The thing I like about your column is that you tell the truth no matter who it "offends" or angers, because like me you don't give a rats a## what people's reaction will be. You tell it like it is!

And you are correct, the only way we will have a government that represents the people who sent them to DC is term limits for all elected officials.

Great column Burt, but I have a higher opinion of sewer rats than that.

We need to get a group of supporters, for messages like the one Burt just wrote, to buy time in the prime time tv slots to voice this. All of the "Patriots" want this message to get out and be heard loud and clear.

Great article Burt!

Another great article, but thought Saturday's even better. Am worried about term limits however. If term limits was such a good idea, how come the Founding Fathers did not include it in the Constitution? I tend to believe the strict adherence to the Founding Fathers' blue print is best since nothing has ever seriously contradicted any aspect of their designs for limited government to date.

Outstanding column, Burt! Term limits on every Congressman is essential to taking this country back from the vermin currently infesting the halls. And I'm with you, there's got to be a way we can rig it so they have to prove they read the bills they voted on. Maybe a pop quiz every now and then, perhaps administered by the SCOTUS, would answer. If they didn't read the bill and they cast a vote in favor of it (if they voted against it, I don't care whether they read it or not) they should go to prison.

The POTUS should have the line-item veto that we've been talking about for 30 years or more. If memory serves, the White House was within a whisker of getting it once. We can get that done, especially for the budget. No more of this nonsense where Congressmen hold a bill hostage by loading it up with totally irrelevant, pork-laden spending. That alone ought to be reduce the deficit by several trillion.

And after reading about Ted Kennedy's and Nancy Pelosi's finances, I say we make it a crime for a Congressmen to vote on a tax that he's got teams of accountants working to hard to get him out of paying himself.

While we're on the subject, any President who apologizes to France or Germany for ANYTHING ought to be dragged out and shot. I don't care who he is or what his skin looks like.

Dear Burt,

Wonderful column. Agree on all counts.

I've long considered it the very hallmark of our parlous times that these hypocritical, lying, greedy unemployables who hang their hats in the capital can - with no discernable discomfort or shame - hang some odious monstrosity like ArrogantCare or Cap and Trade on me and then, when asked if they are willing to live under the requirements of that selfsame law, say "are you kidding? Heck no."

Every time I think of that, my wife has to wrap me in cold towels for a week until the rage subsides a bit.

That, to me, is an UNTHINKABLE affront.

Anyway, loved YOUR list and was glad to see that was on it. I'm running low on cold towels.

Lew Pringle

Skip--Not fair comparing me to me, although I'm glad you enjoyed Saturday's piece so much. The Constitution, I'll remind you, is not sacrosanct. There are two amendments devoted to booze, for crying out loud. It wouldn't hurt to have one devoted to term limits for senators and congressmen.

Mark--Your assignment is to get me on Fox News. I mean, why would they keep rolling out the red carpet for dunderheads like Juan Williams and Bob Beckel, but never for a dunderhead named Prelutsky?

Michael S Sec: It's not just that people like Pelosi and the Kennedy clan hire teams of CPAs to figure out ways to lower their tax obligation, but that people like them, the Kerrys and George Soros, get most of their money through trusts and off-shore accounts, which means they hardly pay any at all.

Regards, Burt

Four things that the republican party has to do is throw out RINO's, those that backed or voted for unconstitutional bills, members of teh Council on Foreign Relations and anyone who calls the republican party the "Big Tent Party". Excuse me while I go puke. A good place to start would be throwing out McCain, Bush, Delay, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Spector (oops he already left), Charlie Crist, Gingrich (CFR member), etc. And why we are at it how come Gingrich is not being charged with treason? Isn't owing allegiance to a foreign entity that wants to overthrow the U.S. the definition of Treason? Anyone for the New World Order?

If you like term limits, how will you achieve that goal?????

Are going to take the "long process of Amending a Constitution??

The Constitutional Convention "route" (the short circuit) is fraught with DANGER especially with what we have in this Beloved Country today.

I really think that term limits could be solved if all the benefits and pensions were GONE. You shouldn't be getting a "pension of $15,000.00 per year, if you serve a "two year stint" in the House of Representatives"!!!!

