Recent Posts From Tom Knighton
President Obama doesn’t think you should listen to people warning against “tyranny”. That’s what he said in a graduation speech at Ohio State University anyways. I addressed this in a piece over at TheBlaze:
President Obama is warning people to ignore those of us talking about tyranny. In a speech at Ohio State University, President Obama is quoted as saying, “Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”
In short, he’s saying that you should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
This is just the latest example of Obama’s demonizing of the right. After all, when President Bush was in office, many of the left went on and on about tyranny. After the passage of the Patriot Act, it was perfectly understandable to me. The government is supposed to have limited powers, and enacting a law that expanded those powers contra to the Constitution in some cases is something that should be troubling.
Now, however, since Obama is in the White House, talk of tyranny is clearly ridiculous. After all, it was President Obama who signed the NDAA into law that allows the indefinite detention of American citizens. It was President Obama’s administration that took ages to finally come out and say, “No, we won’t use drones to kill Americans who aren’t engaged in combat against the United States.” It was the Obama administration that sent piles of guns across the border into Mexico, then used the resulting use of guns as grounds to take away our Second Amendment rights.
Anyone who follows education on any level has probably heard the phrase “Common Core” regarding curriculum in their home state. They’ve probably also heard that there is some push back against it, though most don’t really understand what the issue really is.
It would be easy to assume that Common Core requires such controversial topics as anthropogenic global warming and gun control to be taught. Well, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Oh, it’s happening, but it doesn’t seem to be the fault of the cirriculum.
That’s not to say there aren’t problems.
The idea behind Common Core is a national standard for education. Basically, it’s an attempt to create a single, challenging standard that would raise the educational value of public school.
Common Core does create a single standard. It does appear to be genuinely challenging as well. So, what’s the problem?
Well, first, Common Core is really just a continuation of one of the biggest problems with traditional education, and that is the fact that it treats all students as identical. Even the name, Common Core, alludes to this fact.
Republican Tom McMillin, a Michigan lawmaker introduced a bill to repeal that’s state’s use of Common Core, said, “We don’t want our kids to be common. We want our kids in Michigan to be exceptional.” Since my home state of Georgia uses this standard, I can understand the sentiment.
Common Core also places and emphasis on how answers are acheived, rather than just getting it right. The argument appears to be that the process matters more in our technologically advanced world for whatever reason. I get the gist of the concept. I really do. Unfortunately, this continues to make the same assumption that all kids are the same.
Sometimes, I just shake my head at the ignorance. I mean, it must require a certain willful stupidity to put your head in the sand and believe that government can make all the bad men stop.
Right now, the left is trying to figure out how to destroy our freedoms in an effort to curb future terrorist acts like the Boston Marathon bombing. Now, the irony of how they bucked at the right’s efforts after 9/11 isn’t exactly lost on me. However, that’s something to chuckle about later…after we stop this kneejerk reaction and undo the Right’s kneejerk reactions from the last decade.
Over at ThinkProgress.org, they’re already wringing their hands at the idea of restricting various kinds of powder such as black powder, smokeless powder, and whatever the hell it is they put in fireworks:
President Obama loves to point to a poll that said 90 percent of all Americans wanted tougher background checks. After the measure failed in the Senate, Obama wanted that 90 percent to let Congress know how they felt.
But a new Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll suggests that post-vote attitudes stray from the wide support for the background check measure before the debate, which hovered around 85% in multiple polls.
A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either “angry” or “disappointed” with the Senate’s action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who strongly approved the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are “relieved” or “happy” about the vote.
I always thought those earlier numbers were soft, and they were.
You see, one of the issues has always been that many polls don’t really capture how committed to something a respondent really is. Someone may support the idea of tougher background checks, but how important is really is to them.
President Barack Obama missed his golden moment on guns. Despite what the talking heads on CNN may believe, the president wanted this moment. He was desperate for it. Early in his first campaign, he commented that he wouldn’t go after guns because he knew he didn’t have the votes for it.
It’s amazing what a few years can change when it comes to an attitude. He went after the guns, starting with background checks and assault weapons. After coming up with a goose egg on background checks, he proceeded to call the gun lobby liars. He’s one to talk.
Here’s part of my piece over at TheBlaze:
President Barack Obama stood outside the White House last week and lamented the defeat of the expanded background check bill in the Senate. He stood there, repeating over and over how 90 percent of all Americans wanted such a law and how it wouldn’t have infringed on the rights of a single American. He called the pro-gun lobby lairs for calling it registration.
