WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint on Wednesday spearheaded Republican opposition to a $50 billion expansion of President Bush’s signature program to combat AIDS in Africa and elsewhere overseas.

DeMint, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina and five other Republican senators blocked Senate consideration of a bill that would more than triple U.S. aid to nations most stricken by AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and to international relief groups helping them.

“For us to attempt to buy friendship around the world by spending $50 billion is just completely irresponsible,” DeMint said. “There are enough worthy causes around the world to bankrupt us a hundred times over.”

The State

Not just irresponsible, it’s unconstitutional!  There is nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution that allows our government to give any of our money away to other nations.  Why isn’t this stuff challenged in the courts anymore??  When FDR was trying to implement all of his Marxist programs the SCOTUS was striking them down left and right (until he scared the crap out of them by trying to expand the court and stack it with Socialist judges).  Yet, today we see unconstitutional bills passed almost daily and they are never challenged.  I hope these Senators hold firm on this.  I am so thankful to have a man like Jim DeMint representing my state.

Woohoo!!  This is a win for all Americans today, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal.  The Second Amendment does indeed guarantee an individual right to own a gun.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.’s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city’s ban violated the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” by preventing individuals — as opposed to state militias — from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose “reasonable” weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

CNN

The decision being a 5 to 4 split though does bother me.  It shouldn’t have been that close.  We were one judge away from having the Second Amendment being totally gutted.  They should have been unanimous on this.  Anyone can clearly see what the intention of the Second Amendment was.  It’s not difficult.

Update:  I found some of the opinions of the dissenting justices.  Get a load of this crap:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Fox News