Categories
MB2A

LASHED TO THE MAST

We have two problems: resisting the temptations of public office, and convincing voters that we are serious about citizen legislators.

LASHED TO THE MAST

TWENTY-TWO CENTS PER VIDEO!

We have two problems: resisting the temptations of public office, and convincing voters that we are serious about citizen legislators. Here’s how to do it.

Visit Destin at Smarter Every Day.

https://youtu.be/4dQ8FO0zyOY

Listen to the Audio Version

97 replies on “LASHED TO THE MAST”

Legally Binding Contract? “There is no controlling legal authority.” Maybe a Constitutional Amendment? I want my rep to have more influence than the other guy. Seniority rules in the House and Senate would have to go away first. Term limiting corruption will make the gamers more efficient.

I like the enthusiasm. But this new part needs to be named EXACTLY as what it is for. Bill has told us: ONE-TERM (per office).
So, I suggest the name should be the ONE-TERM PARTY.
There are many worthy and important goals to aim for. But this new party is not to be defined or labeled by ANY of those goals (smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations) or the attitude (idealism, populism), but the over-riding principle of a citizen government, pledged to serve only one term (per office).
The ONE-TERM PARTY.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!! Please repost and share…

LET’S GET THIS PARTY STARTED!!! COME JOIN THE NEW POPULIST PARTY AND PUT YOUR COUNTRY FIRST…WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE KRAKEN!!!…For those TIRED OF ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS and seriously interested in developing or supporting a populist Citizens Party (official name TBD), Bill Whittle is heading up that effort, and it’s a well-conceived plan. All input and constructive criticism working toward a solution is appreciated.

Many of you may not have heard of Bill, but he’s been a conservative voice for a while now. Much like Trump’s support, the new populist party isn’t limited to only conservatives. Here is Bill describing the thinking behind the party and how it would succeed as a third party…https://youtu.be/4dQ8FO0zyOY.

ALL LEVELS OF EXPERIENCE WELCOME. The only requirement is a love for: 1) our country despite its imperfections, 2) your fellow citizens regardless of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and 3) the ideals embraced by our founding fathers including live and let live.

Even if you’re not interested in developing the party, Bill’s content is fantastic. https://www.youtube.com/user/BillWhittleChannel The Moving Back to America series which Bill started right after the election serves as a good introduction, though please explore all the material.

Even better if you can afford the $10/month to become a member and help us flesh out the details of the new party. This is a serious effort looking to field candidates for the 2022 elections.

If nothing else, liking and sharing helps the cause. Please check us out.

WE DO HAVE A VOICE and WE WILL WIN!!!

Please repost on other platforms and edit as you see fit. Let’s get this party started!!!

No. Just getting the word out to promote membership. What’s to approve? I’m directing people to watch the introductory video already available for public consumption.

It’s Bill’s project and he might not want it announced before he thinks it’s ready. He might even change his mind about it. Jumping the gun might hurt the cause. Also, it’s simple courtesy.

Bill has already asked us to go get new members so he can do what he needs to do to raise money to support new candidates. I’m not doing anything in violation of that. If he changes his mind, for which there is no indication, then I guess he changes his mind. He literally said we need to save ourselves and is ready to head up the effort. Seems pretty clear to me.

If we wait for Bill’s approval on every little detail, nothing will ever be accomplished.

This is no “little detail.” When you say things like “for immediate release,” it sounds official. It makes your announcement sounds like it comes from Bill. Are you an official spokesperson for him? And I don’t think Bill will like calling the new party a populist one, because it’s not. Trump is a populist president but we’re not taking that approach.

If your post had merely been to recruit new members to the site, it shouldn’t have spoken on behalf of the party. If it hadn’t, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Messaging is crucial to any effort of this kind – unauthorized advertising can dilute or degrade that.

The party does have a name, BTW: The After Party, chosen by Bill in Thursday’s TSL. That was before your comment, meaning you didn’t know about it when you commented. That makes it look amateurish, too.

