Tag: Washington DC

Career Politicians Without Term Limits are a Thing of the Past

By Dane Larsen | @therealdanelars | United States of America

“The long experiment with professional politicians and professional government is over, and it failed.”  -Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House.

In 1947, Congress proposed the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution: an act to place term limits on the President. Specifically, it forbid a president from serving more than two full terms, or a maximum of ten years. This came shortly after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four consecutive terms in office.The reasoning behind this piece of legislation was to keep the head member of the executive branch of government from becoming corrupt, or sustaining corruption. For, as we escaped from in 1776 with the British Monarchy, if one person stays in power for too long, it gets to their heads.

In an experiment by student Andy Yap of Columbia University, over 100 people were shown pictures of others surveyed. Yap was able to get them to believe the 99 people seen in pictures were shorter than themselves (for the most part). There is in fact a correlation between a taller height and a higher position of power as seen in the Fortune 500 CEO’s, where the average height is 6 ft, 2 in. This figure is 4.5 inches taller than the average US men’s height (5’9½”).  Point is, that there is a trend of people who may actually have power, or perceive that they have power, with a taller height. The fact that the people thought they were taller than the others after being persuaded into a position of power, shows that power corrupts the brain.

Staying in power for too long has proven to change the mindset of the person in question, and will do it again in the future, given the opportunity. Thus, 76% of America, according to a 2013 Gallup poll, is asking an important question. Why have we not implemented legislative term limits? It seems rather foolish to limit the President, but allow Congress to serve endless terms.

This past year, citizens of Michigan’s thirteenth district were surprised when Rep. John Conyers announced his immediate retirement. He was 88 years old, and served for 52 years on Capitol Hill without term limits. To give you a bit of perspective, in 1966, when he took office for his first term, Startrek was just debuting, Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys was released, and the US was one year deep into their mission in Vietnam.

With only a 15% approval rating, our congressmen and congresswomen have proven to do next to nothing with their time in their positions. These people sign themselves into their own salaries, their own day-to-day agendas, and eventually, if the legislation were to make it that far, they’d be voting on limiting their own power. It’s ludicrous to think that these people would restrict how long they could make empty promises to their supporters, and put on a bright, big smile for the cameras.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”  -PJ O’Rourke, political satirist and journalist, CATO institute.

There are, however, a few lawmakers with our best interests in mind. People like the Florida chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, Ben Sasse (R- NE)Thom Tillis (R- NC)David Perdue (R- GA), and many more advocate for term limits. Though they may not get the press that other people in Washington may get, I encourage you to read more up on them, to support them to bringing progress back to Congress.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Advertisements

3 Amazing Replacements For Paul Ryan

By Colin Louis | United States

Paul Ryan recently announced that he would not seek re-election for Congress, leaving the speakership open. Should the Republicans keep the House we need a more conservative speaker (who won’t pass a $1.3 trillion Omnibus.) So here are three true conservatives that would make for excellent replacements to Speaker Ryan.

3. Mark Meadows

 

nc-4-ccff15fa450e9584df79d51f82a585a06379daa8-s900-c85.jpg

 

Mark Meadows, Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus has proven himself a defender of liberty in the House. The Freedom Caucus lead the fight against “ObamaCare Light” in 2017. Meadows was instrumental in preventing conservatives from passing Paul Ryan’s failure at healthcare reform. Meadows also strongly opposed the Omnibus budget deal. Meadows is a strong and capable leader in the House Freedom Caucus and would make a terrific candidate for Speaker. Unfortunately, Meadows has expressed that he has no interest in the speakership. On the other hand, neither did Paul Ryan.

2. Justin Amash

 

o-JUSTIN-AMASH-facebook.jpeg

 

More notably in the liberty movement is Justin Amash. Amash has been consistent as a fighter for liberty in the House. Amash voted against the disasters omnibus. Long has he been a warrior among young libertarians. He’s strongly opposed the two-party system and the Federal Reserve. Amash is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus and speaker at the Young Americans for Liberty.

1. Thomas Massie

 

gettyimages-475425766.jpg

 

Perhaps the best Representative on this list is Thomas Massie. A Kentucky congressman, Massie has worked closely with perhaps the most famous liberty warrior, Rand Paul. Massie fought hard against the disaster of the American Healthcare Act and the Omnibus. As speaker Massie would be the best candidate for liberty and conservatism.


Featured image source.

Would a Government Shutdown Really be That Bad?

