No, We Will Not Ignore Tyranny!

tknighton — Wed, 08 May 2013 09:45:31 -0500

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.

Common Core: More Federal Government Involvement in Education

tknighton — Fri, 03 May 2013 15:01:55 -0500

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.

Whoops.

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.

For example, I spoke with a friend who recently began homeschooling her grandson that she has custody of. She had pulled him out in the middle of the school year to homeschool. Why? Because her grandson has a brain that’s wired differently than most folks. He doesn’t look at the world quite the same way. As a result, he would find his own way to solve math problems.

Those answers were thrown out because he didn’t follow their steps to get the answer.

I’m sorry, but that looks like an emphasis on compliance versus learning how to think critically. In fact, one of the knocks on Common Core - and an extremely valid one, in my opinion - is that it’s about teaching facts versus teaching understanding. Being able to regurgitate tidbits about the War of 1812 is a far cry from being able to understand what lead to the war in the first place.

In addition, many English teachers are disgruntled with Common Core and it’s focus on “informational reading.” While I have no issues with students reading The Federalist Papers - a Common Core approved work - it comes at the expense of things liek Brave New World, 1984, or any number of other literary works.

David Chura, over at The Huffington Post, said this:

t’s hard reading about the lockstep curriculum set out by Common Core with its emphasis on “informational readings,” and seeing all the hoops students and teachers have to jump through to meet its standards. Quite frankly, it makes me sad. “Why sad?” you might wonder. Frustrated, maybe, or for that matter, mad. But sad? Usually when the topic is education reform frustrated and mad come easily to me. But this is different. I’m a romantic (as I think many English teachers are) and I see literature — poetry, drama, fiction — and its power to change people’s lives as the heart of an English teacher’s job.

But the designers of Common Core don’t see it that way. They assert that students have been raised on an easy-read curriculum and because of this they are unable to analyze complex reports, studies and government documents. The administration’s solution is to have informational texts make up 50 percent of elementary school readings and 70 percent of 12th grade readings by 2014. Unfortunately, the burden of this solution will fall mostly on English teachers, leaving them little time to teach real literature. Instead they will somehow have to figure out ways to get kids interested in such texts as “Fed Views” by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (2009) or “Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental Energy, and Transportation Management” published by the General Services Administration.

Man makes a good point. Books engage a part of the human experience that “informational reading” just never will. That’s not to say there’s no place for informational reading…but at the expense of the classics we all read? Color me skeptical.

Much of the criticism of Common Core comes from the right, who want to emphasize a less centralized approach. Common Core’s proponents generally seem to respond with ridicule, as if the idea of a centralized cirriculum is the most natural thing and that opponents are arguing something akin to voluntarily removing body parts in an effort to become smarter.

The problem is, they are ardently supporting a curriculum that is untested. There’s no scientific basis for believing that this curriculum is any better than what came before it. I’ve looked, and I haven’t found any.

So, we have a curriculum with no basis in science that punishes kids for thinking outside the box, but we can’t change it because to do so is ridiculous?

The primary victim in this is clearly the children. However, another significant vctim is creativity in the classroom. As Huffington Post’s Nicholas Tampio said:

In February, my son’s class was selected to pilot a reading program designed to satisfy the Common Core criteria. The teacher started dedicating two hours a day to packaged lesson plans. Rather than giving the students free work choice, in which they build with blocks or paint, the students must sit on the floor while the teacher lectures at them. Rather than tailoring the curriculum to each child, she hands students books from a narrow, predetermined list. Parent volunteers now have a smaller role to play in the classroom, and the school district is about to cut funding for kindergarten aides.

The class, in short, has gone from one where teachers, aides, parents, and students work hard to create a rewarding educational experience, to one where the teachers and students use materials designed by a major publishing house.

Seriously? This is a good idea? And note that there are two anti-Common Core posts for Huffington Post. Even the left is starting to question the wisdom of this curriculum. Right and Left, standing together? Cat’s and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

Luckily, it can be changed. The only reason states put this in place was because of the 2009 stimulus plan held out money like a carrot, with Common Core as the string. Several states have bills before their respective legislatures to repeal Common Core, though who knows if it’ll happen or not.

However, some things to think about if you support a national standard.

If there should be a universal standard for education in this country, why does it have to be this standard? Why is a decreased emphasis on Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Orwell, Hemmingway, Steinbeck among others a good thing? Why is the mathematical technique used to arrive at an answer more important than the answer?

Folks, regardless of where you stand on a national curriculum - and I’m dead set against it - Common Core has to go. The children of this nation deserve better. Maybe the best way to do this is to let 50 different laboratories - most folks call them “states” - experiment and find curriculums that work, and let free market principles figure it out? It sure can’t work worse than Common Core does.

The Left Could Come After Fireworks After Boston Bombing

tknighton — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:25:55 -0500

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:

While explosives such as ready-made bombs and major quantities of high-octane powders are subject to stricter regulation and must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, federal law exempts several key types of explosives from licensing and background check requirements. Even after the post-9/11 Safe Explosives Act, an individual can buy up to 50 pounds of black powder and any amount of smokeless powder (a more expensive blasting powder that leaves less residue) without undergoing any licensing or background check. Sellers of both products are not required to maintain any record-keeping of their sales, and sellers of smokeless power need not even maintain a license. Black powder is the most common explosive used in pipe bombs because it is so inexpensive, according to a 2005 Department of Justice report. For context, experts say it only takes about three pounds of powder to make one of the pressure-cooker bombs used in the Boston Marathon incident.

