Fire the Politicians: Why It’s Time to Abolish the Careerist Congress

Ditching the D.C. bureaucrats to restore the founders' true vision of a temporary, citizen-led legislature.

The American founders envisioned a government of citizen legislators, not a professional careerist class, to preserve the nation's foundational principles. The current push for "fundamental transformation" by career politicians violates the organic development of American core culture. This culture requires protecting the original "DNA" of the founding, akin to a "development of doctrine" rather than a total replacement of values. A shift to a citizen-led legislature is needed to ensure government remains accountable, rather than adopting ideological frameworks that are hostile to American exceptionalism.

The American founders wanted everyday people to temporarily leave their jobs, serve their country, and return home to live under the laws they made. Today, that vision is dead. "Politician" is officially a professional career. Washington insiders operate as a ruling class, entirely detached from the financial realities of the people they represent. To fix our broken republic, we must dismantle the permanent political class and return Congress to its grassroots.

The Rise of the Careerist Elite

Modern lawmakers no longer view themselves as public servants. According to data from U.S. Term Limits, the average term length for a House member has quadrupled, while average Senate tenure has more than doubled. This lifelong retention isn't based on performance. It is fueled by:

• Expanding institutional power to shield incumbents from accountability.
• Taxpayer-funded perks that insulate politicians from everyday financial realities.
• Massive fundraising advantages that box out grassroots challengers.

When politicians stay in Washington for decades, they stop being citizens. They become permanent bureaucrats.

Exploding Spending, Bloated Bureaucracy

The primary consequence of a careerist Congress is total fiscal irresponsibility. Professional politicians maintain power by feeding an ever-growing federal machine. Since 2010, federal spending has skyrocketed by 78%, while the U.S. population grew by just 6%.

Look at the federal agency growth:

• HHS: Ballooned from $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion.
• Education: Tripled to $268 billion.
• Treasury: Doubled to $1.3 trillion.

Every dollar funneled into these bloated agencies is taken from veterans, teachers, and hard-working taxpayers. While D.C. insiders feast on permanent budget increases, regular Americans get the scraps.

Changing Demographics on Capitol Hill

As the permanent political class expands, the demographic makeup of the legislature is also shifting. Data from a Pew Research Center analysis shows that in the current 119th Congress, at least 80 lawmakers (15% of the total voting membership) are foreign-born immigrants or the children of immigrants. This is a notable increase from the 115th Congress, where they made up 12% of the body.

A detailed breakdown of these trends, demographics, and historical context outlines their growing influence:

• The Breakdown: There are 80 lawmakers with direct immigrant backgrounds serving in the 119th Congress. This includes 19 in the Senate and 61 in the House.
• Generational Status: 19 of these lawmakers are foreign-born immigrants (representing roughly 4% of Congress), while the remaining 61 are second-generation Americans who have at least one parent born in another country.
• Political Affiliation: Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans among this cohort, holding 60 of the 80 seats, while one is held by an independent.
• Historical Shifts: Central America has surpassed Europe as the most common origin region for lawmakers with direct immigrant backgrounds. Roughly 30% of these lawmakers claim heritage in Central America, followed by Europe (26%), Asia (17%), and the Caribbean (16%).
• Geographic Concentration: Nearly a quarter of all members of Congress who are immigrants or children of immigrants represent California.

(Note: Some critics argue that certain legislators in this growing cohort increasingly focus on issues tied to their countries of origin rather than prioritizing core United States interests).In a January 27, 2024, speech in Somali at a Minneapolis event celebrating elections in Puntland (a region of Somalia), Omar addressed Somali-American attendees about a dispute involving Somalia’s sea access, Somaliland, and Ethiopia. Accurate independent translations (from Somali speakers, court interpreters, and journalists, as reported by outlets including the Minnesota Reformer, Star Tribune, and Sahan Journal) show her saying words to this effect:

The U.S. government “will do what we tell the U.S. government to do.”

Somalis should have confidence because “We live in this country. This is the country where we pay taxes. This is the country that has elected a woman from your community.”

“As long as I am in Congress, no one will take over the seas belonging to the nation of Somalia and the United States will not support others who seek to steal from us.”

Delia Ramirez (D-IL) is frequently cited in similar loyalty debates for saying (in Spanish at a 2025 Mexico City progressive summit) she is “a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.” She later clarified that honoring her ancestry strengthens her commitment to America. However, she is not foreign-born—she is a U.S. birthright citizen and the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants.

Members of Congress are elected to represent their U.S. districts/states and take an oath to the Constitution. Statements emphasizing heritage, diaspora concerns, or foreign-policy interests related to a birth country are common among immigrant-background lawmakers and are subject to political interpretation and criticism.

The Failure of "Professional" Oversight

Defenders of the system claim we need seasoned insiders to keep government clean. The reality proves the exact opposite.

The federal government funds over 70 statutory Inspector Generals (IGs) to root out waste. Yet, the system is so stagnant that a single 19-year-old independent analyst online uncovered more systemic fraud in one week than the entire band of highly paid IGs has exposed in decades. If a multi-billion dollar oversight apparatus can be outperformed by one determined citizen, the system is designed to protect itself—not the taxpayer.

A Call for Radical Reform

The current trajectory is unsustainable. When the ruling class argues that the Constitution is obsolete, or seeks to weaponize and pack the Supreme Court to preserve their political agendas, they demonstrate that their primary loyalty is to power—not the Republic.