By Ryan Lau | USA

Anyone who has watched or read the news sometime this month is most likely aware of the fact that once again, congressional Democrats and Republicans are unable to agree on a budget. Democrats are consistently pushing for some form of protection for Dreamers, which has since sparked backlash from President Trump. Republicans, on the other hand, seek an increase in defense spending, which has been vehemently opposed and countered by Democrats. Both parties wish to avoid a government shutdown, with a deadline of Friday at midnight to reach an agreement. Ironically, though, the one area in which both Democrats and Republicans generally agree is the one area in which both are wrong. In fact, a government shutdown, contrary to popular belief, would be incredibly beneficial to both the American people and government.

In the event of a government shutdown, all funding for federal programs would come to an immediate halt. An obvious exception exists for branches such as the Post Office, which are self-reliant upon their own revenue from stamps and postage fees for operation. However, the vast majority of government agencies would immediately lose their funding, and this is not a bad thing, as the government will save a considerable amount of money during this process by halting the funding of useless or overpaid agencies. 

As a clear example of this, I first examined the expenditures of the United States National Guard, which has an alleged purpose of protecting our citizens in case of a foreign threat or emergency. The thing is, we don’t have any current foreign threats that require an acting home army. Most of these individuals are already trained for an event that has not occurred in our nation since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Despite the clear lack of need for such a large force, the federal government allocates no small amount of funding for their archaic and currently obsolete services.

The average monthly wage of a guards-person ranges from $184 for a private enlisting in one weekend of basic drill training, all the way up to $18,936 for an active duty general. For the sake of simplification, I have conservatively estimated the average figure to be roughly $1,000 a month, though the true average is likely far higher. In the event that only half of the 348,156 currently enlisted National Guard members were told not to report to work (it would likely be a considerably higher number than this), the federal government would be saving 174 million dollars in a single month, but each guards-person would still be entirely capable of reporting to his or her full-time job.

Though admittedly a small figure, the National Guard is a tiny fragment of our overall spending. As an example of a larger agency, I will now examine the U.S. Department of Labor. The agency dumps out an exorbitant annual budget of 12.8 billion dollars for services that frankly, are none of the government’s business. If an employer and employee come to a voluntary agreement regarding the terms of the employee’s labor, it is not the place of any third party entity, regardless of their claim to power, to prevent this transaction from occurring, provided of course that it does not infringe upon the Natural Rights of any individual. On the other hand, if an able-bodied adult cannot find labor, it is not the business of the government to support him by forcibly taking money from the more successful. In both scenarios, a voluntarily funded market-driven solution would prove to be adequate and would do so without grand-scale theft.

Now, this aforementioned figure of 12.8 billion dollars also does not include the funding of over 17,000 full-time employees. Thus, not including the employees, a one-month long government shutdown would save over one billion dollars. Factoring in their salaries, this number would, of course, be significantly higher. That’s one billion at least, with nine zeroes, no longer being forcibly taken from the taxpayers in order to fund an inefficient organization, or one billion dollars used to shrink the staggeringly high national debt.

Ultimately, our federal government has a budget of approximately 3.8 trillion dollars for the fiscal year of 2017. When all is said and done, even a one month long partial shutdown, cutting the expenditures of the state by 50%, would save the American people 158 billion dollars. This money could be used in remarkably better places than it is now, and at the discretion of the American consumer, rather than a tyrannical and bloated nation willing to steal and kill to accomplish their allegedly-noble causes.

Though the finances of a government shutdown are a key aspect of its potential benefit, they are not the only one. Most notably save finances, the average American will have a significantly better experience with air travel. Given a shutdown is to occur, air traffic control and airport security staff would still be in place, as they are always hired by the airports themselves, and thus outside of the federal government’s payroll.

Who, then, is federally paid for in an airport? The Transportation Security Agency, with an abysmal record of zero terrorists stopped since its creation in 2001, devours nearly 8 billion dollars in federal funding annually. To make matters worse, dreadfully long lines can add five, fifteen or thirty minutes, even an hour to travel times due to security lines, depending on the airport and the occasion. A temporary shutdown, however, would eliminate these lines, and during the holiday season, families across the nation would be more able to travel without stress, spending more time with their families and less time waiting to be prodded by an eerie metal rod.

