Free Market Term Limits Breakthrough

Serial entrepreneur Norbert Richter claims no relation to the inventor of the Richter Scale, but if his breakthrough idea is successful, he’ll be causing political tremors for decades. Richter has used his failed congressional primary challenge as inspiration for a free market workaround that has the potential to be voter–imposed term limits.

His new organization, FireYourCongressman.com, bypasses the roadblock that has stopped every federal term limits proposal: Incumbent professional politicians who intend to die in office. Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell’s clichéd response to voter’s desire for term limits is always a dismissive ‘that’s what elections are for.’ Knowing the chances of being beaten in a primary are miniscule. In 2016 only six incumbents lost to primary challengers.

And in a delicious bit of irony, Richter intends to shake the incumbent’s world by harnessing the power of money, a resource incumbents always thought was their advantage.

This week he’s launching FYC, a political action committee for the rest of us that’s designed to jump–start challenges to incumbent Members of Congress from both parties.

As the site explains, “Most congressional districts are so gerrymandered that there is no real contest in the general election…This is why it is so important to have good choices in the primaries.” As Richter discovered both parties actively discourage challengers.

FireYourCongressman.com is for voters disenfranchised by political insiders like McConnell. If you’re ready to fight back, Richter is ready to help. He does it by attacking the problem head on. Challengers need money to successfully challenge an incumbent, but it’s almost impossible to raise money for a challenge.

This limits primary challenges to the foolhardy or the personally wealthy.

FYC lets voters fed up with their incumbent contribute in advance to a potential challenger. FYC pools this money and will make it available, in the form of a direct contribution and independent expenditures, when a qualified candidate arises. Instead of lack of money discouraging challengers, now a waiting war chest may attract challengers.

Any donation under $200 is completely anonymous, which is good for the faint of heart. Donations over that amount are reported, but the money is simply listed as going to the PAC, not the campaign where it is spent.

That way donors are insulated from vindictive incumbents bent on revenge.

Richter is aware that he has to establish credibility, since he has zero track record in politics. He states at the beginning he will “have to convince donors” of his organization’s legitimacy and he plans to do it by “being very transparent.” He wants to make sure “a $20 donation becomes a $20 candidate contribution.”

He’s off to a good start. To date he’s paid all FYC expenses out of his own pocket. Richter knows eventually he’ll need to add a professional staff. His goal is to keep overhead expenses to a minimum so more money can be spent on campaigns.

And speaking of campaigns, what if your congressman is a member of the House Freedom Caucus or the Socialism Caucus and has only been in office six years? You’re happy, but there’s this nagging feeling you could do more.

Richter has a fund for you, too. It’s called the Priority Algorithm. This a general fund that’s only spent to defeat really worthless incumbents selected by the Fickle Finger of Algorithm. The algorithm analyzes a number of factors including how long in office (the longer the more negative), attendance record and involvement in scandals. He also includes an overlooked but important factor that brings tears to the eyes of government reformers: The increase in personal wealth since the member has been in office. Like the aforementioned time in office, more is not good.

On the negative side, the algorithm equates bills sponsored or co–sponsored as a positive factor. That’s the Widget Theory of governing. More widgets mean a better member. When the fact is more bills mean bigger government, which is a negative for conservatives. As far as I’m concerned repealing laws is better than passing laws.

But on the plus side, Richter is open to including nepotism and dynasty–building as negative factors in the algorithm.

Once the records are crunched the top ten will be targeted for defeat. Richter guarantees the split will be half Democrat and half Republican for at least the top 20.

If FireYourCongressman.com gets off the ground it will be a genuine, non–partisan, free market, grassroots effort to put accountability back into US politics. If you’re unhappy with our current bloated, complacent, sanctimonious and unaccountable Congress, then Richter is giving you an opportunity to put your money where your disgruntlement is.

Visit the site today and either contribute to fire your specific member of Congress, contribute to the Priority Algorithm to fire the worst of the worst or become a Great American by contributing to both funds.

Advertisements

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.