Since black and smokeless powders are used as gunpowder, it is unsurprising that the National Rifle Association had a hand in blocking stricter regulation. As a new Violence Policy Center report explains, the NRA and another gun industry trade association lobbied against regulation of black and smokeless powder repeatedly to achieve the now-codified exemptions for gun powders. And the NRA has a particular interest in lobbying for powder regulation, due to “corporate partners” that specialize in the sale of powders, gun accessories or ammunition. In 1970, the gun lobby achieved an exemption for up to five pounds of black powder and all “small arms ammunition” (which includes smokeless powder). Three years later, that exemption was expanded to 50 pounds.

The article also quotes former ATF agent Reynold Hoover who said regarding black powder and smokeless powder, “Together, these two ‘unregulated’ bomb ingredients represent one of the greatest threats to the American public posed by bombers.”

That may well be. Unfortunately for the left, it’s also ridiculous to think restricting these ingredients would make us any safer.

Much of the speculation around the bombs in question revolve around the suggestion that the Tsarnaev brothers used an article from the jihadist magazine Inspire called “How to make a bomb in your mother’s kitchen.” One of the methods allegedly outlined in that article (I refuse to find the article in question due to concerns of having crap like that in my browser history) is to make your explosive compound by scraping the heads of matches and mixing it with sugar.

Will we restrict those next?

Millions of Americans use black powder and smokeless powder every year in a law abiding way. That’s irrelevant to the left side of the aisle. Instead, they’re really more interested in any way they can hurt those evil gun people. Yes, the events in Boston are tragic, but the last thing we need to do is rush into kneejerk laws that won’t really make anyone safer, but will instead restrict the freedoms of people who did nothing wrong.

Just imagine what would have happened if it had been a right winger that had committed such an act?

Gun Control Backfires on Obama

tknighton — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:00:50 -0500

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.

Talk about your backfires:

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.

For example, around 85 percent of people polled like the idea of stricter background checks, but what really defined “expanded” background checks in the first place? Are they thinking about making sure mental health records make it into the relevant database? Or are they thinking that all firearms should be treated like fully automatic weapons and permission must be obtained from law enforcement prior to transfer, arguing that law enforcement would know if there’s a problem that wouldn’t show up in a background check.

Obviously, there’s a lot of space between those two positions, but both could be interpreted as being pro-expanded background check.

Also, a lack of knowledge can skew results. After all, what if someone actually believed that you could go to a gun show and buy a firearm without a background check? Folks, this is actually pretty rare. Learning how rare it really is could change someone’s position.

Either way, Obama banked on this motivating millions of Americans to give Congress fits. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s a purely partisan issue with only Democrats really flocking to the issue.

Barack Obama: Liar-in-Chief

tknighton — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:45:52 -0500

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.

Could Regulators Target Pressure Cookers?

tknighton — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:14:15 -0500

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?

Now, I’m not saying that there actually is a plot afoot to do any such thing. Whatever is pushed through could be far less intrusive than anything I actually think they would try, but not likely. Instead, the powers that be are going to turn this tragedy into a power grab by any mean possible.

What I am saying, however, is that we lovers of liberty need to stand by and get ready. Bad things are coming, and they’re coming as soon as the idiots in Washington can figure out just how to screw us because of the acts of a couple of people.

26.2 Miles of Defiance Against Cowardly Acts of Terrorism

tknighton — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:28:56 -0500

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, You Don't Own My Kid

tknighton — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:00:04 -0500

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.

Shame on You, Johnny Isakson

tknighton — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:15:44 -0500

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.

Gun laws don’t stop the criminal. Look at what happened in Great Britian when they enacted their draconian gun laws. London is now a more dangerous city than New York. Why? Because the criminals don’t have to be afraid anymore. These guys are bigger, stronger, and/or more experienced in visiting violence on their fellow man than the average citizen. They are predators, and now they have defenseless prey.

You would think that would serve as ample reason to quit with all the gun control nonsense, but it’s not. Instead, the enemies of the Second Amendment push further and further without any regard for the aftermath. They’re convinced it will be a world of greatly reduced violence.

History doesn’t support that.

Senators like Rand Paul, Mark Rubio, and their colleagues who are threatening a filibuster understand that rights are important. They must be defended. They shouldn’t fall to the whims of a majority.

It’s just to bad that my own senator, Johnny Isakson, doesn’t grasp that simple, basic fact.

Dems Want to Force You to Buy Insurance...on Your Gun

tknighton — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:30:54 -0500

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).

You see, this attempt to “shift some of that cost back onto those who own weapons” misses a key point that gun rights advocates have said over and over. Crimes committed with guns generally aren’t committed by those who buy their guns legally! Criminals don’t obey the law. They just don’t. If they are goin to break a law, do you really think they’re going to obey a law to purchase insurance?

Not only that, but this is unenforceable without some form of regulation. You have to know who owns a gun in the first place in order to make sure they have the relevant insurance. Otherwise, the best you can do is throw another charge on someone who has already committed a crime with a gun…and I’ll guarantee you that most of them won’t even think about getting insurance.

Maloney, rather than invoking Obamacare and thus earning her bill even stiffer opposition from the outset, points to the number of states requiring car insurance. Of course, cars are registered. This makes it easy to make sure that all cars have relevant insurance. However, without registration for guns, how will Uncle Sam make sure all the good little gun owners have insurance on their weapons of death?

Of course, no one is saying the “r” word just yet.

Maloney is right that there is a cost to gun violence, and the taxpayers are bearing some of that cost. It’s just to bad that she misses where the government bear responsibility for that. She forgets that it was the government that got involved in paying for people’s health care. She forgets it was the government that began to herd low-income people into a single area of a community, thus all but insuring violence would errupt. She forgets that it has been her party that has been beating the anti-gun drum for so long that people forget they have a right to defend themselves.

Not that Maloney cares in the least. She’s more interested in punishing the law abiding.

Recent posts by tknighton