Clearly, the verdict is in on a government shutdown. Saving Americans money and protecting their happiness are allegedly in the direct intentions of the government. However, these intentions are clearly ignored. The American people are being stolen from in order to fund obsolete and inadequate services. Regardless of the state’s true intent (which I would venture to guess that nobody can fully explain in this day and age), the fact that a state that formerly protected the rights of the individual has fallen into such disrepair is a calamity. Reversal of this governmental decay, if you will, must be instituted at the earliest possible hour, in order to finally allow the American people to live in peace and prosperity. Thus, it is with no minute degree of irony that I declare: the federal government would best accomplish its goals by suspending its own existence.

The True Enemy of the People and How They Make You Think Otherwise

By Dylan Byrne | USA

Asking the average American what force poses the most danger to humanity will most commonly generate answers such as ISIS, North Korea, and climate change, among others. The state appears only as an anomaly within this group of answers, and this is precisely what the state desires. The government need not lift a finger to grow a public distaste for those who defy the status quo; the people, so blind of their enslavement, will be swift to cast away these defectors themselves. Those who wish nothing but to open the eyes of the public to the infringement upon basic human rights by the elite are labeled as lunatics, uninformed, and utopian; a risible circumstance if this were not to be the cruel reality. As Abraham Lincoln once famously stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and, after reviewing the evidence and tactics of the state, it becomes quite clear that they are currently demolishing the foundation of the house of America so that they may erect a most formidable human plantation.

I cite Operation Northwoods as a prime example of the state’s desire to amass popular opinion for an otherwise unethical goal. The operation was drafted by military officials in 1962 who wished to commit terror attacks upon American civilians only to blame it on Cuba so that a war between the two nations may be justified. To quote the document, “The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.” Quite obviously, this was rejected by President Kennedy (thankfully) but still stands as a testament to the inner workings of Washington and their complete disregard for the lives of its citizens. One must ask themselves if any other catastrophic events in modern American history could have been precipitated – or at the very least, taken advantage of – by the federal government.

More examples of these false accusations can be brought to attention. For instance, the second red scare heightened American fears of the growing popularity of communism around the globe and ushered in McCarthyism, a tactic exclusively used to instigate fear into the public’s mind. But did communism prove to be an immediate threat to America during the scare? No. It was arguably the people that proved to be their own worst enemy; in their insatiable fear of communism, they allowed for the government to expand to combat this fictitious idea that communists were infiltrating American politics. The state couldn’t possibly pass this opportunity up, and thus, anti-communist propaganda was mass produced and spread across the nation intensively. This occurrence has seemed to manifest itself in similar circumstances involving different issues but ultimately leading to the same outcome. As explained by former Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman, the Nixon White House’s two main enemies, that being black people and the anti-war left, attributed these groups with heroin and marijuana, respectively, and heavily criminalized both. They lied about the drugs so that they could overreach the boundaries of their allowed power and expand the police force to further their agenda. The drug war is still happening today because of the lies perpetrated by hateful politicians, and the people, ignorant of the true problem, continue to legitimize the actions of the state. Fast forward a couple decades after Nixon’s presidency and, yet again, this blueprint for increasing government power was followed once again. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the nation was consumed by trepidation. The people called for their government to take action, and their government was happy to abide by their wishes, signing the Patriot Act on October 26, 2001, and thereby obliterating the security of the American people inside their own homes.

Now we enter a new cycle of this state-induced scheme in the form of the conflict between the United States and North Korea, but why are they the enemy? Have they ever committed an attack upon another country anytime recently, let alone our own? No. Have they proved to be a legitimate threat towards other parts of the globe? While they may act like they do, mutually assured destruction debunks this claim in the fullest. So what exactly does the United States accuse them of? Why the state must know that their threats don’t mean anything. While the politicians may be nefarious, they are certainly not inept or stupid. The government’s main claim is that their attempts to obtain nuclear weapons must be stopped at all costs. But what value does their nuclear arsenal hold if utilizing it will result in total destruction of the country, something which is the antithesis of the current dictator’s interests? It must be made clear that North Korea is nothing but a vehicle which the government will abuse to further their own powers.

The government has done nothing but expand over its lifetime. According to the US Department of Labor, the size of the government has increased from roughly 6 million in 1950 to nearly 22 million in 2015. By this statistic alone, it is evident that the American people have abandoned the values which were instilled during the founding of the nation; that being limited government and equal division of power. So I direct this to you, the reader: do not fall for the propaganda of the state and its social conditioning institution it calls “media”, but instead think critically of the country’s enemies and the role they play in domestic politics.