Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that says that Second Amendment is still the law of the land.  While Second Amendment advocates celebrate a victory, I have to point out what’s so shocking about the ruling: it had to come from the Supreme Court. 

Contrary to what local and appellate courts ruled previously in this case, the Supreme Court today affirmed that the Constitution of the United States is a document that covers every citizen regardless of gender, age or hometown and as such, the Second Amendment is a right of every American citizen. 

The United States Constitution was written to be timeless and universal in its application and as the Senate begins hearings today to confirm the nomination of Elena Kagan to the highest court in our Nation, it’s important to remember that judicial activism has no place in America's courts.  It’s my sincere hope that with today’s ruling, we will see a renewed trust and implementation of the Constitutional rights our forefathers designated to be the eternal rule of the land. 

The next big piece of legislation that Congress will consider this summer deals with reforming our Financial Regulatory system. Similar to the health care bill passed three months ago, this final bill negotiated between the House and the Senate is 2,000 pages of bureaucracy in which the people who wrote it don't even know what's in it. In fact, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), the man most responsible for crafting this piece of legislation had this gem to say about the bill:

If you want to be serious about financial regulatory reform, you've got to be willing to  address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two entities who were the driving force behind our economic downturn these past couple of years. Sadly, Democrats went so far as to reject a series of amendments offered by Republicans to put an end to, or even limit, taxpayer-funded bailouts, including those for government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

The Republican Study Committee has compiled a very informative summary highlighting the shortcomings of this legislative monstrosity:

* Winners and Losers – Instead of using and enhancing existing legal structures like the bankruptcy process, the bill gives the same regulators, who failed to see the current crisis forming, broad new powers to takeover and break up private companies. The Executive Branch would have every opportunity to abuse these powers to pick winners and losers for political reasons.

* Taxpayer Bailouts – Taxpayers will pay the costs of these takeovers upfront out of the Treasury. This taxpayer bailout is supposed to be paid back later by other financial firms, but the costs could quite conceivably rise to trillions of dollars – making repayment out of the question.

* Consumer Restrictions – The bill creates a new agency with jurisdiction over all sorts of financial products offered by banks and non-banks (i.e. Sears or your local mechanic): credit cards, installment plans, mortgages, other loans, check cashing services, etc. In an effort to “protect” consumers from their own decisions, Democrats will make credit more inaccessible for families and entrepreneurs across the country.

* Higher Consumer Costs – To offset the cost of the bill, Democrats are levying a $19 billion so-called “bank tax.”  Of course, banks won’t actually pay these costs in the long-run – their customers will pay in the form of higher rates and fees. So say goodbye to your free checking account.

* Hoarding Capital – While banks need to keep their reserves at responsible levels, the stringent new leverage restrictions – chosen by politicians – will leave even credit-worthy consumers struggling to get a loan.

* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Who? Despite their intimate involvement in the financial meltdown and their perpetual taxpayer bailout ($145 billion and counting), the bill neglects to make much-needed reforms to these failed and insolvent entities.

Today, Democrats in the House narrowly passed their controversial DISCLOSE Act to counter a recent Supreme Court decision regarding campaign contributions.  This bill is designed to block organizations from engaging in political debate before the upcoming elections by requiring them to comply with cumbersome, costly disclosure requirements and restrictions.

The Democrats' bill blatantly restricts political free speech, but at the same time, brings out the worst in politics by exempting political allies and special interest groups from the law. Whether you agree with the intention of the bill or not, its backroom deals like the ones contained in this bill for labor unions and other special interest groups that really rile up the American people.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) made an excellent point after the passing of the bill:

"The Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  It does not say ‘unless Democrats want to protect themselves from criticism.’  The majority is blatantly ignoring the Constitution in an attempt to silence those who disagree with their radical agenda.”

The President had this to say about the legislation:

"I congratulate the House of Representatives on today's passage of the DISCLOSE Act, a critical piece of legislation to control the flood of special interest money into our elections..."