No elected official at any level should be "accruing a pension and benefits." If you don't like the salary, don't go and you won't stay, if you can make a "better salary" for "a servant of the people" was not your heart motive. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil and I certify to you, the motives of their hearts will be revealed.

While we are on this subject of Congress, the 17th Amendment needs repealed and put back as the Founders intended it to be, Senators elected from the State Legislatures. After all, most of these "long termers" reside in the Senate, and I assure you, if the State Legislatures are "seating the Senators" and if we, people, keep a close watch on the State Legislature which is "doable", many of these problems will disappear.

NO, NO, NO Constitutional Convention. Not for any reason, find another solution, follow the "money trail" and Stop those provisions.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

Ruth Ann Wilson is 100% correct on the Constitutional Convention. Who would be delegates to the convention, why the same crooks and/or mental midgets that are in the swamp on the Potomac now. Would anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together consider the crooks and/or mental midgets the equal of Franklin, Madison, Washigton, etc? And while we are talking repeal how about the 16 (don't forget about voiding Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3), 24 (why should people on welfare be alowed to vote?), 25 (no more appointed Presidents, Ford was more than enough), 26 (can anyone explain why an 18 year old is mature enough to vote but not buy a beer?)

Mr. P: The two amendments on booze had nothing to do with the Founding Fathers. In fact, it is my understanding most of them were brewers and/or distillers, and that George Washington was the largest distiller in the colonies and/or early nation. I believe we won't go wrong staying true to the Founding Fathers. Why did they not address term limits? I bring this matter up largely because it is the only difference of opinion with you I can recall. In my opinion liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty. In light of this opinion of course I agree with you on the liar-in-chief. By the way, my enjoyment of your saturday article in no way impinges on my enjoyment of today's article.

Burt, great article! I have waited months for someone to come out and tell it like it is, but I never thought I'd feel sympathy for a sewer rat! Don't worry, I'm sure some liberal law school geek will file suit against you on behalf of sewer rats everywhere. Skip, I can answer your question about term limits very simply: the Founding Fathers did not pyut term limits in the Constitution because they never dreamed anyone would make a career out of politics. They didn't *want* to become national leaders, they *had* to. They felt it was their responsibilty to change things, because they saw what needed to be done and knew how to do it. Congress was never intended to be a career path, it was a duty to be performed, and when your term was up, you went back home to the farm or the brewery or what have you. When Congress gave itself the ability to vote itself pay raises, and give itself special retirement pensions, and its own health care insurance, that's when politics became a career path. You were not supposed to be paid for being in congress, other than a remuneration for the time you were away from your farm or business. It was NEVER meant to be a way of life.

I've just discovered your column and I'm floored. I'd put you up against Rev Wright any day brother!

Think about this, if the "bunch" in Washington won't stay "bound to their Word", NOW, what would it be to have a "Constitutional Convention"????????

Think, the only thing right NOW, we "HOLD to" is our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Ten Commandments of Almighty God.

Communism 101 - "lie, cheat, or steal" to further the party". The people we deal with are "Oath Breakers", they have no "fear of God".

REVERSE - 1963 Supreme Court Decision that was requested by the atheist O'Hare to take Prayer and Bible reading from the Public Schools. Prayer and Bible reading instilled in future generations the "fear of God", "afraid to break their word." The ones we deal with are NOT TRUSTWORTHY. They have "defiled consciences". The "fear of God" is what the Founders expressed. Here John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious(Christian religion) people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

"A word to the wise should be sufficient"

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

skip,

The Founding Fathers didn't include term limits because they anticipated that most of their successors would be almost as principled as they were. OOOPPSSS!!! The Founding Fathers anticipated that the people of America would do their duty, serve their country in local, state or federal jobs for 10 - 12 years and then return to their normal pursuits. Of course, the country wasn't as mechanical or as global as it is today.

I live in a state that has instituted term limits in the elected state offices-no more than 8 consecutive years in any 1 office. The issue with that is that once the person serves their 8 years, they move on to the next office; i.e. from AG to Treasurer to Sec. State, etc.

My idea would be to limit the office terms to 8 years and then to no more than 2 elected offices. The person needs to chose.