Mr. President, you are the liar!
Obama can say that the bill outlawed a registry, but to what effect? Congress passes and overrides laws all the time. He knows this. Anyone with a single course in civics knows this as well. To tout this as proof that there will never be a registry is disingenuous at best…and with this president, I don’t see the best.
Head on over to read the rest.
In the wake of the Boston bombings, many people throughout the country are bracing. Yes, they got the alleged perpetrators, with one in custody and the other in the morgue, but now they brace for the inevitable legislative push that will result in nothing but a loss of liberty for people who had nothing to do with the bombings.
Sounds a lot like gun control, doesn’t it?
Memes are flying fast and furious in the wake of the apprehension of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, many joking about what Congress and the White House will try to ban. They’re generally meant humorously, but I’m not so sure.
Over this week, we’ve heard about pressure cookers being suggested as bomb housing by such diverse sources as The Anarchist Cookbook and an al-Qaeda guide on making IEDs. As such, could they be the likely target of Washington’s ire?
Even now, statist forces are trying to decide how to keep us safe my taking away our freedoms. Just as they have done with meth, it’s entirely possible that those forces will look at regulation of how many pressure cookers one can buy in a given time frame as a way to curb would be terrorists.
In reality, almost no one buys several pressure cookers over a short period of time…unless they’re building bombs. The fact that multiple publications call for such to be used as housing is really a good reason in some people’s eyes to restrict them in some way.
Of course, there are a few things that will make this more difficult. For one, Sudafed doesn’t exact have a resale value, while used pressure cookers do. Of course, that’s not exactly a deterent for many in Washington, now is it?
I’m not a runner. I used to be one, but those days are far behind me. Now, however, a bomb blast at 2:50 p.m. yesterday afternoon changed all of that for me.
Over at TheBlaze, I share my reasons for why I changed my mind.
What I do know is that terrorism cannot be allowed to win. Ever. Part of that effort is to live our lives. It is to not permit the terrorists to dictate the terms of how we, as Americans, engage in recreation.
I used to run a lot, but that was a long time ago. During those days, I thought about running a marathon, but never really put anything towards it. On Monday afternoon, just a little before 3 p.m., the terrorists gave me all the reason I needed to run 26.2 miles.
I refuse to let a terrorist, regardless of ideology, dictate what I do. While that hadn’t included a Boston Marathon, even in my running days, I’m enough of a contrarian to decide that now things are different.
Read the whole thing over at The Blaze.
MSNBC has caught a fair amount of fire recently over a promo that essentially declares children as “community property”. As a father, I took a little issue with that.
Once upon a time, people were treated like people. Businesses didn’t have “Human Resources” departments, they had “Personnel” departments. People aren’t a resource, they’re human beings. A tree is a resource. Coal is a resource. Oil is a resource. People are individuals who have a right to be treated like people.
Apparently, MSNBC doesn’t believe that. They believe that my two children, an 11 year old son and a one year old daughter, are somehow the property of the community.
Read more over at The Blaze.
It hasn’t been a good few weeks for me if I wanted to be proud of my senators. First, we had Saxby Chambliss use a ridiculous argument against same-sex marriage, and now we have Johnny Isakson’s opposition to a filibuster on gun control legislation.
Isakson’s office is reportedly saying he opposes the legislation, and that may be true, but he sees no problem with it passing.
You see, the United States Senate is in the hands of the Democrats. They want this to become law. That means it’s likely to pass the Senate. Isakson isn’t a complete moron. He knows this. He knows that in a vote, the bill passes.
He should also know that he swore and oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, and on that he’s falling down on the job.
The problem stems from the misguided idea that universal background checks would do anything to curb violence in this country.
Folks, gang bangers, drug cartels, and other violent groups aren’t exactly deterred by laws. They’re criminals. By definiton, they skirt the law. A universal background check will put more of a burden on the law abiding citizen who would like to purchase a gun from a buddy.
Isakson should know this. I suspect he does know this. However, instead of supporting an effort that is both legal and ethical as a way to block this, he’s arguing that members of his own party should sit down, shut up, and do nothing as they watch this nation go further down the tubes.
Democrats probably feel pretty full of themselves after the Supreme Court argued that the government could force you to buy health insurance under their taxation powers. Well, it looks like they’ve really embraced that and are now looking to make you buy additional insurance…if you own one of those evil gun things!
From The Daily Caller:
When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”
Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.
It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.
“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.
“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”
Let me be the first to point out that Maloney is apparently a babbling idiot (because I know the commentors will point it out otherwise).