why are these men serving? you cannot know the wonderful quality of being a person who serves his country and we feel bad for the people who do not. and so it wasn t simply mournful. it was also celebratory. you hear that when we get glimpses of secretary mattis comments when he travels around the world visiting american servicemen and women. it certainly answers the question, why are they there. still ahead, the impassioned speech of a former president taking on the current one without mentioning his name.
men serving, can basically change the tone of washington. to our panel, thank you. happy new year. happy new year to all of you. we ll see you next year. \s on the buzz meter this sunday, a war of words heating up between hillary clinton and donald trump. the media can t get enough. the focus shifts from hill re s unsubstantiated debate charge from trump over isis to the donnell s use of a crude term against hillary and his slam against her bathroom habits. where did hillary go? they had to start the debate without her, phase 2. why? i i know where she went. it s disgusting, i don t want to talk about it. no, it s too disgusting. with donald trump, my goodness, if there s a subtext, do you need a subtext? due need to know the hidden meaning behind what is already
the founding fathers always assumed the possibility of a need for a citizens militia of some sort from time to time, and since the easiest and cheapest way to arm the men serving in such militia in those days would be to allow them to use their own muskets. a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the supreme court has since then made what i think is the mistake of interpreting that right to extend to all americans, including those who have no intention of ever serving in the militia, which we now call the national guard. republicans like to pretend that their interpretations of the constitution are based on the original intent of the words. they insist that what matters is what the authors of those words had in mind. they think of themselves as mind
democracy was over two years old when it was rewritten to include these words. a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the year was 1791. the founding fathers always assumed the possibility of a need for a citizens militia of some sort from time to time, and since the easiest and cheapest way to arm the men serving in such militia in those days would be to allow them to use their own muskets. a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the supreme court has since then made what i think is the mistake of interpreting that right to extend to all americans, including those who have no intention of ever serving in the militia, which we now call the