The Personal Protection and Home Safety Affordability Act

In light of today’s SCOTUS decision, I think “The Personal Protection and Home Safety Affordability Act” should be introduced. Using the newly expanded taxation powers, all Americans should be required to purchase guns and ammo to protect their families. This is a form of taxation. Anyone who doesn’t purchase guns and ammo for their personal protection will have a penalty that they aren’t required to pay. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, states with higher percentages of gun ownership as lower per capital crime, states who opt out of the Personal Protection and Home Safety Affordability Act will lose funding for their local police departments. To ensure that the poor and poorest of Americans can afford firearms, the Federal government will setup “exchanges” where they can receive free and low cost firearms and ammo.

A Vote for McCain is…

a Vote for McCain.

Many Republicans (myself included) find themselves at odd as to who to vote for, especially for President.  The reason that, I believe, many hold their noses and vote for the GOP candidate is Judicial appointments.  I was reading a great article about this.  Here is a sample quote:

“The threat of a Supreme Court of David Souters is ironically
what keeps conservatives voting Republican even
when Republicans appoint David Souters.

It is a great read.  Check it out at Takimag.com

A Vote for McCain is…

a Vote for McCain.

Many Republicans (myself included) find themselves at odd as to who to vote for, especially for President.  The reason that, I believe, many hold their noses and vote for the GOP candidate is Judicial appointments.  I was reading a great article about this.  Here is a sample quote:

“The threat of a Supreme Court of David Souters is ironically
what keeps conservatives voting Republican even
when Republicans appoint David Souters.

It is a great read.  Check it out at Takimag.com

Quote of the Moment

“The Supreme Court got this one right. While the ruling still contains elements gun owners should denounce, the justices acknowledged that the words “shall not be infringed” mean just what our Founders meant; and two centuries later the meaning of those words has not changed… Countless assaults against the right of the people to keep and bear arms by both Republicans and Democrats over the years have taken a toll through draconian gun laws and oppressive legislation which has slowly and steadily chipped away at Americans’ vital, God-given right to self-defense.”

Chuck Baldwin
26 June 2008

Quote of the Moment

“The Supreme Court got this one right. While the ruling still contains elements gun owners should denounce, the justices acknowledged that the words “shall not be infringed” mean just what our Founders meant; and two centuries later the meaning of those words has not changed… Countless assaults against the right of the people to keep and bear arms by both Republicans and Democrats over the years have taken a toll through draconian gun laws and oppressive legislation which has slowly and steadily chipped away at Americans’ vital, God-given right to self-defense.”

Chuck Baldwin
26 June 2008

Boumediene v. Bush

As most of you know by now, on Thursday, June 12, 2008, the US Supreme Court reached their decision in the case Boumediene v. Bush.  The ruling of this case has caused much anger on the right and much rejoying on the left.  As I always try to do, I made an initial opinion on this matter, but then I like to study it a little bit more.  Between work, school, and family, this is the first chance that I’ve had to do an indepth study of the ruling and I wanted to post my thoughts on this case.  Read it and let me know your thoughts. Continue reading

Democrat Debate in Vegas

So, I was watched part of the Democrat debate at UNLV today. Quite a few things annoyed me (although I couldn’t yell at the TV as much as I wanted to as Mikey had fallen asleep on the couch downstairs. The thing that bothered me the most was when they asked each Democrat Presidential candidate if they would ask a potential nominee for the US Supreme Court if they accepted Roe V. Wade as “settled law”. Every candidate, in some form or another agreed with that notion. I do not agree with Roe V. Wade, however, the thing that bothered me is the “settled law”. Did I miss something in my Civics classes? When did the Courts get the power to pass laws? How can a Court decision be “settled law”? Where in the Constitution (including its Amendments) was the Judaical branch given that power? As I read it, only the Legislative branch has the power to make law.