This is a serious effort. Fun, but deadly serious. Look what’s happening right now with all the overt censorship and attempts to criminalize everything anyone on the right might do. Ultimately our very lives are at stake.

Emotionally-driven actions can be disastrous and that’s exactly what your comment reads like. The Capitol business on the 6th shows that to be true. There are multiple, crucial factors to consider for what we do. Next time, think first.

“Populist” does have a long history of being a claim used by Demagogues, not just by people claiming their opponents are Demagogues.

The Founders devised a very good way for the People to speak without joining the crowds that attach themselves to Demagogues.

Bill has called out to that.

So as far as I am concerned, anyone involved in the Restoration attaching the label “Populist” to any part of their effort is lazy and needs to read their history.

So what would you call a movement then that calls for restoring the administration of the government back to “We the People”?

A summoning of the lost spirit of the United States Constitution.

Which took pains to establish a Republic with Democratic principles. It balanced the Popular in the House with the Deliberative in the Senate.

The Founders were particularly concerned with the Demogues that hide in Populism.

Thanks for the response. Demagoguery was a valid concern on their part, but Trump and similar movements around the world to which the media has assigned populism as a label don’t seem to reflect demagoguery. I don’t think Trump putting our citizens’ and our nation’s interests first makes him a demagogue. Inclusive nationalism, unlike Hitler’s and Mussolini’s exclusive nationalism, isn’t a bad thing. Of course, the fake news repeatedly failed to make that distinction instead linking Trump to Hitler.

I don’t think Populist Party would be such a terrible choice. Most people associate it with President Trump and the America first effort. Seems to me that and the current worldwide association with citizens taking their country back would be far more valuable in attracting membership than worrying about past potential association with demagoguery. We’re clearly not demagogues.

Let’s just pick something that resonates with the current frustration felt by many Americans and the desire to throw establishment politicians out on their asses. The Tea Party movement wasn’t too concerned about the fact that the Boston Tea Party was really performed by an unruly, drunken mob, some of them painted like Indians. In the end, the Tea Party won back the House, Senate and the Presidency.

I actually care more about getting the party started and how many people show up than I do about the name.

But …

Restore America?

One, if someone thinks that my message originate with Bill due to a simple phrase meant to grab attention, that’s not my problem.
Two, worst case they do release it. Big whoop.
Three, if the party has officially been named the “After Party,” I would think Bill might publicize that with an announcement on the member forum or something of that nature not buried in a TSL video. I specifically stated that the party hadn’t been named, which left room for Bill to say whatever he wanted in response to the question.
Four, posting an ad hardly indicates being driven by any emotion other than the common desire to form a new party. I’ve never been driven by emotion, and to attempt to put my invite for new members in the same category as the Capitol Protest is nonsensical.
Lastly, I’m not going to accept the criticism of “think first” from the person who has already been organizing behind the scenes. Did you get Bill’s approval to do that?

I think this is a brilliant idea and approach. Many have held, for many years, that term limits are the answer, but because that solution depends on the support of the entrenched politicians, we all know why that has never gained serious traction (and never will). The next step is to identify as many potential problems with this idea as possible and then brainstorm solutions to them. What could possibly go wrong?

Plus term limits allow the voters to pass on to the people they have voted in to take from them the burden of deciding that they people they have voted in have been in office long enough.

I’ll cite again the example of the woman who lived in Mom’s building who got money from her husband after he died and, not wanting to pay attention to it, left it in the hands of a financial advisor who she did not monitor at all.

He lost all of her money and that woman went from talking all the time about how all that money was a burden to talking all the time how her financial advisor had lost all of it.

Rather the opposite of “If the size of your bundle you want to increase … he’ll make sure that you go broke in quiet and peace.”

Voting for Term Limits is for people who really don’t want the Vote at all, but just don’t know it or want to admit it.

Part of the solution to the Washington mess is fundamental reform of the Civil Service. Government employees are nearly immune from discipline in the ordinary sense. Another part of the solution is to reduce the federal role in American life. The government is doing too much of what the Constitution says is “reserved to the States, or the people”.

