I’ll be very brief.

It has become impossible to watch the news or read a paper without being made aware of one or more new examples of abject governmental ineptitude, malfeasance and/or outright corruption. Recent examples include, but are not limited to, stifling rules of engagement placed on our military, failure to make any real effort to vet the terrorists in San Bernardino, Hillary using her personal server and exposing secret communications to interception, IRS corruption/targeting political enemies, Benghazi - the list is literally endless.

Malfeasance/incompetence/corruption/stupidity will continue until and unless the people involved are held to account - be they employees or bureaucrats, department heads or politicians.

IMHO - our government is broken largely because there is no accountability and no subsequent personal cost to those individuals responsible.

Said another way, there are a LOT of SOBs that need to be fired, demoted and or prosecuted. Until that happens no real change is possible and the bigger government gets the more impossible it becomes.


I noticed that you did not include Republican corruption, just Democrat.
Paul Ryan needs to be ousted, and run out of town on a rail. Justice Roberts, too. The entire RNC needs an enema. They are just as complicit in these matters, as Obama, Hillary or any other Democrat.


With respect to politicians, it is the responsibility of the voters to hold them accountable, Tiny. I noticed you failed to mention that. Unfortunately, the electorate likes to grouse about politicians - especially those in congress and then 95% of the time reelect them to office. It is this very reason I consistently hammer the nation’s electorate so hard.

BTW - I noted that I was speaking of more “recent examples”. I’m sure I could fill a page on the shortcomings of Bush 43 and his rules of engagement and unique misjudgments. How about Mitch McConnell? Yep, him too. But as I also noted, it was my intention to be “very brief”.


Well, it is the Checks and Balances in our Constitution that mandate that these politicians hold EACH OTHER accountable. Paul Ryan needed to use the power of the purse to stop this catastrophe. Roberts needed to support his fellows in stopping Obozocare.
The American electorate gave them the power they asked for, and they have betrayed us. Democrats TELL US what they intend to do. The politicains are the ones to blame.


Until the voters start “blaming” them at the ballot box nothing will change.


In all sincerity, then why do you continue to espouse that we return those to office who have been a major part of the problem?
Yes, such as Rubio and/or Jeb: BOTH of whom want to expand government, not reduce it; and neither of whom have been good ‘watch dogs’ over the balances of power in government.
They both defend open borders and expanding immigration visas: hurts the economy and our ability to defend our country.

They both support Common Core: An even worse scourge on our dysfunctional education system.

Rubio couldn’t bother himself enough to even so much as vote on this horrendously ‘crafted’ spending bill.

Jeb shut down off-shore drilling.

Yes, the list does go on. Yet, you’re in favor of adding to the list.


Term limits are the first step to fixing our government. There was a time when such a thing was not necessary but give the level of corruption/incompetence present in our government it is now needed.


Term limits only shortens the time period when representatives can rape the public before moving on to lucrative consulting jobs.

Have any citizen without a felony conviction put his name in a hat. Choose the winner at random. Hold the election after the term of office with options of A) no action, B) cash bonus or C) jail.


I think term limits combined with reduced pay and benefits(only while holding office) would change the type of person you would have running for such positions. For our government to function as was intended, career politicians(at least at the Federal level) need to be eliminated.


Reduced pay only increases the incentive for private sector payoff down the road.


The less time they are in office the less they can give away to private interests. Private interests will always benefit from politicians that is nearly unavoidable as law affect everyone. Randomly picking for a group of people who throw their name into a hat is plain stupid. Now put those people on a ballot and allow people their right to vote and we may have something.


“I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

William F. Buckley


And I rather people not have their rights stripped of them. Thanks but no thanks.


Any attempt to correct the issue of government incompetence/corruption that approaches the issue by replacing politicians or attempting to increase accountability for government workers is doomed to fail spectacularly.

Government cannot be made efficient, competent or trustworthy.

Our Founders understood this and addressed the issue by placing very strict limits on what government could be involved in, this is the “necessary evil” approach that minimizes the problem by keeping the government out of everything except that which is begrudgingly necessary.

Our Founders idea works, the GOP idea of giving the government absolute reign over everything but managing it really well will never work.

As long as the mindset of viewing government overreach as inevitable and impossible to reverse endures, these problems will never subside or improve; at some point a Political Party that argues for Constitutional integrity will have to be formed and a very harsh stance against the Judicial Branch will have to be adopted.

The rest is just background noise in election years.


Our founding fathers never intended that our government should be run by “professional” politicians - they intended that good, honorable be elected to office, serve one or two terms, then go back to their real professions. A pity they didn’t make that clear in the constitution - or not. Especially since judges won’t even permit us to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate who may well be totally ineligible for the position. Although, perhaps, even likely, it has been the professional politicians that have brought us to this point.


One candidate wants to reign in government and decrease taxes by record levels: Rand Paul. Due to his non-interventionalist attitude (something I cant support fully in all honesty but also a concept I know he would be hard pressed to enact anyways), he is deemed unworthy. This attitude is obviously conducive to a smaller government as it were, regardless of ones opinion of its merit.

Which candidate can you live with say 60% of that can win the General Election? Rubio, Carson?


Anyone can talk a good talk. The Pauls are not worth trusting. And we should vote based on electabilty? Nope, I’ll vote for whom I think will do the job right. 90% of our elected officials talk a good talk to get elected, then do as they please, not what they were elected for. Remember Jimmy Carter? One of his big election promises - and one that no doubt got him a lot of votes - was, “I will never let the Panama Canal Zone go.” He let it go almost before the ink was dry on his inauguration.


Yes, when politics is not a duty, but a job, there goes the neighbourhood. We have this problem x10 in Ontario, and it starts with politicians and works its way down to government bureaucrats who are vastly overpaid but well protected by unions. We are now the most indebted sub borrowing jurisdiction in the world…be forewarned, American entrepreneurial spirit has it’s limits when you allow abuses to overrun innovation.


Rubio fights for bigger government and Carson would be railroaded by those who want bigger government, Cruz is the only viable candidate that will fight effectively for a smaller, more Constitutional government.

If Cruz can’t pull it off then my agenda this time is to focus on putting the Establishment GOP in the crosshairs, that means Trump; if a Constitutional Conservative can not win then we might as well pick a guy who will cripple the entity that insures a Constitutional Conservative ideology is always stomped out.


2cent - please find one quote of mine where I supported Jeb Bush as our nominee. Just one. I have not done so. Your misrepresentations are tiresome. The least you can do is get your story straight.

As for Rubio - I like both Rubio and Cruz because I think either gives us the best chance to win. I think either can win - not so sure about the others.

That said, I don’t agree with every position either of these two men have taken. In fact, I can’t recall a politician I have ever agreed with on every issue.

I for one am tired of us being on the outside looking in - we need the White House and congress.