MRC's Knight reportedly said efforts to lift ban on gays and lesbians in military will result in a "Pearl Harbor moment"
SUMMARY: The Media Research Center's Robert Knight, who is also a columnist for Townhall.com and Human Events, was quoted in The Washington Times as saying that the efforts of activists to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military will lead to "a Pearl Harbor moment." Knight has previously compared the attacks on Pearl Harbor to the legalization of same-sex marriage in particular.
In a November 21 Washington Times article about President-elect Barack Obama's plan to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military, Robert Knight, director of the Media Research Center's Culture and Media Institute, was quoted as saying that the efforts of activists to lift the ban will lead to "a Pearl Harbor moment." Knight is also a columnist for Townhall.com and Human Events.
According to the Times, Knight said: "Homosexual activists are overconfident because they have not yet seen a counterforce emerge as occurred in 1993. ... But as the threat grows stronger, we will see groups forming and the resistance building." Knight was then quoted as saying: "Americans go about their business and are not activists until they have a Pearl Harbor moment. That has yet to happen, but it will." The Times also reported that Knight said most Americans "are unaware that gay activists have the military in their gun sights."
Knight previously compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In his June 17 Townhall.com column, Knight wrote that former Human Rights Campaign executive director Elizabeth Birch "not[ed] that the natural elements had remained intact in the Bay State [Massachusetts] following the beginning of 'gay marriage.' She assured the young audience, which soaked up her utterly illogical argument, that the 'sun still came out, the birds still chirped and the flowers still bloomed,' or something to that effect." Knight continued: "Well, the birds chirped and the flowers bloomed in Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941, as the American fleet lay smoldering."
Knight has also previously stated that "the endgame of the gay rights activists, and I've said this before, is the criminalization of Christianity," and claimed that "gay rights advocates are laying the foundation for the criminalization of Christianity, Judaism and every other religion that preaches God's view of sexual morality."
From The Washington Times November 21 article:
"Homosexual activists are overconfident because they have not yet seen a counterforce emerge as occurred in 1993," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center, an organization that seeks to balance perceived liberal bias in mainstream news coverage.
"But as the threat grows stronger, we will see groups forming and the resistance building," he said. "Americans go about their business and are not activists until they have a Pearl Harbor moment. That has yet to happen, but it will."
He added that most Americans "are unaware that gay activists have the military in their gun sights."
More whining from Christian idiots who think they're victims.
It's time we tax the churches.
I would support that, but....:
1) Wouldn't that create sep. church-state problems?
2) Can you imagine how the church is going to handle collection offerings once that happens? It'll be your patriotic duty to give your hard-earned money to the church!
Yeah, Wuss, those would be some dangerous hypothetical and potential -type issues. Except that they're both real and existing type conditions.
Wouldn't that create sep. church-state problems? - dawuss
No, it would actually eliminate a bunch of them. If churches paid taxes they would be free to endorse and even campaign for candidates. We'd eliminate issues of what qualifies as a church. You want to call yourself a church? Fine, as long as you file for taxes. If they apply all collections to expenses and charitable work, they pay no taxes. Churches would have much less oversight of their activities.
consider this: one of the biggest whiners is Bob Jones U. What do we know about them?
Nov 21, 2:56 PM ESTBob Jones University in SC apologizes for racist policies, including interracial dating ban
By JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Bob Jones University has apologized for racist policies including a one-time ban on interracial dating that wasn't lifted until nine years ago and its unwillingness to admit black students until 1971.
The private fundamentalist Christian school founded in 1927 in northwestern South Carolina said its rules on race were shaped by culture instead of the Bible, according to a statement posted Thursday on the university's Web site.
The university, with about 5,000 students, didn't begin admitting black students until nearly 20 years after the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling found public segregated schools were unconstitutional.
Nine years ago? WTF?
This describes my expression perfectly
Well, Nightrider has a point (albeit a small one- ;))... since God is a straight, white, American male, he OBVIOUSLY gets to legislate sexual morality! Remember the eleventh commandment (available by subscription only) 'Thou shalt not be gay in any way, and if you choose to be, for Shiva's sake, keep it to yourself!'
Having a pearl harbor moment. I'd really like to see a point by point comparison of the gay community and late thirties imperialistic Japan. What equates to oil in the comparison?
I keep thinking of the interpreters we lost. Some in violation of the military's own don't ask don't tell policy. Lotta other good people lost because someone pooked arround looking for evidence.
My history books were all wrong. All Japan wanted was equal rights?
No, no, no.... they hated our freedoms and our flambouyant lifestlye so much. Remember that movie 'Tora Tora Tora'? It traslates in English to 'Men in grass skirts?!? That makes us nervous. We shall bomb them back to the fuedal age!'
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is actually Japanese for "Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!"--military code to signal that the attack on Pearl Harbor was carried out successfully.
And it was not just Pearl Harbor as was attacked on the Day of Infamy: A number of other United States naval bases in the Pacific were also under Japanese attack, including Guam, Saipan, Wake Island and several installations in the Philippines, which @ the time was under American colonial administration (among them Fort William McKinley, Subic Bay Naval Station and Corregidor).
In any event, such remarks are a clear and present insult to Pearl Harbor survivors (even with their numbers declining with age) and the memory of the "Day of Infamy."