The reform of the Civil Service starts with our participation. I don’t want to hear any excuses about government unions or other bullcrap. Once we get to Washington and control enough seats, we can do whatever our little hearts’ desire.

I am thinking that the only thing worse for this country than “o the victor go the spoils.” is the Civil Service.

Didn’t the Chinese perfect the Civil Service, and maybe even start it?

They did. I don’t remember their name for it but they had it for centuries. There might have been a pause in it at some point but it’s definitely in force now.

Bill’s idea is great. I would also ask he and all other members support the Convention of States. Through a Convention of States and article V of the constitution, we could make Bill’s idea the law of the land. Our founding fathers left us the means to end this political tyranny. Please support the COS team. The state legislatures are were we need to start. The COS team is not yet talking about Bill’s idea, but durning a convention it could very well happen. We need to use the tools our founding fathers left us to secure this great country.

My concern with a convention of states is that, since they represent half the population, there’s no way of keeping the left out of it. If they push hard enough and have the numbers, we could end up with a constitution that implements full communism.

If you look at the state legislatures they are prominently republican and Bill’s plan to put in good people will just make it better. 36 states are all we need. Use the tools they gave us. The constitution is a marvelous document. How a group of men could plan for a future, they by no means could have seen. Go to the COS site read the literature then make a call. You are making the same argument everyone makes. They have already held a mock one in Willington and it did not become a runaway process.

I’m talking about the screaming, Molotov cocktail-throwing “peaceful protesters” who will be trying to break down the doors and occupy the convention. Either way, when squishes bow to the leftist pressure we probably won’t get enough of what we need to fix things and we might end up with a metric crap ton of stuff that’ll make it worse.

That’s why we’re working bottom-up and not top-down, getting control of state legislatures first. A Constitutional Convention is a top-down tactic.

Disagree putting good people in state legislatures is needed but afterword Article V can be used.

Well,,that’s the whole basis of Bill’s plan. Get the election laws fixed so they’re fair and as fraud-proof as possible, then go after bigger fish. Once that’s accomplished, Article V might not be necessary because the left will be gone from government.

Under Article V, a COS doesn’t rewrite the Constitution, it only proposes Amendments to the existing Constitution. To become part of the Constitution, any such amendments would then have to follow the prescribed procedure the same as the Amendments Congress has proposed in the past: “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”

Your concern may be moot, however, because full-blown totalitarianism is being implemented right now.

My understanding is that the purpose for calling the convention can be circumscribed to dealing with a single issue, or multiple issues, depending how those State Legislators voted the resolution.

Apparently that’s a disputed issue. From Wikipedia:

While there have been calls for an “Article V Convention” based on a single issue such as the balanced budget amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would have the “power to propose anything it sees fit”,[2] whereas law professor Michael Rappaport[3] and attorney-at-law Robert Kelly[4] believe that a limited convention is possible.

LOVE IT! I am for this idea with every ounce of my being. First things first. What would a new successful beginning require? Brain storming ideas and safe guards to keep it vital and to keep it as close to its mission as possible? Just some food for thought so far..

I realized, today, that you are well worth 22 cents a day. We have cancelled our facebook accounts, so I cannot repost.. My husband said,today, that he is re registering as an Independent.He has been a Republican for many years.I have been an independent for 14 years (Republican before that). We will sign on to any party that agrees with this segment. Just tell us when and where.

I think Bill’s idea is great and I would ask him and everyone else here to promote the Convention of the States. The founders of this country gave us the means to end this political tyranny. With article V of the constitution, we could make Bill’s idea the law of the land. The first step is putting good people in state legislatures. Right now there are 15 states that have voted for a COS. Bill’s idea is not on their agenda now but a lot of other good ideas are being talked about. Please support the Convention of States https://conventionofstates.com
This is the pathway to freedom.

