From the page: " "
From the page: " "
From the page: "NRA"
Exhaustive tables for draw poker strategy.
From the page: "abortion"
Check out my channels on Redux TV for a wide range of interests. If you like my Stumbles, you'll be sure to like what you see there, too.
From the page: "Take former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld"
From the page: "Richard Bauckham"
This site may be hurting people inadvertently. An important clarification:
(careful of any missing space in the url)
From the page: "eating a chunk of Crichton's brain still attached to the neurochip, tor"
From the page: "By Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
When Nancy Pelosi was asked where in the Constitution she found the authority for a federal health-care mandate, she replied, incredulously, âoeAre you serious? Are you serious?â The reporter explained that indeed he was. Pelosi simply laughed and moved on to the next question.
Scenes like this have grown commonplace in contemporary America. The only unusual aspect of the Pelosi story is that a reporter bothered to ask about the Constitution in the first place. The Constitution has ceased to play any meaningful role in the deliberations of our so-called public servants.
That may sound like hyperbole. Why, the president is still elected every four years, senators continue to serve six-year terms, and the various other procedural norms described in the Constitution are still scrupulously observed. Surely our Constitution is alive and well.
But it is not for those purposes that we need a written constitution. The British lack a written constitution, and yet the terms and functions of its various branches of government continue to operate, like ours, without innovation or disruption. The purpose of a written constitution is not to describe the structure of the government â" countless governments, like the British, have maintained their traditional governmental structure without written constitutions â" as it is to limit the powers that structure is to exercise.
Dishonest interpretations of the general welfare, commerce, and âoenecessary and properâ clauses of the Constitution have provided the bulk of our officialsâ constitutional defense on those rare occasions when they are asked to provide one. These clauses do not at all mean what our overlords say they do. As Iâve shown in several of my books, there is no historical basis whatever for the so-called progressivesâ interpretation of the Constitution. Thatâs why they have to resort to all the âoeliving Constitutionâ nonsense â" they realize their arguments wonât stick to the actual Constitution we have.
Meanwhile, what do we do about this? Pretty much nothing. Oh, we hold conferences. We write papers and books. We publicly deplore what is happening. And nothing changes.
Weâre told to elect new people. Thanks to federal patronage, itâs almost impossible to unseat congressional incumbents. And on those rare occasions when we do, the new people soon become indistinguishable from the old people. And nothing changes.
Weâre told to wait for the Supreme Court to come to the rescue â" an institution that did not invalidate a single federal law on commerce-clause grounds (the federal governmentâs favorite catch-all justification) for nearly 60 years. Moreover, as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison reminded us, the Supreme Court is itself a branch of the federal government, and therefore not an impartial arbiter in disputes over power between the federal government and the states. Our program consists of waiting for the federal government to tell us it has behaved wrongly, and we wonder why weâre not getting anywhere?
As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If Jeffersonâs point was valid then, it is valid now.
In his famous Report of 1800, James Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government have exceeded their constitutional limits. If Madisonâs point was valid then, it is valid now.
How much longer do we intend to be suckers? How much longer do we intend to hold conferences and give pretty speeches, as if these are the only peaceful modes of fighting back? The federal government isnât interested in conferences and speeches. It wants victories. And it gets them, again and again. When will we do likewise? When do we intend to do something?
That is what I intend to discuss on Friday night."
One of the best ads Dennis could have hoped for, and paid for by his opposition. Wonderful irony.
From the page: "To say the myth was busted is an understatement. They couldn't even get CLOSE to THEORETICALLY doing it. Not only is human reaction time nowhere near fast enough to catch a bullet, but molars of a PIG (which are larger and stronger than our teeth) couldn't survive a bullet, so never mind the thin teeth at the front of your mouth which is where most magicians catch bullets."
From the page: Smisek said at an investor conference in New York that long delays are rare, and mostly caused by an outdated air traffic control system that the government has failed to upgrade.
At the very end of the piece they put the most important part: "As part of the additional scrutiny, federal agents are conducting extensive background checks on every passenger who flew to Detroit on the Northwest flight in case one of them might have been sent as a "spotter" on the mission.
"Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.
"Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab "did not get cold feet." "
From the page: "virtue"
From the page: "WARNING: The following photo may or may not be safe for work (depends on your circumstances). Although it's merely an elaborate costume, it is very graphic and may be disturbing to some viewers."
You mean the missile shield wasn't about defending Poland from Iran? I'm shocked.. shocked!!
"Your winnings, sir..."
One of the best essays on the nature of law.