Apple Jack @BackToBackJack

Unfortunately, spending time off of social media, being around loved ones, and reading paper books instead of doomscrolling really does make a difference. It almost makes you feel stupid once you realize how easy it is to improve your life!

The pockets of my swim trunks are so big it feels like my items are swimming

Persistence is furtile

I never ever ever think about Conneticut

@amyknowsball @TheDunkCentral You know ball Amy

And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are uncovered and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we have an account to give. Hebrew 4:13

Out of every disgusting, dishonest piece of filth the mainstream media has produced about Hurricane Helene... This is the worst. 60 Minutes has NEVER done a story on the families FEMA denied. They NEVER mentioned the Amish, who are STILL in the mountains rebuilding homes 550 days later. They NEVER mentioned Jake Jarvis, who has worked 550 days STRAIGHT FOR FREE for Hurricane Helene victims. Instead, they dug up some fringe conspiracy angle to smear the people who actually showed up as White Nationalists. I'm so angry. Let me tell you what 60 Minutes will NEVER report on I was there. I lived it. I am still here. I shared every story I could find. Me, my wife, hundreds of volunteers delivered RVs to mothers holding babies who were sleeping in TOOL SHEDS AND TENTS in the freezing cold, in the mountains. Because their homes had been ripped off the side of a mountain and washed down the French Broad. So tell me 60 Minutes... WHERE WAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Tell me, WHY did all these volunteers NEED to show up? Any thoughts on that?!!!!! Any investigation AT ALL into the federal or state government's response to Hurricane Helene? Please tell me... if the federal government was doing such a GREAT JOB, why did we need to put victims in RVs... ...A MONTH AFTER THE HURRICANE?!!!!!!! Literally every single victim you talk to in Western North Carolina has a horror story about dealing with FEMA... ...and guess who they will all say actually cam through for them? Neighbors. Church groups. The Amish. The Cajun Navy. Shawn Hendricks. Samaritan's Purse. MercuryOne. The Mission Mules hauling insulin up washed-out roads, ONLY ACCESSIBLE by mules. Greg Biffle burning his own fuel in helicopters. Veterans like Adam Smith who organized helicopter rescues with other veterans BY HIMSELF and then was demonized by the media for it. Volunteers like Jake Jarvis working TO THIS DAY, 550 days later without ANY PAY AT ALL. THOSE ARE THE STORIES FROM HURRICANE HELENE WORTH TELLING. But 60 Minutes won't tell ANY OF THEM. Because the truth makes the federal government the villain and the "deplorables" are actually the heroes in this story and they can NEVER admit that. So instead they smeared the rescuers as white nationalists. This is unforgivable. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes. And I will BE DAMNED if I let CBS rewrite the history of what happened to my mountains.

60 Minutes @60Minutes

3 months ago

After natural disasters, white nationalists, militias, and conspiracists often arrive, offering help. But they also want to recruit and improve their image. Watch the full 60 Minutes report: cbsnews.com/news/some-whit…

8K 658 2K 7.3M 2K

Adam Carolla on RFK Jr. "His whole thing is like, ‘I don’t want kids to get vaccinated who don’t need the vaccinations... And ‘I would like to start making school lunches healthier.’" "And then they’ve gone full nutjob banshee attack on him!"

We stayed together because of reconcilible diffrences

Spencer "Tickle Monster" Jones

@BobbyMlRE I don't understand this argument because if you look at the competition Jokic had to play in terms of the PLAYERS it's the toughest of the past 5 rings. Ant, Gobert, KAT, KD, Booker, Bron, AD, Butler and Bam but ppl compare it to Giannis's run lol

I watched 'Monters Inside Me' far too young

Happy women's history month everybody dpsfoundation.org/2026/03/27/wom…

We got birds before GTA 6

Even the least of these have stop work authority

9 months from now you could be holding your newborn daughter 9 years from now you could be teaching your son to ski 19 years from now you could be at your daughter’s graduation 29 years from now you could be meeting your first grandson or you could be at another concert.

@bleighky @LegendaryEnergy Please send me $10,000 then. That would be game changing for me. I would buy a reliable car and pay for the apprenticeship to be an electrician and build from there