A lot of the comments here are talking about top down solutions and those run counter to what Bill is trying to do. We take the country back from the bottom up, by taking over state legislatures. Those larger matters will be taken care of as we gain higher offices over time.

I think something else that will need to be addressed are the debates. All of the presidential candidates need to be a part of them. I think that would be a game changer.

I don’t believe I have heard a presidential debate since Nixon-Kennedy, and maybe before that. What’s called a debate now is just a dog-and-pony show.

Nice idea. But the fundamental flaw here, Bill – is to assume the election apparatus is no longer compromised. 10 years ago – maybe. But the endemic fraud and all its roots that stole the elections on 11/3/20 and 1/5/21 must be remedied or any future votes are meaningless. There’s no point swimming in a pool everyone pisses in.

I agree that this is the number one obstacle. After the recent coup, elections are a fantasy. I think that is the reason that some Republicans got on board with the impeachment. They were told that they would be “re-elected” if they play ball and that they would “lose” if they don’t. Votes don’t matter. It’s who counts the votes.

Engineering problem #1. First and foremost, kill the sirens. The entirety of the bureaucratic deep state must go. Once that is accomplished, most of the other problems will fall easily because the political power will be restored to the people.

If everyone learns how to sail by, they starve to death. You don’t have to murder people in the desert, enough to take their canteen.

This all sorta reminds me of the scene in the movie “Dave” where Kevin Kline, as a complete rookie President thrust into the role, sits down with his staff and works out a new balanced budget over the course of a day. Wouldn’t that be nice?

I like the term limit idea in principle. Just a couple of suggestions, though.
1.House members only serve 2 years. It might better serve their districts to allow them to send the same representative 3 times and equal the term a senator can serve.
2.Better yet, pay them a lot less and have them convene less often.This should be more like serving on a jury than a limitless ride on the gravy train. In other words, an option to perform one’s civic duty.

Likewise, regarding the derailment of the gravy train. We, the people, should provide the necessary Congressional housing in DC for every member of Congress: public housing of equivalent value and amenities as are provided to anyone else living on the public dole in DC. And then cut the Hell out of their pay and NO RETIREMENT programs.

Oh, that is brilliant. I resent they and their spouses have health care and pensions for. much longer than they had “served”.

I like it! Enough with the goodies. They can pay for their own gym memberships too and buy their own stamps. No more slush fund for their legal troubles either. All the goodies should be history. We’re not paying to attract talent, and it will act as a great filter upfront. No one will be in it for the money.

The Philadelphia Inquirer forces new employees to sign a social justice pledge. The reason I know this is that I have an acquaintance with years of experience in business. At one time, he was the editor of the NYT book review after having been at the Inquirer. Several years back, they asked him to return. Needless to say, he wouldn’t sign it.
I imagine nearly all of these leftist news outlets force their employees to sign a similar document. Members of our new party signing a contract to stay for one term is well within reason. Maybe we could even swear them in with an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Similar to what you described, my daughter got a job in New Your a few years ago. While there, she thought it would be fun to audition for musical play. (That’s not what her job is, but she has skills in that area.) However, she was shocked to find that she was required to sign a similar type of social justice pledge in order to participate in the play. She wouldn’t do that, but it helps to explain why actors and performers are so one-dimensional.

Really? Wow. I had no idea entertainment did it too, though that explains a lot. Basically, they’re asking people to join their actual cult which prohibits free though and speech and expression which is the exact opposite of signing a pledge to abide by the “cult” of the Constitution.
Thanks for your input. I’d be curious about other examples.

I used to do regional theater in the Allentown PA area. Quit 3 years ago because I wouldn’t ever be cast if I spoke up against the 99% of the theater community who were hard-core leftists and I couldn’t hold my tongue any longer. I don’t know if they’ve since instituted pledges like you describe but it wouldn’t surprise me.

How do we counter the Governor who might be approached by another party with “Hey, we’ve seen you in the county position and we’ve seen you in the governor position and we think you have good name recognition. Come on over to our party and we’ll take care of getting you elected. Just think of all the good you could do if you are not limited to one term!”