Mr. President, it does control the flood of special interest money into our elections, but for the benefit of one political party at the expense of another and our constitution. We deserve better than this.

Fox News is reporting this week that over the past two years, 17 Afghan military officers have gone missing from a U.S. Air Force base in Texas. What's most troubling about this story is not that these soldiers went missing in the first place, although that is a major concern, but that it took two years for the military to alert local and federal law enforcement of the situation. To make matters worse, these soldiers have security badges that grant them access to U.S. defense installations.

One solider going missing should have raised concerned. 17 is absolutely unacceptable. Could we have at least put their faces on milk cartons? Something to show some sort of urgency in accounting for their whereabouts.

We need to seriously reassess our protocols for dealing with foreign nationals here in the United States, and consider suspending any further acceptance of foreign military personnel until these missing 17 are accounted for. Anything less would be sheer ineptitude by an Administration responsible for keeping us safe.

According to a new survey by Rasmussen, seven out of 10 Americans are opposed to bailing out the struggling newspaper industry like we did Wall Street and the automobile industry. This is up from 65% from a survey done in March 2009.

The key take away in all this is that Americans oppose the government getting involved in financially sustaining the industry due in large part to the concern that newspapers will be less likely to report objectively on government officials and policies. I think that's a legitimate concern. After all, it's not smart to bite the hand that feeds you.

Another interesting finding is that an overwhelming 85% of Americans believe that maintaining freedom of the press is more important than supporting the newspaper industry.

At a time when our country is bankrupt, facing a $13 trillion debt that's on its way up to $19 trillion by 2015, it's great to see that the American people understand the dire economic straights our nation is facing. Now, if we could only get that message to the Democrat majority in Congress who control the purse strings.

More bailouts for ANY industry should be out of the question. That's the bottom line. 

Back in 2009 when President Obama was touting his $787 billion economic "stimulus" plan, he claimed that we passed the bill so that "local districts didn't have to lay off teachers, firefighters, police officers and others, and the stimulus succeeded in that." (Fox News - 7/5/2009)

Well, something strange must have happened this past year. Those jobs we already saved... well, apparently they're in need of saving once again.

This past weekend, the Washington Post reported that “President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid ‘massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters’ and to support the still-fragile economic recovery."

Apparently the first $787 billion worked so well that we now have to spend $50 billion more or face economic doom. Who knows, instead of our unemployment skyrocketing to the 9.7% where we sit right now, maybe we can pass 10% if we just spend more money!

It's becoming clearer by the day that this Administration's solution to everything is to simply throw money at it. But the problem with that approach is two-fold:

One, it doesn't work. And two, we don't have the money to spend in the first place. In fact, we are over $13 trillion in debt and the Treasury Department reported earlier this month that our debt will climb to $19.6 trillion by 2015. The approach of this Administration is akin to trying to dig your way out of a hole.

Instead of the same failed policies, perhaps it's time for a pro-growth alternative that unleashes the potential of American businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs and puts more money back into the hands of the taxpayer.

Should we be sending $400 million in "aid" to Gaza, an area controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas?

Today, President Obama kicked off a new PR campaign to try and resuscitate his health care bill that has fallen on hard times since being signed into law a couple months back.

On a tele-townhall meeting this morning with senior citizens in Maryland, the President focused on promoting $250 rebate checks for Medicare beneficiaries. The problem with this is that very few Americans will actually receive the check. In fact, more than 9 in 10 beneficiaries are expected to be left out. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said as much in a letter to Congressional Leadership on May 11, 2010.

The problem the President is having when it comes to winning support for his health care plan has nothing to do with him as a pitchman, but rather that it's simply a disastrous policy he's trying to sell.

The American people have expressed serious frustration with his plan going back to health care town-halls in the summer of 2009. People were outraged back then, and they're still outraged now. No matter what label or spin the President puts on his bill, it won't change the fact that it's simply bad policy.