Recent Posts From Tom Knighton
Democrats have a reputation of being anti-business. Some Democrats draw back at that characterization. They claim to be in favor of business, but only want to look out for “the little guy.”
However, Peter Schiff decided to go undercover and see what he could find out. He pretended to be a liberal at the Democratic National Convention and asked if these delegates would support a law banning corporate profits.
Now, I’ll be the first to concede that quite a few were apparently only interested in a cap on corporate profits, but there were still plenty who were in favor of outright banning them. Banning corporate profits? What could go wrong?
Well, first let’s address the fact of what a corporation really is. Corporations aren’t just megalithic entities like Wal-Mart, Apple, Microsoft, McDonald’s, and the like. Corporations are also small businesses like Knighton Media, Inc. That’s my business. It employs just me, a sales guy, and a part time office manager. There are thousands of corporations that are closer to my company than Microsoft or Apple.
A corporation is basically a type of structure permitted by law that lets one sell stock in the company. Of course, there are multiple types of corporations out there, so I’m being rather simplistic (the types of corporations could fill a blog post all on its own…a few in fact), but you get the point.
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) has ignited a firestorm by claiming that a conservative columnist misquoted her. The Washington Post, far from anything approaching a conservative news agency, summed it up well:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s false accusation of a misquote
“That comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me.”
— Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz during Fox News interview, Sept. 4, 2012
Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Tuesday denied a report from Washington Examiner columnist Philip Klein, who quoted the Florida congresswoman as saying that Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren described Republican policies toward Israel as “dangerous” for the Jewish state.
The problem? Well, you see, Klein didn’t misquote her at all. In fact, Klein has actually posted audio, noting:
Below, find the audio of what she said on Monday, which I’m confident demonstrates that I quoted her accurately in my story. The relevant part starts around the 28-second mark.
After listening to the audio, you can check out the clip above of her on Fox News saying she was “deliberately” misquoted, and judge for yourself.
Most people seem to come to libertarianism from the right. It honestly makes sense when you think about it. The right tends to be a place of minimal government and typically argues for more freedom. The problems kick in on some specific issues. Many libertarians came to libertarianism after searching for a more consistent ideology.
Me? I’m a bit of an oddball. I came from the left. I came from a place of seeking more consistency on the issue of civil liberties that I was getting from the Democrats. There have been times when I wondered if there was ever being a small “L” libertarian in the Democratic Party. Based on what’s being reported over the party’s new platform, I can see that is a resounding “no.”
The piece points out several issues where the Democratic Party has decided to back away from their stances on civil liberties just four years ago. Issues like indefinite detention, closing Gitmo, illegal wiretaps, and racial profiling all pretty much continue without any modification from President Bush’s era. Even torture, for which many wanted heads on the proverbial pikes, has reportedly continued despite an executive order ending the practice.
So which conservative or libertarian publication makes such remarkes about President Obama and the Democratic Party? Townhall? Nope. Red State? Not even close.
The Weekly Standard? No. The National Review? Hardly. Reason? Wrong again. Try the left leaning Mother Jones.
Many on the left are less than pleased that Obama has done so poorly on civil liberties. That says nothing over any meaningful move on gay rights (besides the appeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) or a host of other issues.
Democratic National Committee chairperson apparently doesn’t think that accuracy really matters, so long as Team Blue gets the win in the long run. Now, why would I say such a thing? Well,it stems from a fundraising email that Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent out where she says this:
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are now, incredibly, saying they don’t agree with the policies of the party whose nomination they’re about to accept, but guess what? The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, “written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”
This is some pretty unbelievable stuff, even by Mitt Romney standards.
It’s up to us to make sure voters see through this and know just how dangerously wrong for women these candidates are — but we can’t do it without your help. Donate $3 or more today.
Quote courtesy of Townhall.com
The above quote deals with abortion, and particularly with Romney and Ryan’s stances on abortion. Romney in particular does agree with some exceptions to an abortion ban. Three of them, as a matter of fact: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother. However, Wassermann Schultz says that the GOP platform - you know, the same one with a call for a constitutional amendment banning abortion? - was “written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”
Shootings will continue to make headlines. Recent incidents such as the Aurora, Colorado shooting and events Friday at the Empire State Building continue to put guns and gun rights under a spotlight. One of the latest columns I’ve come across was spawned from the Huffington Post. In it, writer Marian Wright Edelman says she thinks it’s time for “common sense gun control”.
Every time another mass shooting happens in the United States, the debate over gun control comes fleetingly to the forefront — until political fear paralyzes courage and action. Inevitably, some people repeat the argument that the solution to preventing mass shootings is not better gun control laws — even control of assault weapons, which have no place in nonmilitary hands — but getting even more Americans armed. The apparent fantasy result would be something straight out of Hollywood where every single time a bad person stands up with a gun a good person with their own gun would quickly rise up out of the crowd, shoot the bad person, and save the day.
Edelman spends a good bit of time talking about mass shootings, invoking not just Aurora but also Columbine, Virginia Tech, and a host of others. After all, we must prevent these horrible events.
I don’t think anyone believes that these events aren’t horrible. However, I want to point out some things to Edelman. After all, she is writing from a position of emotion, rather than actual facts.
There have been a couple of stories about Brandon Raub here at United Liberty. This is one of those stories that is bound to get some legs in the pro-liberty community, so it’s no wonder that we’re discussing it. It’s a story that has all the hallmarks of something we could sink our teeth into.
