The Left and It’s Angry Brand of Comedy

What do Chipotle and the White House Correspondent’s Dinner have in Common?

Easy. After the meal, everyone’s a little queasy.

Except for Kathy Griffin. She’s furious. The White House Correspondents’ Dinner proved conclusively one picture is still worth a thousand words. The photo of Griffin holding a decapitated Trump head torpedoed her career. For months her reputation was in such bad shape that when Griffin appeared in the news it was like a sighting of Sasquatch or Harvey Weinstein.

Steve Sack, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, MN

And irony of ironies, Kathy was at the correspondent’s dinner! She sat through Michelle Wolf’s crude and vulgar 2,400–word routine that savaged President Trump, the Trump family and his administration. Griffin defended Wolf in the face of widespread backlash, but I’m guessing when she got home, Kathy’s Trump head was in for a very rough time.

It was the injustice of it all. After only one photo Griffin can’t book a lunchtime public appearance at Costco giving away pot stickers, while Michelle Wolf will enjoy an audience bump when her Netflix series begins later in May.

If Kathy had waited until after the Correspondent’s Dinner to unveil her decapitated Trump on a #Resistance–filled world, she could have had a co–hosting gig with Joy Reid on MSLSD. But Griffin was too early. And, as any good comedian will tell you, timing is everything in comedy.

Dinner organizers and Opposition Media attendees are still having trouble digesting Wolf’s routine. Even employees of media outlets regularly slow–roasted by Trump were taken aback by the sheer unfunny savagery of Wolf’s rant. It’s fortunate the one–year term of the WHCA president concludes shortly after the dinner, otherwise there might have been calls for resignations or an Adam Schiff investigation.

When the dinner controversy popped up on Drudge, I assumed the unprofessional vulgarity–fest must have been part of an open mic portion of the program, and Wolf was the first exhibitionist to reach the podium. Instead, Wolf was recruited and paid to perform. Outgoing WHCA president Margaret Talev didn’t go so far as to apologize for the Wolf pack assault but she did her best to spin the disaster and shift the blame.

She told CNN, “Comedy is meant to be provocative. My interest overwhelmingly was in unifying the country, and I understand that we may have fallen a little bit short on that goal.” Unless her idea of unification only extends from Antifa to the Deep State. Talev also assured America that she didn’t see or otherwise examine Wolf’s monologue prior to the event, as if ignorance was absolution.

That’s not a dog–ate–my–homework excuse. It’s a dog–did–my–homework excuse.

You could tell Talev was perplexed that anyone would hold her responsible for Wolf’s performance. This is probably due to leftists’ unfamiliarity with how capitalism functions. The person who signs the check, bears the responsibility — unless he has really good lawyers.

Talev, a Bloomberg News reporter, simply employed the industry–standard OpMedia research practices when she booked Wolf. Verification was confined to discovering if Wolf hated Trump. With that established, it’s a given that what would come out of her mouth was sure to be enjoyed by the audience.

And what a potty mouth it was!

I read the complete transcript of the speech to save my readers the trouble. What struck me was buried under the steaming pile of invective was a very funny speech that would have been perfectly acceptable to a nationwide audience. Cutting the vulgar, unfunny and insulting portions would have reduced the length by 1,000 words. The edited version was sharp, creative and parts were slightly risqué. Wolf’s membership in the ‘Resistance’ would have remained unchallenged and association honchos would not have been fielding high, hard ones,

Unfortunately, as far as the left is concerned, today there is no room for peaceful coexistence with Trump and/or conservatives. This is why for Michelle Wolf poking fun wasn’t enough. She had to poke out some eyes.

The WHCD program held no surprises for the Trump administration. They know the OpMedia hates them. The dinner simply revealed the truth to the rest of America.

The Morning Consult did a nationwide survey in early April a few weeks before the dinner. One of the questions asked if the respondents considered the “national news” to be “liberal, conservative or centrist/non–partisan.” 36 percent of the pre–dinner sample either had no opinion or thought the media was centrist/non–partisan.

Meg Kinnard, of the virulently anti–Trump Associated Press, had an epiphany after the dinner. She tweeted, “If the #WHCD dinner did anything tonight, it made the chasm between journalists and those who don’t trust us, even wider.”

