You know what really grinds my gears?  Being ‘green’.  ‘Environmentalists’ cloud their hatred for globalization in being green.  Most global warming ‘facts’ are ill-researched and when pressed on the issue, these people will turn to emotional responses, not ones laid in truth or even science.
What I’ve noticed is how little research these environmentalist actually do [...]

Google is probably the biggest advocate of the net-neutrality cause.  With their “Don’t be evil” mantra, Google has used its mighty power to shame ISPs who want to “shape” their networks.  Their stance is that no one should restrict or filter internet access.
However, as time goes by, it seems that more and more people are [...]

Yesterday, SCOTUS ruled against Washington, D.C. and said that their law against handguns in the home violates the second amendment.  They also held the lower court’s ruling but also extended the ruling to extend the protection against disassembled rifles in the house.

There are many things that the Bill of Rights protects.  What is abundantly clear from those oh-so-important amendments is that the Rights guaranteed to all persons.  Scalia poignantly states “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”  Just like you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded building, laws can be written to prevent the mentally ill or felons.

The entire case can be summed up simply: “the right of the people” reflects individual rights, not corporate rights.

The case was not only important for the general defense of home and country, but it was important to validate all other amendments that refer to the right of the people.

The ruling does a great job of explaining the history and nuances of the law, which I won’t bother getting into.  I’ll, instead, reflect on the importance of “the right of the people" and then dive into the false facts that people have spouted.

When I was a sophomore in college, I had to learn how to cook, primarily because I had to at least once a week for my roommates.  The first meals I started to cook were based primarily on a recipe, especially ones with pictures.  I did this so that I could see if I were on the right track.

I’d get all my ingredients together, and start cooking.  For the first couple of months, I would be really nervous.  No matter what I cooked, and no matter how many times I had already cooked it previously, sometime within the middle of the cooking time, I would get worried because the dish cooking in the pot didn’t even remotely resemble the picture.  (One recipe in particular sticks my mind.  I don’t remember what I was cooking, but the cookbook showed the meal as being a bright reddish orange, while my pot was green and yellow.)

I kept telling myself, "It’s okay.  It’s okay.  You’re not done yet.  It will hopefully look right in the end."

I pressed forward in fear because I had to feed five people in 15 minutes and it was already too late to do anything else.

In the end, the meal turned out perfectly!

So why tell a story about cooking?  Frankly, I think our politicians can learn a thing or too from this story.

The District of Columbia is appealing a lower court’s decision that ruled that the laws banning handguns is illegal.  I’m always amazed when liberals what all these freedoms, yet when it comes to the second amendment, they are surprisingly conservative.

The question at hand is: Does the second amendment apply to individuals or to militias?

The argument that DC is making is that the Constitution explicitly states that militias are to be the only ones that have guns to protect states from the federal government.  Let’s look at this amendment:

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.

Let’s ask the scientific question, "For what reason would the Founders include this right after the amendment that guarantees the right free speech, right to petition, and the right to congregate?"  If you look at the history of the Revolutionary war, it wasn’t fought by organized armies.  They were fought by farmers, countrymen, and bakers.  Many of these citizens where angry that an oppressive government would force down edicts without a way to legally appeal them.  These citizens were forced with arms.

The security of the United States was not won by a militia; it was won because a community of people said, "Enough is enough" and stood their ground, prepared to die for what they believed in.

This week, two leading researchers have found ways to create embryonic stem cells from skin cells.  This is great news to both the Christian community that believe that harvesting embryos for stem cells is morally wrong and the medical community that wants to use those stem cells to create cures for diseases.  However, it leaves one group out: The pro-abortionists.

For years now, those that support abortion have put people like Michael J. Fox — who suffers from Parkinson’s Disease — in front of the media saying that aborted embryos provide stem cells that could, in essence, cure anything.  I’ve always seen this argument as misleading and analogous to the salesmen of the 1940’s that sold snake oil door-to-door.  Regardless, without embryonic stem cells, research into other fatal diseases would be halted.  Let’s step aside from the fact that stem cells from embryos has not provided any results while those derived from fatty tissue and umbilical cords have.  Now, that there is a way to convert skin cells into embryonic stem cells, the pro-abortionists just lost their biggest gun.

So what to do now?  It will be interesting how they handle this research.  On the one hand, if they denounce it, it will show that they really don’t care about debilitating diseases.  On the other hand, if they say the research is viable, they no longer have the argument that aborted embryos can be used for science.

Catch 22.

While it doesn’t surprise me that Jodie Foster’s new thriller, The Brave One, did exceptionally well at the box office this past weekend, what does surprise me is the popularity of this genre.  The popularity of "revenge" movies seems to contradict the very ideals of the liberal/democratic side.  Why is it that these movies that seem to go against the very tenants of the "liberal faith" are popular?  Why aren’t there more protests against these types of movies?

Personally, I think deep down, we really want to be these heroes.  I think author John Eldredge said it best: "The movies a man loves reveal what his heart longs for, what is set inside him from the day of his birth."

Let’s take a look at some of the most popular movies in the last year.

When news was released that a student was tased at a Sen. John Kerry forum, there was immediate reaction, primarily from students who were outraged that the police overstepped their bounds and infringed — no strike that — impeded his first amendment rights.

The biggest argument that I’ve seen is that the police tased Andrew Meyer for asking a question.

Now, if this was in fact the case, then I would agree.  However, a HUGE fact is being ignored with these arguments: Meyer was asked to leave.

Yes, read that again.  Meyer was asked to leave.

It is highly misunderstood that you have the right to be wherever you want to go.  For example, you cannot go into a secured government building, even though it’s public property.  Well, I guess you could try, but you might end up with a severe case of deadness.  You can enter a library but you can be asked to leave, despite the fact that it is, again, public property.  Finally, you could even go to the Capital building in DC, do the tour, and even watch a debate or two.  But if you look suspicious, you’ll be asked to leave.  And by suspicious I mean, your shoelaces are untied.

Whether this is right or not is beside the point.  The police can ask you to do whatever they want for one reason and one reason only: they have guns.

Let’s take the police out of this and look at this from a different perspective. 

Congress stepped up to the plate to tackle the issue: "Are the gas companies shafting us?"  With prices at an all-time high and reports of CEOs of oil companies making hundreds of thousands, it’s a natural question.  However, the question neglects a very important fact: when demand goes up, so must cost.
In today’s editorial, I’ll discuss why prices are so high, why it’s everyone’s fault, and why not purchasing gas on one day can does nothing to the oil company and only ends up hurting the community.

"We should learn to tolerate others."

"No one should tell us what’s right and what’s wrong.  That’s pushing you’re values on someone else."

Do these quotes sound familiar?  They are commonly spouted by "civil rights" groups.  The common response to these lines have often been, "Well, then, how far is too far?"

Obviously, murder should be, right?

According to an Australian news web site, two teenage girls killed one of their friends simply because they wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone.  "We just did it because we felt like it."

Frankly, I’m not at all surprised by this.  We live in an increasingly permissive society that doesn’t want (read: want) consequences.  Instead, we want nothing short of complete and utter liberty to do what we feel like, whenever we feel like.

I think the ACLU, along with the rest of us, should celebrate this as a leap in civil liberties.