$234,000 for the National Wild Turkey Federation
$150,000 for the Alaska Whaling Commission
$98,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission
$600,000 for the Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program
$400,000 for the Kam Wah Chung & Company Museum
$250,000 for the Stanley Theater in Utica, New York
$500,000 for the West Alabama shrimp aquaculture program
$250,000 for the Daniel Webster Boy Scout Council
$100,000 for the Winchester-Frederick Convention and Visitor Bureau
$100,000 for Toledo for the construction of ice-skating rinks in city parks
$500,000 for the Missouri Soybean Association
The list goes on…
http://www.cagw.org/
$500,000 for construction of the Sparta Teapot Museum
$250,000 for the National Cattle Congress
How, exactly, are these project benefiting ALL Americans as required by the Constitution Art. I, 8, cl. 1?
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-n70jZrc7dK6pfsIIqc5fnTZwGwXRteA-?cq=1&p=456
Oh, and Philip H, all of these were passed in 2006, under REPUBLICAN leadership. Thanks for playing, though…
And Brutally Honest, yes I vote, and I vote for candidates who know what they Constitutional rights and responsibilities are:

“lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, 8, cl. 1.

Items like these do NOT fit those criteria. They are state issues, not federal ones.
John H: love your analysis of the Bill of Rights. If I lived in NC, I might just vote for you (that is high praise coming from me)

Don’t agree on the Teapot Museum, though.

I mean the way that Federal and State Government is piling on the Pork, I don’t think that the humble pig will be able to survive much longer. Although I do think that the Spineless Jellyfish will be on the rise.
Truely, I’m shocked that the Pig had lasted so long, considering when the party of “Smaller” Government couldn’t carve up the pork the fast enough.

_ asked:


For example, the government overturned the common law precedent that polluters could be sued by the owners of property which they destroyed. The government also declares that forests are “public property,” which leads to extinctions because nobody owns the forest and the animals within and therefore nobody values the animals and trees within the forest enough to take proper care of them (if somebody owns a forest, they aren’t going to permit all the animals to be killed and the forest to be chopped down because that will cause them long-term economic loss).

Why does the government engage in these ridiculous policies that violate property rights in order to subsidize pollution? Why do the Greens call for more government intervention when government interventions themselves are doing massive harm to the environment? Shouldn’t the government just respect property rights and therefore permit property owners to keep pollution off of their property or to conserve land?

Acne Relief