Exactly. It revealed the ugly truth to the confused 36 percent who formerly gave the news media the benefit of the doubt.

Advertisements

The Constitutional Work–Around for Term Limits

I’ve always wondered why the National Education Association (NEA) and the country club conservatives in the Republican House and Senate leadership aren’t allies, instead of enemies. Both organizations use the same tired talking points to defend inert members from the forces of accountability.

When education reformers urge legislative bodies to adopt merit pay for teachers and thereby reward the best teachers with the most money, the NEA counters that experience is crucial and paying teachers according to seniority rewards that excellent system.

Bill Schorr, San Clemente, CA

In the same fashion, when congressional reformers urge House and Senate leadership to adopt an amendment adding term limits to the Constitution, leadership rejects the proposal out of hand, claiming seniority is crucial to keeping Congress the paragon of competence it is today.

It’s no accident that education, Congress and penal institutions all grant more privileges based solely on how much time you’ve served.

Cong. Francis Rooney (R–Doomed) wants to remove Congress from that list. Rooney has formulated a brilliant method of implementing term limits that does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Rooney’s Thomas Jefferson Public Service Act would place no limits on how long a member could warm a seat in Congress — that requires an amendment — instead Rooney would reduce a member’s paycheck to $1 per year after they served six terms in the House or two terms in the Senate.

My wife is skeptical. She believes after 12 years our ‘public servants’ have already made themselves millionaires, so the $173,999.00 pay cut won’t bother them. She is not alone.

FedSmith.com downplays Rooney’s bill, too, “…most Congressmen make a career out of remaining in Congress (often moving on to the Senate). Many become millionaires within a few years after their election and, of course, they also receive a pension under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS).”

What both overlook is the loss of status if Rooney’s bill passes.

When Newt Gingrich was running the show, Republicans imposed term limits on committee chairmen. In the House and Senate, Republicans are limited to six years as the jefe of any committee.

At the end of their term as chairman these members must surrender the gavel, without any reduction in salary or benefits. Many retiring chairmen look upon that gavel as the closest thing to Thor’s Hammer they will ever wield. Giving it up is such a personal Ragnarök that they retire from Congress rather than revert to being hammerless rank–and–file member regardless of their salary.

I’m thinking not getting an envelope on payday would have the same effect. It’s one thing to talk about being a ‘public servant.’ Becoming one and working for free is something entirely different.

I’m willing to grasp at Rooney’s straw if there’s even a slim chance of success.

Rooney is so serious he’s prepared to become very unpopular with his colleagues. In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Rooney correctly termed arguments against term limits legislation as “elitist paternalism.” He already has seven co–sponsors for his bill and he intends to put the heat on nominal term limits supporters.

“There are 90 co–sponsors on term limit by [constitutional] amendment bills and there’s something called the ‘Term Limit Caucus.’ Let’s see what they want to do,” Rooney explained. This is where Rooney drops off Christmas card lists.

Co–sponsoring a term limits constitutional amendment is exactly like promising to repeal Obamacare. It’s showy and consequence–free.

The chance of the amendment coming up for a vote is exactly the same as the chance of Donald Trump being named Man of the Year by La Raza. If the unthinkable happens — see Obamacare vote — and term limits comes to the floor, co–sponsors will cheerfully betray their voters just as Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins did.

Rooney’s bill will put these poseurs on the spot. There are 26 members of the Term Limits Caucus, yet only two are co–sponsoring his bill. Rooney should have 31 co–sponsors and that’s before he goes after the amendment popinjays.

Baier went to Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell for a comment on Rooney’s bill. In a voice dripping with disdain, McConnell gargled, “I would say we have term limits now, they’re called elections, and it will not be on the agenda in the Senate.”

True and the current system has given us McConnell as an example of what term limits would prevent.

Rooney’s only misstep so far came in his announcement. He quoted former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R–Great American) who said Americans “are frustrated with the federal government.” True again. But Coburn is no longer in the Senate, because he imposed term limits on himself.

I fear the time–servers Rooney is trying to persuade will hear that name and ask themselves, “yeah, and when was the last time Coburn was on TV?”