Marshall McCart wrote:
As of last night, Mr. Truth himself, Ben Swann, stated that he was on it. That makes me feel good. Ben will get to the bottom of it. He has said that at this point—it does not seem to be passing the smell test. Also, the Rutherford Institute has now come out in support of Mr. Raub. But until more information presents itself, I just can’t make an informed analysis; however, I will say this—if he wasn’t involuntarily committed in a proper way…if this was just the government deciding that they would detain this man for words he wrote. Then—we might have a problem. This might be a game-changer. This could be one of the biggest stories in America that hardly no one knows about. If this was done improperly, then the United States Government may have just committed an egregious error.
Meanwhile, Kevin Boyd wrote:
Yes, there does appear to be a media bias. I see it all the time, just like you probably do. Part of the reason Fox News does as well as it does is because he simply presents a different media bias than what it’s watchers see elsewhere. They’ve presented something new, and are being rewarded for it.
However, many people don’t believe in media bias. They just don’t think it exists. Well, let’s take a quick lesson in media bias, and some of the reasons for it. For the record, I am the publisher of The Albany Journal, what was once a weekly newspaper in Albany, Georgia but is now an online news website. I’m not telling you this to try and make it out like my vast newspaper experience gives me some insight (I only bought the paper last October after all), but so some stories later on will make some sense.
When talking about media bias, there are some things that happen. I’m guilty of it as much as the next newspaper editor/publisher/news director. Some stories cross my desk, and my natural reaction is to not devote space to them. Even if they don’t cross my desk, I sometimes read articles on other sites and think “I wouldn’t run that”. Sometimes, it’s well founded. An eatery half way across the state that says it is going to start making their own bread just isn’t news for Albany.
Sometimes though, my subconscious makes the decision for me. For example, a story about how laws regarding junk food in schools may be helping reduce childhood obesity. Now, this as an AP story, and I don’t get to run AP stories, but this is a case of one I would probably not have run. Consciously, I would probably argue to myself that I just don’t think my readers would find it interesting, but is that really the reason?
Freedom of speech is one of the most important factors of a free society. The ability to say unpopular things is essential. After all, abolition was once an unpopular thing to talk about. So was civil rights. Questioning the government regarding the Vietnam War wasn’t always a popular thing either.
In the realm of ideas, you typically have a free market. Good ideas will grown, while bad ideas die a horrible, painful death given enough time. Not always (see communism, for example), but this is how it works most of the time. Most free nations understand that. However, Australia has apparently forgotten that little tidbit:
Australian MPs have started to call for legislative powers to compel social networks to swiftly remove offensive content, after Facebook failed to act decisively to remove a page containing numerous racist stereotypes of Australian aboriginals.
Facebook initially did nothing about the page, which disappeared briefly and then resurfaced marked as “controversial humour”.
The Social Network TM made some noises about freedom of speech, which apparently allows controversial humour even if it includes hate speech. At this point in the saga Australia’s Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said he felt the page was inappropriate and should be removed.
Facebook seems to have finally done so as it became apparent the page contravened Australia’s racial discrimination laws. Controversy over the page also exploded into mainstream media. Australia’s media regulator and Racial Discrimination Commissioner are both looking into the incident.
When one talks about the left, it’s important to note that the left is a large group and not everyone on the left is in lockstep on every issue. However, there are a large number of people on the left that have the ideological consistency of a turnip…and I apologize to any turnips that are insulted at the comparison.
The most recent example stems from Team USA shooter Corey Cogdell, an Olympic trap shooter who is in London right now representing the US. Cogdell, like a lot of competitive shooters, is also a hunter. Recently, she shared some photographs of animals she’s taken while in the field.
With me so far? Good, because a report over a Twitchy.com shows how “tolerant” some on the left can be with regard to hunting. Screenshots after screenshots of individuals wishing Cogdell would “shoot [herself] in the knees” and declaring her a “waste of oxygen and an embarassment to the human race.”
One particularly stood out to me:
What a f***ing waste! WTFIs wrong with ppl?cruel!! These ppl need to be shot deheaded and posted on a wall
Now, I can understand that not everyone shares my views of hunting. For the record, I am a hunter as well. I understand Cogdell’s love of hunting, I really do. The vast majority of hunters either eat the game they take, or they donate it to programs like Hunters For The Hungry which uses wild game to feed needy families. While I have little doubt that they exist, I don’t know a single hunter - trophy hunter or otherwise - that doesn’t eat what they kill.
Most who follow gun laws know that Frank Lautenberg isn’t exactly a friend of the Second Amendment. For those who don’t know this, let this little tidbit educate you on Lautenberg and his latest efforts:
Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg on Monday continued his lead role in advancing gun control legislation in the wake of the Aurora, Colo. mass shooting by introducing a bill to ban the online sale of ammunition.
“If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition, they should have to come face-to-face with the seller,” Lautenberg stated in his announcement. ”It’s one thing to buy a pair of shoes online, but it should take more than a click of the mouse to amass thousands of rounds of ammunition.”
“The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act” asserts the following: ammunition will only be sold by licensed dealers; buyers who are not licensed dealers will be required to present photo identification; and licensed dealers must maintain records of ammunition sales and report to officials the sale of more than 1,000 rounds to an unlicensed person. Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, whose husband was killed and son severely injured in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road mass shooting, has signed on to publicly support the bill.
Lautenberg’s office noted Monday that the shooter who killed 12 and injured 58 in the July 20 attack at the Colorado movie theater purchased upwards of 6,000 rounds of ammunition “anonymously on the internet.”