If you are ever approached by a politician please follow the directions in the image below…

To add to your solution Bill, I have an idea. We must also include a clause that removes the lifetime salary and benefits for people that go into politics in DC. What say you?

For years I have been thinking of how to institute term limits on our federal politicians. With 35 years of overseas assignments I have been in government [as an engineer contractor never an employee, 1983 to 2018 and had a clear view from the inside] and worked diligently with success to help unseat Erick Cantor VA District-7. The biggest obstacle I found with term limits is that the congressional staffers [who cannot be fired because they are full time federal government employees under the protection of the union] and Chief of Staff will be completely running the show with undiminished if not absolute power. This would be much more than they already have. And believe me there are a lot of them. THEY know where the bodies are buried. If someone can come up with a way to reduce the power or term limits for the congressional staffers it will be difficult to enforce term limits on congress without relinquishing power to unelected government employees. I think the best way is to repeal the 17th amendment. And you aren’t going to get two thirds of the senate to agree on that. The corruption in WashDC is unbelievably deep and well entrenched.

Why can’t the congressional staffers be fired? Of course we’d get blowback from the union, but is it our country or isn’t it? Has to be a way, and once we figure out how to do it once, their little reign of terror is over.

When do you ever hear of anyone in the Federal government being fired? It’s almost impossible. The first reform needed is to abolish public employee unions, who in my opinion, have been instrumental in destroying our representative democracy especially in my home state of California.
The old spoils system was less corrupt than what we have today.

I didn’t say it was easy. First example that comes to mind is the teachers’ union in New York. Rather than firing people, they reward incompetence with full pay and permanent “day care” by sending them to rubber rooms where they live out their employment with full pay and no work.

As I see it, the difference comes with political will…you know…balls.

Throw them out on their ass and face the legal consequences. Happy to do it. We the people have evicted you from your perch.

Are you saying that, if I won a congressional seat that was previously held by a Democrat, that I would necessarily inherit that Democrat’s entire staff and not be able to choose my own staff?

Just as the founding generation concluded they had to confront the seemingly overwhelming odds against them, I agree that we have no choice but to face ours now. All the more important then to understand precisely what those odds are in order to combat them. I believe a convincing case can be made that we face greater obstacles than the founders did – not to discourage anyone from trying, but to help us succeed when we do. While the revolutionaries had an ocean between them and England, our enemy completely surrounds us. They know where we live, what we buy, how we’ve voted, what we own, what we owe, the state of our health, and all the opposition research that oligarch billions can buy when they have a mind to, as well as the media to effectively spread that manure. Standing between the feral dog pack and its food source, an assembly of rookies has to engineer the ways to avoid too many inevitable rookie mistakes. One of my qualms about electing an outsider in 2016 was hiring someone with the inherent deficit of specialized knowledge necessary to succeed at the job. Like every other occupation, public office is a trade – actually two. There’s all the knowledge required to get elected, then all the knowledge needed to effectively serve. Being successful in one field doesn’t necessarily translate to politics. The incumbent protection racket exists at all levels; it is an obscene labyrinth of arcane obstacles to seeking office. Taken together, they add up to far greater tyrannies than King George and Parliament ever imposed: petition rules for getting on the ballot; petition challenges; rules about campaign sign font size, language, and placement; rules for donations; etc., etc., etc. Political parties are a repository of such localized knowledge, all of which freelancers can’t be realistically expected to rapidly acquire on their own. Then, should we succeed in getting elected, do we know basic stuff like Robert’s Rules of Order? Should our office have a staff (and if the last four years have taught us anything), do we know whom to hire?
George Washington didn’t agree to lead the Continental Army before he had ever picked up a musket, but despite his military experience and knowledge, his efforts weren’t very successful until the raw Continentals under him learned to drill. Just as Von Steuben was essential to their eventual victory, a citizen statesman bootcamp is vital to ours today. There are disaffected grassroots GOP party members whose local experience must be tapped. As you’ve said Mr. Whittle, individually we might not know enough, but pooling our knowledge together is our best hope of success.