Starbucks to Manage Concessions for Homeless Encampments

Today we live in a society constantly buffeted by waves of hysteria and that’s just what’s coming from corporate America. And the panicked plutocrats are unable to formulate a proportionate response, something that was routine 25 years ago.

In 1993 four children contracted E. coli and died after eating a ‘Monster Burger’ at Jack in the Box. In response, Jack in the Box suspended hamburger sales, but kept the stores open for the rest of its product line while corporate dealt with the emergency.

Milt Priggee, Oak Harbor, WA

In 2018 Starbucks is accused of “racism” after two black men are arrested without incident and later released without charges. This time in a frenzied response, Starbucks’ corporate introduces “Try Our Competitors Day!” on May 29th when all stores will be closed and employees required to attend a one day re–education camp. No word on whether customers will be reimbursed for coffee purchased from Dunkin Donuts on the 29th.

Disbelief was my first reaction upon reading about this latest bigotry brouhaha. I assumed it was a typo. Instead of ‘Cracker Barrel’ someone mistakenly typed ‘Starbucks’ into the Online Racial Incident template. Why Starbucks is more conscious of racism than Rachel Dolezal! Forty percent of its workforce is a minority of some kind.

Accusing Starbucks of racism is like accusing 7/11 of banning turbans inside the store.

This is the first instance of Starbucks joining the system–wide shutdown trend, but not the first time Starbucks has signaled its virtue. Earlier, in a hysterical over–reaction to Ferguson and Black Lives Matter, corporate chairman Howard Schultz wanted a “frank conversation on race” and instructed baristas to write “Race Together” on the customer’s coffee cup. It became such a farce the idea was quickly dropped.

Starbucks will probably pattern its shutdown on the model established by Chipotle. The illegal sanctuary and restaurant shut down for employee training after repeated outbreaks of customer diarrhea. The Chipotle workforce was told that here in the US everyone washes their hands after a bathroom trip. At the Starbuck’s session I’m assuming employees will learn that here in the US everyone is a racist.

Schultz and Starbucks are so fearful of being accused of ‘privilege.’ If it weren’t for the unfortunate social connotations, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Schultz ordered his white employees to wear blackface just to atone.

And make no mistake, atonement for Starbucks is coming and the company may not survive.

After the shutdown session no employee with a rating of IV or higher on the Fitzpatrick skin tone scale will call the cops on a minority ‘customer’ for any offense. Minority managers can see which way the wind blows, too. Soon this will escalate to refusing to call the cops for any ‘customer’ for any offense short of murder. They’ll see what happened to the manager in Philadelphia — fired and scapegoated — listen to the moralizing by Schultz and will conclude Starbucks is now Times Square circa 1988.

I’ve never liked the pretentiousness that permeates Starbucks. I’m secure in my manhood. I don’t require coffee to be extra–strong and extra–bitter to prove my toughness like the beta males and alpha–females that frequent the bistro. I predict their brand commitment will erode quickly as Starbucks goes from an upscale coffee bistro to a San Francisco public library.

Schultz’s stores will now function as the concession stand in a homeless encampment.

Already the American Mirror reports a black man who calls himself “Hotep Jesus” waltzed into a Starbucks and demanded free coffee reparations, “I heard you guys don’t like black people, so I came to get my Starbucks reparations voucher.” And he got it.

KTLA had a story about a Southern California Starbucks. A man reposted a video — made in January — where he contends he was denied the code to the bathroom because he was black. This won’t be a problem when homeless move in, they are very flexible when it comes to bowel movements.

After the staff undergoes Schultz’ “unconscious bias training” store rules will go out the window. I’m sure a handful of customers will cling to their ‘white privilege’ and place an order, assuming they can make their way past the shopping carts, backpacks, discarded syringes and Hefty lawn & leaf bags. Getting their order is something else entirely. Hearing their name called over the random shouts, boom boxes and urgent entreaties from panhandlers may prove quite the challenge.

Conservatives and Christians won’t have to worry about boycotting Starbucks ever again. Corporate will have driven off all the business without our assistance.

