In the past few weeks, watchers of the Supreme Court noted several seemingly ridiculous decisions that were all-out power grabs by the top court in the land:

• They determined that Congress cannot make immigration laws, nor can the Executive branch enforce them (Dada v. Mukasey)
• They determined that the Executive branch cannot perform its Constitutionally-mandated job of making war, by saying that enemy combatants are afforded the same rights as United States citizens (Boumediene v. Bush)
• They determined that states do not have the right to determine the use the death penalty against people convicted of child rape (Kennedy v. Louisiana)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.

In Nashville today, during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.

The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress - long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts - think it’s time to bring it back.

[...]

” I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”

“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.”

Again, we need to look at capitalism and free markets: people will pay for what they want. We do not need more legislation regulating every bit of our lives. If there is a market for liberal radio talk shows, if there is money to be made by a host or a station, then it will exist. If the people don’t want it, there’s no money in it, and therefore it won’t exist. It really is that simple. And as evidenced by the dismal, bankrupt failure of liberal talk radio network "Air America", people don’t want to listen to liberal talk radio.

Probably because they already hear the liberal viewpoint on TV and read it in most major newspapers, but I digress.

As the President so correctly put it, it’s not a matter of being "fair" but of silencing your critics. That is the goal of the "Fairness Doctrine." Let us not forget, one of the first steps toward fascism (and socialism) is to control the media.

Full article: Austin American-Statesman | Window on Washington

After completing two tours in Iraq, Sgt. Wayne Leyde won $1 million from a scratch-and-win lotto ticket on Tuesday.

Now that he’s won, Leyde, a 26-year-old member of the Washington National Guard, says he’s still going to volunteer to go back to Iraq for a third tour and won’t spend any of the money in the meantime.

Question: If there’s validity in the statements "we’re losing the war in Iraq", "we’re in a quagmire in Iraq", or "the war’s not worth it", then why is Sergeant Leyde going back? Certainly, he’s not doing it "for college money", as is another common theme. The only explaination is because he believes in the mission, and that he believes what we’re doing is worth his life.

Godspeed and God bless, Sergeant Leyde.

Full story here: ABC News: Lucky Soldier Wins $1 Million