Maduro’s capture illustrates what I believe is one of the biggest problems in politics: people frequently treat principles as costumes—worn when convenient, discarded when costly. Over nearly two decades working in and around politics, I’ve watched the same pattern play out again and again—and today’s events in Venezuela put it on display in neon. The US military carried out strikes in Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, flying them to New York in what the administration is framing as a kind of “law enforcement” operation.  Look, there are plenty of people who never even pretend to have a core set of principles they cling to. They’re utilitarians and technocrats—ruled by polling, vibes, ambition, and career incentives. Fine. At least they’re honest about being wind vanes. But most people do claim to stand for a consistent set of ideas—constitutional restraint, limited government, “America First,” non-intervention, rule of law, due process, sovereignty, you name it. The problem is that they’re often inconsistent, especially when the outcome is emotionally satisfying. Today proved that again. People who claim to champion the Constitution suddenly ignore its restraints on executive power and, when pressed, point to court precedent, congressional statutes, and past presidential deviations as if those things are the Constitution. “But… the Barbary pirates!” “But George H.W. Bush removed Noriega in Panama!” “But the courts said XYZ!” “But Congress passed some statute in 199-whatever!” So I’ve asked a simple question, repeatedly, across social media threads today: Where, exactly, is the constitutional provision authorizing the president to invade another country and depose its leader? The replies come back empty, no constitutional provision cited. They can't, because it doesn't exist. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. No "targeted strikes" or anything of the like are separately authorized for the president to execute at his whim. That’s the whole point of written limits: the text is supposed to bind you. Instead, we get arguments that past presidents did it, and some lawyers said it was okay. This is tantamount to saying “Billy did it, so I thought it was okay for me to do it.” That’s playground logic, not constitutional rigor. And that’s my point: there is no rigor. There’s only precedent—meaning, prior lawlessness used to justify the next round of lawlessness. The administration itself appears to be leaning on the idea that indictments and “national interests” somehow transform regime change into a lawful “arrest mission.” Trump was elected in part because people were exhausted by foreign meddling. He was praised (by some of these same voices!) for resisting the interventionist itch. And now he’s kicking up dirt in Venezuela. “But Venezuelans are happy!” the commenters have repeatedly said. “They’re in the streets celebrating!” Yes. Sometimes they are. That’s not a serious argument. That’s the-ends-justify-the-means dressed up as compassion—again, playground-level reasoning. Guess what: Iraqis filled the streets when Saddam was deposed. “Baghdad Celebrates Saddam’s Fall,” read a headline in Voice of America, for an article describing dancing and cheering as thousands poured into the streets.  Then Iraq spiraled into insurgency, sectarian civil war, mass death, displacement, and the conditions that helped give rise to ISIS. Libyans filled the streets when Gaddafi fell. So then we got an article titled “Libyans celebrate Gaddafi’s death” in Al Jazeera, describing jubilant crowds and the “end of tyranny.”  Then Libya fractured into militias and rival governments, becoming a prolonged civil conflict and a humanitarian disaster. I could go on. You get the pattern. Here’s the deeper point that people keep refusing to learn: if your principles only apply when they’re easy, you don’t have principles… you have preferences. And preferences make terrible guardrails for state power. Every time you cheer an exception, you’re not just celebrating a moment… you’re authoring a precedent. You're excusing the next guy, in any political party, and for any reason, to do it too. If you’re applauding unilateral regime change today because the target is a villain, you’re also applauding unilateral regime change tomorrow when the target is someone you don’t want touched. Power doesn’t care about your intentions (or your preferences). It cares about the permission slip we seemingly always give it. To be clear: Maduro is no hero. He’s a tyrant who has presided over ruin and repression. But the question isn’t whether Maduro is bad (he obviously is). The question is whether we are governed by law or by appetite. Because “he’s bad” is not a constitutional argument, nor is "Venezuelans are happy and freer." It’s the (fake) argument every president uses when he wants to do something he has already decided to do. And this is why presidents since Washington have gotten away with exceeding constitutional limits: because the public trains them to. They learn that violating restraints can spark national pride, satisfy a thirst for vengeance, and earn adoration from people who swear they oppose unchecked power—right up until it produces an outcome they like. You want a country of laws? Then act like law matters when it’s inconvenient. Stop treating the Constitution as a decoration. Stop citing precedent as if it were permission. Stop excusing today’s overreach because you hate today’s target. Because the bill always comes due, and the payment is usually made by people who never voted for the war, never authorized the mission, and never wanted their country turned into the kind of thing it once claimed to oppose. So yes, we can answer James Madison’s question: “Will it be sufficient… to trust to these parchment barriers (i.e., the Constitution) against the encroaching spirit of power?” Obviously not. Parchment only restrains power when the people treat it as a leash—not a suggestion. When half the country cheers the leash getting snapped because their guy did it to their enemy, the paper might as well not exist. And that's the cycle we've long been in. Yes, Venezuela may be a little freer, for now. But listen to the triumphalism in Trump's announcement. In the same breath as announcing Maduro’s capture, he talked about sending in “our very large United States oil companies,” and about the U.S. “running” Venezuela's government “until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” This is the raw material of unintended consequences: blowback, corruption, and the kind of protracted entanglement that turns “just this once” into the next twenty years. Count me out. I've seen this story before, and I don't like how it ends.

I’ve served on the Homeland Security Committee for the past three years. I’m 100% for strong safe secure borders and stopping narco terrorists and cartels from trafficking deadly drugs and human trafficking into America. Fentanyl is responsible for over 70% of U.S. drug overdose deaths and fentanyl comes from Mexican cartels made with chemical precursors from China and trafficked across the U.S. Mexico border. Mexican cartels are primarily and overwhelmingly responsible for killing Americans with deadly drugs. If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels? And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America? Ironically cocaine is the same drug that Venezuela primarily traffics into the U.S. The next obvious observation is that by removing Maduro this is a clear move for control over Venezuelan oil supplies that will ensure stability for the next obvious regime change war in Iran. And of course why is it ok for America to militarily invade, bomb, and arrest a foreign leader but Russia is evil for invading Ukraine and China is bad for aggression against Taiwan? Is it only ok if we do it? (I’m not endorsing Russia or China) Regime change, funding foreign wars, and American’s tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes, foreigners both home and abroad, and foreign governments while Americans are consistently facing increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare, and learn about scams and fraud of their tax dollars is what has most Americans enraged. Especially the younger generations. Boomers and half of Gen X will cheer on neocon wars and talking points, but the other half of Gen X and majority on down see through it and hate it. Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going. This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong. As the baby boomers slip away both in votes and power, the electoral future will be decided for candidates that focus on American economic populism and promising prosperity for Americans only. As of right now, neither party is offering the solution.

Sorry Duolingo, I opened you by accident. Do not get your hopes up