I’m going to enjoy watching the feeding frenzy. It’s going to be fun. And God help the clueless employee that puts the brownies on the bottom row of the display case and the corn muffins on top.

Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘Listening Tour’ Stops in DC

It’s ironic that privacy vulture Mark Zuckerberg’s first day of Senate testimony so closely resembled the action in a first–person shooter: 44 waves of poorly programmed, time–limited attackers that didn’t come close to doing any real damage.

It was like Zuckerberg was shooting tunnel rats in Fallout.

Adam Zyglis: The Buffalo News

The Senate questioning was so ineffective Zuckerberg could have gone all Microsoft on the ancient incumbents and just repeated “re–install the system from the original disks” and most couldn’t have told the difference. As Breitbart pointed out, Facebook’s stock price increased the longer the questioning continued.

What do you expect when there’re 44 camera–hogs on the committee and each wants a chance to utter the soundbite heard ‘round the world? There’s only so much time available when chained to Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell’s grueling half–day schedule.

The Opposition Media was filled with breathless accounts of Zuckerberg’s unstinting preparation for the high–stakes event. He hired media consultants, message consultants and crisis consultants. It was almost as if the nation’s eavesdropper was preparing to convince Kim Jong–Un to add an extra helping of sawdust to the menu for North Korea’s Juche Day celebration.

What he should have hired was a Trump voter.

The question Zuckerberg was totally unprepared to answer explains everything. I tell clients to read the newspaper on the way to a news event. That’s because, regardless of what the session is supposed to be about, a splashy headline will render all the ground rules irrelevant.

The Zuckerberg bubble appears to be impervious to any information from conservatives. He was taken completely aback by Ted Cruz’ (R–Presidential Aspirations) question regarding the banning of black Trump supporters Diamond & Silk.

(Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating. Zuckerberg claims Facebook AI is already screening terror–related information, but judging from the national peeping–tom’s robotic answers, I’ll wager the AI has also seized the Zuckerbrain. How can one tell when a vape store wooden Indian is expressing emotion?)

Cruz: “There are a great many Americans… deeply concerned that Facebook [is] engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship…Facebook has initially shut down the ‘Chick-fil-A appreciation day page,’ has blocked the post of a Fox News reporter and most recently has blocked the Trump supporters Diamond & Silk’s page after determining that their content and brand were ‘unsafe for the community’.”

Zuckerberg looked like Cruz had accused him of being a member of the TEA Party.

His response was pure insincerity, “I understand where that concern is coming from…This is actually a concern that I have…I think it’s a fair concern…”

Cruz then followed up, “Are you aware of any ad or page that has been taken down from Planned Parenthood? How about MoveOn.org? How about any Democrat candidate?”

Zuckerberg: “I’m not specifically aware…”

That means no.

Another disturbing development was how Zuckerberg got away with dodging questions. He carried a briefing book into the hearing room that was almost as thick as the booster seat placed on his chair to make him look taller. Evidently the book only contained buzzwords, not answers.

Repeatedly the all–seeing Zuckerberg was able to get away with telling senators, “my team will get back with you.” This is 21st Century’s equivalent of taking the 5th. Instead of using that unpleasant “tend to incriminate me” language, modern dissemblers refer the question to the “team.”

The problems with this are legion. There’s no guarantee his people will get back with the senator’s people. There’s no deadline. There’s no assurance the answer will be true. And worst of all the answer will be given in private, not in public, defeating the purpose of a senate hearing.

Senate and House hearings should extend for two days minimum. The first day politicians attempt to pin down slippery witnesses and the second day the witness has to provide detailed answers to the questions dodged on day one.

This won’t happen for a number of reasons, mainly because it would require effort on the part of Curator McConnell and he’s too busy planning the “long game” for when his feckless ‘leadership’ returns him to the minority.

Trump 2020 campaign manager (at least for this week) Brad Parscale has an excellent, conservative solution to remedying Facebook’s conservative censorship. Zuckerberg boasts about providing “an opportunity to connect with people.” As long as people don’t wish to connect with Facebook.

Parscale suggests Facebook should be required, encouraged, bribed or coerced into publically posting a daily, cumulative listing of all pages, posts and users that have been banned or blocked or otherwise stifled.