Great points. Could definitely use some coaching from more experienced players recruited from the talent pool of disaffected grassroots GOP party members as you state.

Those are all great points. Do you have experience along those lines? Our MB2A group has a Campaigns department intended to monitor and assist any elections we get involved in. You sound well-suited for that and we’re just getting organized so we need good people.

—–
PM me about getting involved in MB2A!

All good points but, we don’t necessarily want our newly elected representative to be “effective.” We want him (or her) to stand in the way, to vote no and to resist.

Effective can definitely mean roadblock, no doubt about it. Most often does, doesn’t it? To achieve that however, one must be effective enough to know how be a roadblock in order to avoid being merely a speed bump.

@ Bill Whittle
First: yes, absolutely worth 22¢…. But I’m already a member.
Second: How does it work. I know less then nothing about how to start a political party, I spent 20 years in the Navy and the last seven in the ship yard… this is all new to me. So how does one start a political party, I’m willing to expend my personal time. 40 hours a week belongs to fixing Navy ships, 8 hours is sleeping… I will happily give the rest to saving the nation, just tell me what I need to do.
Ken

It’s intentionally cumbersome. I recommend you go to Ballotpedia and look at the requirements for getting on the ballot in your state. I randomly picked Pennsylvania. Here’s what it says:
“There are three basic methods by which an individual may become a candidate for office in a state.

  1. An individual can seek the nomination of a state-recognized political party.
  2. An individual can run as an independent. Independent candidates often must petition in order to have their names printed on the general election ballot.
  3. An individual can run as a write-in candidate.”

If you want to start a new party, this is what you have to do to become a “state-recognized political party” in Pennsylvania.
“Like party candidates participating in the primary, independent, minor political party, and political body candidates for state office (including the Pennsylvania General Assembly) must submit candidate affidavits and statements of financial interests to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. Candidates must also pay the same filing fees as primary candidates. Independent, minor party, and political body candidates must also file nomination papers (not to be confused with the nomination petitions party candidates participating in the primary must complete). Candidates filing nomination papers must obtain signatures from electors of the district equal to at least 2 percent of the largest entire vote cast for an elected candidate in the last election within the district…
“Nomination papers”Each page of a nomination paper must include these four basic components:

  • Preamble: The preamble includes the name of the minor political party or political body making the nomination and the county of the signers.
  • Candidate information: This section includes the name, address, and occupation of the candidate being nominated.
  • Signatures of electors: Each person who signs a nomination paper must include the following information:
  • signature
  • printed name
  • address of residence
  • date of signature
  • Affidavit of qualified elector: Each page of the papers must include an affidavit of the qualified elector who circulated the nomination paper. The elector must include his or her address and affirm the following: 
  • He or she is a qualified elector of the state.
  • The signers of the nomination paper signed with full knowledge of the paper’s contents.
  • The signers all reside in the same county.
  • Each signer signed on the date indicated.
  • To the best of the elector’s knowledge, the signers are qualified electors of the district designated in the nomination paper.

Each page of a nomination paper submitted by a political body must also include the names and addresses of the political body’s Committee to Fill Vacancies. The committee must include at least three and no more than five members.
Nomination papers must be circulated and filed between the 10th Wednesday preceding the primary and August 1 of each year (e.g., in 2014, between March 12 and August 1)
Specific to Pennsylvania, this was interesting:
“On March 2, 2015, United States District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell ruled that three of Pennsylvania’s petition requirements were unconstitutional “as applied to the Green Party and Libertarian Party.” These three requirements were as follows:

  1. “the ban on out-of-state circulators”
  2. “the requirement that each petition sheet be notarized”
  3. “the prohibition on a voter signing for more than one minor party in any given election”

