benefits; unemployment insurance; food stamps & TANF; military pay; Veteran’s Affairs and even that seat of Deep State Resistance — the Dept. of Justice.

There was no default. I even had $700 million left over for the odd drone strike or Congressional sexual harassment settlement. That’s why you won’t see that mistake in the Post again. The facts undercut all the shutdown predictions of doom.

Republicans took the blame for the Cruz Control, but suffered no lasting ill effects. In this season’s shutdown follies one would think that even the Slinky–spined Republican leadership in the House and Senate could win a confrontation with Democrats.

The difference between the two sides is stark.

On one hand the GOP is trying to keep the government up and running under the sure hand of legislative ‘mastermind’ and Curator of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. On the other, leftist Democrats are threatening to hold taxpayers hostage by shutting down the government. They believe rewarding illegal alien lawbreakers is more important than serving the citizens that elected them.

RINOs and herd–followers in the Swamp have trouble pointing out this obvious contrast because they can hardly wait to surrender to Democrat demands for a DACA amnesty. It’s just taking longer to negotiate terms than they expected.

The fact Trump won the presidency on a promise to “end DACA,” build the wall and deport illegals has escaped the notice of these serial appeasers. What citizens believe is only important until the polls close.

In all the OpMedia buildup to the potential shutdown, I have yet to read of any Democrats fearing they will be blamed for the shutdown. Like General Grant on the second day of a battle, they would have to more pretty fast to get ahead of the GOP jellyfish caucus who is already trying on their hair shirts.

Republican ‘leaders’ and their enablers are always willing to resort to preemptive surrender before the battle is joined. To win one must fight and their heart just isn’t in it. They always have an exit strategy for everything but leaving office.

Pay As You Go Amnesty

The current controversy involving granting amnesty to approximately 800,000 Delayed Accountability for Contemptuous Aliens (DACA) is nowhere near the end of demands to appease mass lawbreakers.

The people who naïvely think that after the DACA surge is legalized the country can get back to normal are the real dreamers. Unchaining those demonstrators from the furniture in Congressional offices and TV studios only makes room for the next shift of disgruntled illegals to take their place.

The DACA surrender is just the beginning.

The cultural Marxists in charge of the media, academia, commerce and government are, for the most part, convinced blanket amnesty for illegals is the way to go and the sooner the better. It’s those pesky and unenlightened citizens who’re the problem. Telling the truth, that amnesty for illegals rewards lawbreaking and creates incentives for following waves of illegals expecting the same give–away, produces a negative response.

(The term ‘immigration reform’ is also misleading. There is nothing wrong — excepting the anchor baby interpretation and Ted ‘The Liar of the Senate’ Kennedy’s chain migration law — with our current immigration statutes. What’s missing is enforcement. Real ‘immigration reform’ would be vigorous enforcement of the laws we have now.)

That’s why descriptions of the problem use touchy–feely, focus–group language to hide the facts.

Which brings us to another ‘reform’ proposal. The Immigrant Tax Inquiry Group has a Five + Five plan that is supposed to “Enable Unauthorized Immigrants to Generate More Tax Revenue.”

Any ‘reform’ that relies on misleading adjectives makes me suspicious. What’s an “unauthorized immigrant”? Is it someone who innocently wandered into an area that’s off limits, like the employee breakroom at Costco? Or is it someone who intentionally crossed the border into a nation where he had no right to be?

And why would immigrants need a Tax Inquiry Group in the first place? Legal immigrants are covered by the same tax laws as the rest of us.

The questions answer themselves. So, misleading adjectives aside, how does the program work? Does Five + Five = immigration pacification?

The program is a pay–as–you–go amnesty described as a tax that’s split equally between employee and employer. The attraction for Juan is he doesn’t have to flee routine traffic stops anymore. The attraction for his employer is Juan is paying half the tax.

And there, I suspect, is the real motive for Five + Five and the reason ITIG doesn’t list its donors. It’s a ‘guest worker’ program that outsources the cost to taxpayers and while the benefits go to the employers.

ITIG was unintentionally candid, “The small tax is reasonable, as employers have traditionally paid unauthorized workers 25 percent less than others, and these workers do jobs others are unwilling to do. The employer still receives a 20 percent wage advantage over other legal workers, including those whose country of origin is the U.S.”

For the first time in history serfs pay for the privilege of bringing their wage scale north! Employers do even better. They can now legally discriminate against citizens in favor of cheap foreign workers. It’s a win–win, unless you’re a citizen who would be willing to do US jobs for US wages.

After agreeing to pay the tax the illegal is granted a REALcard. This lets Juan be a member of Uncle Sam’s Club. He can work in the US legally, qualify for Medicaid, take English language classes, enjoy “continuing education,” apply for a visa, apply for a driver’s license and “other benefits.” And just like a Sam’s Club card, the whole family can share his membership for one low price!

The REALcard is good for ten years or until Democrats take control of Congress and grant mass amnesty to these “second–class citizens.”

ITIG claims the program will generate $210 billion in new tax revenue over ten years, but I have my doubts. Let’s say Juan is making $40,000 a year and has two anchor babies. Five percent of the gross is $2,000, but that is much less than the $5,616 he qualifies for when he can legally claim the Child Tax Credit.

And that’s just one of many questions the plan generates that unfortunately will remain unanswered. After initially insisting I interview ITIG Founder Mark Jason, the interview was canceled after it became evident I wasn’t an open borders cheerleader.

Possibly Jason thinks Five + Five is an equitable solution that is fair to everyone. I don’t. Rewarding lawbreakers only encourages other lawbreakers. The fact illegals haven’t been caught doesn’t give them a claim on our compassion. As far as I’m concerned, a sincerely held believe that in the end is bad for the country is no improvement over an outright malign belief that actively seeks do to harm to the country.