“Connect” the public with Facebook’s content decisions so they can judge for themselves if Zuckerberg’s censorship leans left. Sunshine is a great disinfectant, let’s see if it will clear up Facebook’s rash of conservative bans.

Democrat’s Latest: Jim Crow Meet Juan Canto

It’s been a decade since I agreed with the Democrat platform, but I must give the party a great deal of credit for its consistency. There is a direct correlation between Democrats in 2018 fighting to increase their political power by demanding vote–less illegal aliens be counted in the census; and Democrats in 1818 demanding equally vote–less slaves continue to be counted in the census to increase their political power.

In both instances Democrats are exploiting the downtrodden for their own advantage.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

When the Constitution was written each slave was counted as three–fifths of a person. History ignoramuses contend this proves the US was founded as a racist nation. The opposite is true. Slave owners wanted each of their charges counted in the census because it would increase the population of the South and grant slave–holding states more representation with additional power to encourage the growth of slavery.

Anti–slavery Founding Fathers didn’t want slaves to be counted at all, thereby reducing the number of congressmen allotted to the South. Three–fifths was a compromise that unfortunately wound up giving Democrats in the South a third more seats in Congress and consequently a third more electoral votes than counting just the free population alone would have done.

Counting the powerless worked so well for Democrats then, they want to repeat the process with illegal aliens in the 2020 census. Plus, showing leopards never change their spots, this new counting scheme is a twofer: It will continue the tradition of penalizing blacks, while exploiting vote–less Hispaniards.

Standing in the way of this power–grab are the normally piñata–like Republicans who want to include a question on the census form that asks the citizenship status of the respondent. This makes perfect sense to me. Even better it makes perfect sense to American citizens. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 89 percent of the surveyed 1,000 adults think including the citizenship question is important and 69 percent say it’s very important. (Although to be truthful, I’m not sure how many ‘Press #2 for Spanish’ adults were included in the survey sample.)

The census is crucial for enhancing political power because the results are used to apportion the 435 congressional seats between the various states, based on each state’s population.

If I happen to be visiting Cancun to attend the most recent severed head display and the Mexican government is simultaneously conducting its census, I wouldn’t expect to be counted, even though I have strong opinions regarding the Mexican government. The same should go for citizens of other nations who happen to be in the US, legally or otherwise.

Leftists disagree. Faster than you can say “Jim Crow” Democrats are accusing the GOP of wanting to keep the brown man down.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Senility) told the AP adding a simple question regarding citizenship “will inject fear and distrust into vulnerable communities and cause traditionally undercounted communities to be even further under­represented, financially excluded and left behind.”

It would also significantly reduce the number of Democrat congressmen. California maintains its population by importing illegals to replace citizens who flee to other states in a desperate effort to escape high taxes and intrusive nanny–state government. Currently the U–Haul trailers heading east are more than compensated for by the huaraches heading north.

That’s one of the main reasons California leftists fight to keep the state a sanctuary for illegals. If we take the conservative estimate for the number of illegals in the US at 12 million, counting those people in a census meant to apportion representation for citizens would mean the illegals produce 17 extra members of congress for the states that harbor them.

The effect of this policy is to make a Hispaniard vote count more than a black vote. Gerrymandering and the Dept. of Justice pressure state legislatures to carve out districts for ethnic groups based on their population within the state. It’s a complete victory for Cultural Marxists originally enabled by bigoted Southern Democrats.

In effect, it means a congressional district with 700,000 Hispaniards is allotted one congressman, but of those 700,000 only 500,000 or fewer may be citizens eligible to vote. While a district with 700,000 blacks, all of them citizens, will also get only one member. Black votes are counted once, while in our hypothetical example the individual Hispaniard vote counts as 1.4 votes.

Jim Crow is replaced by Juan Canto.

Keeping the citizenship question off the census form isn’t a matter of fighting racism. It’s a matter of Democrats using any means necessary to enhance their power and control over American culture. If illegals are discouraged from participating in the census, so much the better. They always have the option of being counted in their real country.