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, said the following about the decision: ‘Oddly, the relief is limited only to the plaintiffs in the case, the Green and Libertarian Parties. There will probably be new lawsuits filed by other plaintiffs, which probably will result in an expansion of the relief to all petitioning groups, at least for general election petitions.’ The state government did not appeal the decision…”
So presumably, in Pennsylvania anyway, one might expect court costs right out of the gate.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Pennsylvania#Nomination_papers
Because the existing parties are in a sense, organized rackets, one should expect legal challenges in any case. Existing parties have the manpower and money to go through your new party’s petitions and challenge the signatures.
Semi-pertinent side note, this is how Barack Obama gained entry to political office as an Illinois state Senator: “Obama employed Chicago’s rules to invalidate voting petition signatures. He ultimately disqualified all four Democratic primary rivals and three minor candidates…”
https://thepostmillennial.com/flashback-obama-attained-power-by-questioning-ballots-and-signatures/

This is sort of crap. I’m willing to put in the time, but I work in a shipyard, I can barely feed and house my family AND save for retirement. I don’t have a spare hundred thousand to throw at this. It feels like it is intentionally designed to be prohibitively expensive so that the common rabble wont even consider running.

It’s just theory, but if you have legit signatures then the challenge will just fall on face and the accused should be entitled to compensation for expenses.
And if you’re a candidate who look to win, you are supposed to have no problem to have more than enough supporters. Maybe even agile enough to all appear in person at the challenger’s installation to declare his machination BS 🙂

Bingo!!!!!! The ruling class has indeed rigged it so the barrier to entry is arduous for outsiders. But bear in mind, I provided you the information for getting a new PARTY on the ballot.
Independent candidates have fewer hoops to jump through than those required for establishing a new party, and while the establishment parties have still stacked the deck in their favor, independent candidates don’t have to run in the primaries, just the general election, which saves both time and expense. This article describes some of the challenges independents confront pretty well:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-republicans-democrats-prevent-independent-candidates-getting-ballot-ncna866466
Please don’t abandon hope, however. The requirements to run for a local position – school board, library board, village board, or city council for example, are far easier to meet, and in many cases, they are non-partisan races that are held at different dates or time of year from the primaries/general election, so you are less likely to get lost in the spectacle of a national election. Don’t discount the power that these local positions wield. A good argument can be made that your power is leveraged to a far great degree at the local level than at the state, and certainly the national level.
Before I get off my soapbox, I want you to consider devoting your immediate time, not just to contemplating a run for office, but to being a good citizen by serving as the public conscience at your local board meetings, or by meeting with your local officials to urge them to the side of liberty. For example, do you know if your county honors ICE detainers at your local county jail? Since a stream of illegal aliens is just about to pour across our border, that would be a really good thing for you to know. Do you know if your county Sheriff is going to enforce His Fraudulency’s unconstitutional nationwide mask mandate? Does he/she know how you feel about that? If you and ten to twenty other citizens you know made them hear your voices on these matters, you could positively affect the lives of thousands of your fellow citizens, and possibly even save some of their lives. And it won’t cost you a dime.

Term limits can be imposed by constitutional amendment. This can be engineered by the states. Congress will never agree to initiate it. The problem with multiple term limits is that accountability to voters is reduced.
In this idea, the single term electees are lame ducks as soon as they are sworn in. They are completely dependent upon their staff for expertise in getting anything done. Those not committed to a single term will control all the levers of power to move their agenda. Where do they get these 1500 page bills? The interest groups and staffs write them. The leadership is co-opted into whipping the members to pass them. Those who vote in support, get rewarded by the interests and leadership. How do you compete with that as a one term wonder?
I don’t have an answer, but while this might move the needle, it won’t make a huge dent. The swamp will still be there and the rookies won’t be able to curb them.

Our best chance seems to be to contrast us with the career politicians and then wait for the numbers to grow so we can effect change. How many people would vote for us knowing that our stance on the stimulus bill, for example, would have been one line?:

Send $2,000 to every American citizen. The end.

Refusing some of the perks. Actually listening to constituents. Treating impeachment like the serious step that it is. Just spitballing here. Anything to set us apart.