We must abolish the career political class. By enforcing strict term limits and returning to a part-time, citizen-led legislature, we can break the stranglehold of Washington insiders. It is time to fire the professional politicians and return power back to the American people.

The Justice System Isn’t About Justice: It’s About Social Control

The modern justice system does not function as an impartial arbiter of facts. It operates as a system of asymmetric enforcement—protecting institutional insiders while deploying aggressive state power against political dissidents. When documented failures produce zero meaningful consequences for those at the top, the public receives a clear signal: for the protected class, “nothing happened.”

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a pattern of incentives, career protection, and selective zeal

Under this framework, institutional insiders receive systemic immunity while political opponents face aggressive state prosecution. When establishment figures face zero accountability for documented overreach, it signals to the public that, effectively, "nothing happened." This creates a profound clash between an evidence-centric legal standard and a pattern-of-enforcement reality.

The Anatomy of Institutional Immunity
The "Nothing Happened" phenomenon is best illustrated by the lack of legal consequences for high-profile political and intelligence figures despite verified institutional failures.
• The Durham Report: Serves as Exhibit A, documenting severe errors, omissions, and bias in the FISA warrant applications used to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign.

• Protected Insiders: Figures such as Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi remain untouched by the criminal justice system.

• The Message to the Rank-and-File: When the FBI loses five months’ worth of critical text messages between agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, it sends a clear message to the bureaucracy that the institution will protect its own.

The Machinery of Asymmetric Enforcement
While institutional insiders receive protection, the machinery of justice is aggressively deployed against conservative organizations, religious groups, and parental advocates.
Targeting Dissidents: Examples of selective enforcement include the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, the aggressive application of the FACE Act against pro-life activists, and the DOJ targeting parents attending local school board meetings

• The Mark Houck Case: Over 20 heavily armed FBI agents raided the home of pro-life contractor Mark Houck for a minor altercation where he was defending his son. Though a jury fully acquitted Houck—and he later won a million-dollar settlement against the DOJ for excessive force—the terrifying initial deployment of state power stands as a stark warning to dissidents. [1]
• The David Daleiden Prosecution: Citizen journalist David Daleiden faced years of relentless legal battles. While the original felony charges brought by the state were ultimately dropped and expunged after a lengthy court battle, his aggressive prosecution for exposing corporate practices contrasts sharply with the absolute freedom enjoyed by the executives he filmed. [1]

The Best Argument Money Can Buy: Corporate Firings vs. Blind Justice

The justice system does not exist in a vacuum; it mirrors a broader institutional shift where professionals are paid to defend a narrative rather than uncover objective truth. Lawyers are paid to craft the best arguments money can buy. If a wealthy client breaks the law, the legal strategy often shifts to arguing that the law itself must be changed, leaving the poor disproportionately represented in the prison system.

This reality is perfectly illustrated by examining corporate boardrooms. Consider the underlying mechanics of two high-profile media exits:

Corporate Incident	The Public Narrative	The Institutional Reality
Fox News firing Tucker Carlson	Terminated over controversial texts and on-air political commentary.	Fired because highly compensated lawyers determined his presence posed an existential financial liability during massive defamation lawsuits, threatening the parent company's profitability.
Disneyland / Disney dropping Dwayne Johnson	Public relations management or creative restructuring of multi-million dollar franchises.	Severed or modified relationships because legal teams calculated that maintaining the status quo threatened corporate branding and market share.

Neither corporation acted out of an abstract, moral pursuit of "truth" or "fairness." In both cases, teams of highly paid lawyers were weaponized to construct a defensive narrative that protected the institution's bottom line.

The exact same phenomenon governs our courts. Judges render verdicts based on the arguments presented by these same highly compensated legal teams, while campaign funding can subtly sway long-term judicial outcomes.

A Broader Culture of Narrative over Truth

This subversion of truth spans every major cultural pillar:

• Journalism: Modern journalists prioritize their employers' narratives over truth, turning awards like the Pulitzer Prize into validations for coordinated misinformation. [1]
• Science: High-profile scientific and corporate figures operate under systems optimized for institutional profitability and state control rather than global well-being.

Double Standards in Public Safety

Asymmetric enforcement also manifests as a refusal to prosecute actual violence while penalizing political speech or corporate non-compliance.

• Political Incitement: Public officials openly call for protesters to "stay on the street" and "get more confrontational" to influence judicial outcomes, facing zero institutional backlash.
• Selective Protection: The DOJ deployed the FBI to protect school boards while ignoring public officials who actively expressed solidarity with anti-police demonstrations that resulted in the defacement of public property.
• The Failure to Protect Citizens: In San Francisco, an elderly Asian-American citizen, Mr. Anh Le, was savagely beaten with a baseball bat in Chinatown. Despite rising local hate crimes, the District Attorney offered the perpetrators a lenient plea deal with no jail time. Mr. Le was forced to launch a federal lawsuit against the District Attorney’s office just to achieve a basic semblance of justice. [1, 2]

Conclusion: 

Most people still want to believe the justice system is about justice. The cumulative record of selective immunity, selective aggression, and narrative management makes that belief increasingly difficult to sustain. What looks like “nothing happened” to the protected class looks, from the outside, like a system organized around power and cultural control rather than equal application of the law.

The remedy is not more rhetoric. It is sunlight, structural limits on discretion in politically sensitive cases, and a willingness to apply the same standards to institutional insiders that are applied to everyone else. Until that happens, claims of blind justice will continue to ring hollow.