David Hogg, Child Media Star

Caught in the whirlwind of adoring television interviews, newspaper profiles, rally speeches and teenage groupies, David Hogg has not had time to ruminate on one of the great truths of our media–driven age: The long arc of history doesn’t bend toward justice. For individuals, it bends toward obscurity.

In other words: David Hogg, meet Sandra Fluke.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

Sandra, you may recall, was the coed with an active sex life. She caught the Obamacare wave at just the right time with her demand that Catholics be forced to foot the bill for her birth control pills. A nice–looking girl with no shame and a slightly ‘naughty librarian look’ is always newsworthy. The Opposition Media made her refusal to take her own precautions a cause célèbre.

She evolved from sexual relations activist to martyr when Rush Limbaugh decided to dabble in an extremely crass reductio ad absurdum and unwisely called Fluke a “slut.” A genuine insult and beneath Rush. In spite of the fact Limbaugh had just tripled her speaking fees, Sandra joined the outrage parade and called for advertisers to boycott El Rushbo’s show.

The reason for this background on Fluke is five years after her nationwide notoriety peaked, Sandra has joined the Jackson Five in obscurity. Howard Stern can talk about sex for decades and still be current, but there comes a time when a civilian like Sandra just starts to sound obsessed. The Obamacare mandate is old news and so is Fluke.

She tried to capitalize on her fleeting fame by running for the California legislature. Evidently the free–pills vote wasn’t pivotal. She lost to a man (!) 60 to 40 percent. Now, in her rare news appearances she’s just an activist, which as you can imagine in California includes a cast of thousands.

David Hogg, of Parkland, FL shooting fame and NRA hatred, is following an eerily similar media sensation career path. I imagine it will come as a shock to him when the arc is complete and he rejoins us mere mortals here on planet Earth. A bit over a month into his notoriety, Hogg isn’t wearing well. First, there’s his potty mouth. Turning an interview regarding school shootings into a bleep–fest might make the pencil–neck feel like a tough guy, but it makes interview bookers wary. Then there’s Hogg’s failure to grasp that objecting to using a free, clear backpack at the same time he’s attempting to limit other’s Constitutional rights is not a flattering juxtaposition.

And what claim to expertise does Hogg rally have? Fluke took birth control pills and presumably had sex, so there was first–hand experience. But Hogg? He’s only a proximitist. A creature of the 2nd Amendment–hating OpMedia. Reporters automatically label any sympathetic and photogenic individuals “survivors” if they were anywhere near a large–scale shooting. The media–determined circle inside which all people are instantly deemed survivors approximates the blast radius of an atomic bomb.

The term “survivor” is designed to convey an aura of importance, sympathy and immunity to criticism. In reality, the real “survivors” of the Parkland shooting are the students who were wounded and survived. I’m even willing to count bruises from the stampede.

If a student wasn’t shot, then the term for those closest to the action is witness, not survivor. Hogg can’t even claim that distinction. Depending on which reporter he’s talking to, Hogg was either at home and rushed to school when he heard about the shooting; or he was in science class and evacuated the building. He only heard firing in the distance.

This makes Hogg a “proximitist” from the word ‘proximity,’ which means near. Hogg is actively cashing in on his proximity to the shooting, but in truth if Hogg is a “survivor,” then so is Deputy Scott Peterson.

Blanket “survivorship” is a relatively new phenomenon. After Fort Hood only people who had been wounded were called “survivors.” People who happened to be on base remained anonymous.

In yet another interview Hogg complained that he was turned down for admission by a number of California colleges. Changing the world has delayed making a final college decision, but he’s still open to offers. This is the higher education equivalent of Amazon opening the bidding for its new headquarters.

And here Hogg really enters Fluke territory. Laura Ingraham tweeted that with the low acceptance rates for California colleges, Hogg shouldn’t be surprised that his 4.1 GPA didn’t make the cut.

Even pointing out the obvious is out of bounds if the facts concern a Gun Violence Icon.

PR agents masquerading as reporters claimed Ingraham was “mocking” a “massacre survivor.” Now Hogg is organizing a boycott of Ingraham’s advertisers. My advice for him is to enjoy it while it lasts, because it won’t last forever. The media will eventually move on without him.

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.

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.