Maybe just the fact that we’re not lying, evil, greedy backstabbing bastards would be enough.

That just increases the complications of the Engineering problem. The “one Party” organization has to find a way to supply staff, or at least some staff.
And supply lawyers for consultation, and the ear of other one term folks who can describe where the land mines are.
And a plan for dealing with hiring and firing staff.
And things to look for when the staff try to end run or otherwise buffalo the Representative.
What else Have I Left off this list.. .. .

Retired people who don’t need the money or the job and are too old to stay 30 years and should not be enticed to those after office ‘consultant/ Lobbyist ‘ jobs. Also many of us of a certain age have actually had an education in history and the constitution.

A potential problem with your contract idea to consider: If the contract ends at the end of the candidate’s term or at any time prior to the following election, there’s nothing to stop him from running again against us with another party. (He might even choose to break the contract and deal with the penalties.) If the voters like the candidate enough, they’ll vote him in again even though he’s no longer one of us.

Also, well worth the 22¢.

Phrase the contract well enough and this will become an . . . undesirable option. 😉

The contract for such cases is usually make them pay back plenty of the support money they enjoyed. It certainly does not stop one, and the target place can just pay it off. However I would not worry about that ahead of time: we;re supposed to grab people with integrity. That will already stop the behavior against the agreement. And if the bad apples move ahead, it will be easy to point at them as party of traitors.

Then if people want to vote in the traitors, all we can do is accept the will. Supposedly this movement is an actual “for the people” and not another installment to bend their will for someone’s vision of the greater good.

I suppose you’re right. But I refuse to accept the will of progressives and socialists. Will not cooperate.

Bill, I think the reason you’ve seen a slow down in new subscriptions is that some people appeared to be rubbed the wrong way with your American army video last week. I didn’t see anything wrong with your pitch, but there are unfortunately a lot of cowardly right wing pundits/politicians out there who are using the capitol riot last week as an opportunity to virtue signal while simultaneously SLAMMING the base. I read the comments on the YouTube version of that video and I saw a lot of anger directed towards your well intentioned remarks.

I know you aren’t trying to preach to the choir (as you noted in your ‘little people video’), but sometimes even the choir needs a good pre-sermon pitch to fire them up before you address the congregation. Nothing would fire me up better than seeing you spend a good 30 minutes pointing out everything that is wrong with pathetic Republican party. Hell, while you’re at it, SLAM Fox News too! It would definitely come off as venting, but that’s what we need at the moment in addition to good ideas. I love you Bill, but I think you need to FIRE US UP! Tomorrow’s video needs to be the “fire” edition of the Firewall!

Interesting and awesome sounding plan. Engineer it and implement it. I have said time and time again, when Politics became a career, we were doomed. When political science became a college degree, we were doubly doomed. Lots of bang for my $0.22.

Worth every cent and then some. My husband and I are using your shows in an effort to introduce family members as to why we are not Democrats. Thank you so much for your effort and dedication.

Doesn’t this go back to your conversation with Allen West that your idea would simply put all of the power in the hands of the entrenched bureaucracy?

I’m taking your offer. I just rejoined after several years away. This is the kind of content I remember from the old days, and look forward to in the future.

Interesting plan. In another topic I was saying that this one-term idea has some flaws for “real” positions, like major of a small town.

However for congress positions I don;t see any problems: I just fail to see a single good lawmaker there an any time point. So going home and passing the baton should work. And it indeed counters a ton of problems we now live with. The dodging of the personal falldown is just the cherry on the cake.

You still have to deal with the entrenched bureaucracy. Civil Service rules have created an unaccountable 4th branch of government.

The problem with congress is, any member of the “one term” party is they will be one vote, out of 512.
Voting laws, according to the Constitution, need to be changed/enforced at the state level. The problem with state legislature is that they will not be able to change voting laws.
The state of California has 80.
The state of Nevada has 41. (may be able to break thru)
The state of Arizona has 60.
The state of Pennsylvania has 203
This is not looking good…

Leave a Reply