You know what's sad/funny about where we were attacked? I learned which places were attacked more from playing the video game '1942', a plane shooting game than I did from my high school studies.
i thought the movie "midway" was very good, and explained this very important battle in detail. we took out a good chunk of the japanese navy. but heaven knows what went on aboard those ships. however, charlton heston was there for moral guidance. when you think of it, it's amazing that the japanese navy was able to move across the pacific unnoticed and stop northwest of oahu. the chance of that happening now?
to be clear, it explained midway, not pearl harbor.
"mefirst" commented:
As a matter of fact, the current Japanese constitution (which the United States, know, helped draft) actually prohibits Japan from maintaining standing armies; hence, to get around the proscription, the term "Self-Defence Forces" are used with regards to the Japanese military.
uh yeah, i know. the point i was making was that a fleet of large warships moved across the pacific without a trace of them doing that. it would be virtually impossible now. i was not suggesting they were ready for a redo on pearl harbor.
Equal rights and our fabulous hats.
And outrageous trousers, and shoes that support the ensemble!!!
I disagree. Churches should keep their tax-free status as long as they stick to discussion the morality of a given action. As soon as they cross the line to discussing policy and the morality of supporting (or simply not protesting agianst) certain policies, then we should tax them, no exceptions. (And of course, ANY church that speaks out against a specific cadidate should be taxed. No exceptions.)
As for the "Pearl Harbor" moment... Didn't we just have one of those as we increased the Democrat's power in congress, increased the number of democratic governors, elected "the most liberal senator in history" to the presidency, and swept the Republican's out of power, even as the nominated the most moderate candidate in their field for the WH? When are these right-wing funny-mentalists going to get it through their thick brows? We tried conservatism, it didn't work. We tried leisse-faire economics, it was a disaster. Your party is in shambles, your movement is in jeopardy, and things just don't look good for you moving forward, despite what Mike Huckabee wrote in his book. (He couldn't be more wrong, BTW!)
The country WANTS this. The country VOTED for this. Like was said so often in 2004: The people have spoken. So gGet over it.
notice one argument that has disappeared? "when the democrats took over congress in 2006, gas was 2.50 a gallon, now it's 4, no, 3, no, 2, never mind...." oil is actually affected more by long term trends, and we need to start reducing demand and going to energy efficient vehicles, something bush and the republicans opposed until the last year. and another feather in the cap for paul krugman. when oil was at it's peak, he [rightly] dismissed most of the "speculator" argument and said it was mainly supply and demand. a lot of speculators tend to end up with losses.
I think the price had more to with speculation than S & D. I do not believe the world's consumtion halved in the past 3-4 months (gas price where I live went from almost $4 to $1.83). It cannot, in such a short time.
What I do belive is that the speculators are running away from petroluem speculating and that supply and demand is beginning to dictate prices. Which is what it should be.
How is what this guy saying supposed to be combatting liberal bias in the media? That's what I really want to know. Notice, how on this site, they don't try to combat policies, and or positions, but they do try to expose the misinformation. I think that there is a huge difference between say the MRC and MMFA and it's apparent who is the more professional organization.
Anyway, aside from that, it's not as if there aren't already a bunch of homosexuals in the armed services of the United States. There are. Tons of them. And we've lost some pretty good and highly qualified individuals from said armed services because, and only because, they were gay. It's stupid. It's not as if they would be running around saying, "Yay! I'm gay!" or something like that. You don't see heterosexuals running around doing that, and gay folks in the military would be no different. In a time in this country where fewer and fewer people are heeding the call to duty, can we afford to exclude anyone? Look, if openly gay men and women can serve in the IDF (basically aside from us probably the most bad a** military force in the world), why can't they serve in the US armed services? Openly.
"magnolialover" asks:
Enquiring minds want to know!
Contrary to MMFA's headline, there is no ban on gays and lesbians in the military.
In "general", one's sexual preference in the military should remain "private".
There isn't a 'colonel' of truth in your statement.
I caught your 'attention' with that one!
Then there aren't any gun bans, as long as you keep them concealed.Keep up the good work, AA.
There isn't? Really?
Wow... You are really numb methinks.
Contrary to MMFA's headline, there is no ban on gays and lesbians in the military.
Unless, of course, some knucklehead who hates gays in the military snoops around and digs up one little "colonel" of sexual behavior by the victim of the witchhun--I mean, investigation...
So Gays are planning to attack Pearl Harbor???
Yes they could be experiencing shopping excursions, refreshment runs, surfing encoursions, promenading squads, fashion disputes, and of course manuvers in the dark.
Is hetrosexual america going to keep up its end (sorry) here. Can they sustain party atmosphere equity?
No other industrialized country in the world has such a ban on their military. Why can't the United States join in? I mean, we are now accepting convicted felons, sumo wrestlers (low physical standards), and the technically retarded (low standards on IQ tests).
omg, is it going to be "raining men" on the pentagon? are lesbians going to "love bombing" battleship row? will leather clad "mini" subs sneak into schofield barracks?
stay tuned for the next dramatic episode of "as the closeted queens turn"!
I have always been irritated by this idiot Robert Knight. In fact, Bryant Gumbel summed it up best when he referred to Knight as (excuse my language), "... a f**king moron." Yeah, he really did, and Knight is a certifiable moron after the nonsense he spouted about comic books corrupting children. He actually cited the discredited claims of Frederic Wertham, who repudiated his own research in the 1970s. That alone should discredit Knight at all, and he said that six years ago.
What is so asinine about the con's garbage on this topic is that there are thousands of gays and lesbians who serve in the military already. albeit not openly. and what has happened? Of course nothing. So what the F is the issue can somebody tell me?
Sexual fear of the homosexual, external ones, and in a number instances, the internal one.