Burt,

As O'Reilly would say, "Pithy!" Great job. That is what the Republicans need to do; but, being politicians, they won't. They don't have the guts to really lead. They proved that from 1994 to 2008 when they held both houses of Congress and then the Presidency.

Duke

Brian, the Founding Fathers had the foresight to design a blueprint for government that included three branches checked and balanced, a bicameral legislature, an electoral college, etc., etc., but they didn't foresee the ramifications of elected officials making a career of it? I'm not buying it. Current officials have thoroughly corrupted the process, but by their words and deeds the Founding Fathers have anticipated this. How many of their quotes seem to apply to 2010? Almost, if not, all of them.

Hold in there, Skip. It is not the Constitution that is the "problem". LEAVE IT ALONE. REPEAL the CORRUPTION.

Why did Patrick Henry "INSIST" on the Bill of Rights????? He knew the heart of man, and he would not settle on the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added.

Thank God for Patrick Henry.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

Skip: Politics was anathema to our Founding Fathers, a necessary evil. Why do you think George Washington voluntarily stepped down after his two terms of office? There were no term limits. And the First Continental Congress, the First true American Congress, and all Presidents up till FDR followed his example. None made a career out of politics.

Washington's last day as president: 3/4/1797; Washington's last day on earth: 12/14/1799; perhaps his excellency felt he was not up to the task of a third term. Why is there no mention of limiting a politician's term, when the Founding Fathers were consumed with limiting government itself?

Skip, Duke hit it right on the head, the Founding Fathers hoped only principled people would serve, which is why the pay was so low. If you can't make a living at it, there is no incentive to make a career out of it, which is as it should be.

To put it another way Skip, When the framers wrote, in Article 1, Section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote", they meant for that six years to be it. No more after that. Hey, if the Supreme Court can "interpert" the Constituion for its own ends, why can't I? How about this, from the same section: " The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year"? I would take "...the seats...shall be vacated..." to mean, when your time is up, you go. Vacate does not mean run again, it means leave. It's where we get the word "vacation".

Brian, The Founding Fathers relied on hope that the people who served would be principled? They did not bother to specifically spell out they did not want multiple term service? Article I, Section 3, reads in part: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have..." and goes on to list qualifications of age, length of citizenship, and criteria of state residence, but the founders leave out no one shall serve more than one term?

Like I said, Skip, when all of the "perks" are gone, and the legislator only makes "a salary", we will find out what is in "the heart" of the legislator??????

George Washington would have taken you to the "shed" for calling him "Excellency". "First in War, First in Peace, and First, in the hearts of his Countrymen." He loved his people and they loved him. He had NO "title of nobility" assigned to him and furthermore, he didn't want one.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

OK Skip, are you really trying to tell me that the Founding Fathers expected politics to be a career? That they planned all along for officials to stay in office until they fossilized? Are you really trying to tell me that? Really? Does that make even the slightest amount of sense?

I am asking why the Founding Fathers did not address term limits in the Constitution, when the Constitution is wholly dedicated to limiting the government, and the Constitution does so in a very thorough manner, because the purpose of the Constitution was to do this very thing, which it did.

Skip, we can never truly know what the Founding Fathers thought, but my personal view is that when they wrote in the Constitution "...a term of four years..." they meant exactly that. Four years, then go home. I don't know if they failed to envision the possibility of re-election, or if they truly believed noone in their right mind would want to do this more than once. Perhaps more of our officials should heed the words of King George in reference to Washington's announcement that he would step-down after 2 terms in office: "If he were to do that, he would be the greatest man in the world." In other words, don't overstay your welcome in D.C.

The Founding Fathers never took bribes, never hid $100,000 in the freezer, never lived the good life provided free by the tax payers, were never drunk on the sheer power of being Congressman/Senator, never had their own plane, helicopter, bullet-proof limousines, never had lobbyists at their beck and call, personal body guards willing to die for them, never lived lives of luxury, or anything their "deprived" hearts desired. That is why you can never get rid of professional politicians, they are drunk with power, bribes, and entitlements. They would be out of their minds to willingly give up such a "sweet deal." It would take a strong conscience to do that and I don't think most politicians possess a resolute conscience.