In a January 18 Washington Times op-ed, Robert Knight attacked the memorial service for the victims of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona, calling it the "first major campaign event of the 2012 presidential election" and asking, "When, for instance, have you been to a memorial service where cheers and yells punctuated the eulogy and where political campaign T-shirts were draped over seats or given out to mourners at the door?"
In fact, contrary to Knight's claim that the shirts provided at the service were "political campaign T-shirts," PolitiFact noted that "officials at the University of Arizona said the White House had nothing to do with the name or the logo."
Moreover, Knight attacked Obama for using the phrase "life partners" during the service, calling it a "calculated element" of Obama's speech and that "[i]n the not too distant past, a president would have paid homage to the victims' marriages without stretching for politically correct 'inclusion.'"
Knight further attacked Obama for his comments about 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green:
"I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us, we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations."
Well, hold on. Children, God bless them, are not morally superior. In fact, they plot and hoard and steal and throw tantrums. It takes a lifetime to burnish away the layers of selfishness that plague us all. Psalm 53 reminds us that "there is none who does good, no, not one." This idea that we can learn from innocent children is a liberal fallacy originating in Rousseau's myth of the noble savage.
The right-wing media are kicking off 2011 by reviving "death panel" claims -- which was PolitiFact's 2009 "Lie of the Year" -- by claiming that a recent change to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements was tantamount to the establishment of "death panels." In fact, the rule simply compensates doctors for providing voluntary end-of-life counseling.
Continuing its tradition of anti-gay rhetoric, The Washington Times has responded to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by publishing numerous homophobic editorials and op-eds.
From the December 21 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
From a December 20 Washington Times op-ed by Robert Knight:
Once again, as in 2008, Sen. John McCain has led conservatives over a cliff. Both defeats were a result of a conscious decision to unilaterally disarm morally and allow spurious claims to go unchallenged.
When an opponent advances by asserting moral authority, it's powerful even when wrong, as just occurred in the Senate vote to overturn the military's ban on homosexuality. The most effective defense is a superior moral offensive. That did not happen.
Instead of using the military debate to bring to light many suppressed facts that could cripple the homosexual juggernaut if Americans only knew, they played by their opponents' rule book.
In "After the Ball," a 1989 gay-strategy manual, two Harvard-trained public relations experts warn that "the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question." Elsewhere, the authors say, "first, you get your foot in the door by being as similar as possible; then and only then ... can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first ... allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow."
With Democrats and turncoats like Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, and Sen. Scott Brown, Massachusetts Republican, falsely framing military service as a "civil right," the focus remained off behavior and morality. Hapless defenders such as Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, fell back to saying things like "this is not the time to do this," as if there ever were a good time to turn the U.S. military into a gay mecca with zero tolerance for chaplains and anyone else who disagrees.
Moral arguments against repeal were AWOL during Saturday's cloture debate. All the moral posturing was on the side of repeal.
A more conservative Congress should restore the law. At some point, America's temporary plunge into moral insanity must end, or it will be the end of this self-governing republic that God has blessed so richly - up to now.
Sometimes just the threat of a wacko liberal ruling is enough to drive policy. That seems to be the reasoning behind Defense Secretar yRobert M. Gates warning Congress to homosexualize the military before the courts do it. He said it would be disruptive if a court acts, so Congress should order up the lavender tanks instead.
I don't recall a single reporter asking Mr. Gates why, if ending the policy by court order would harm the military, it would be less disruptive if done by the lame-duck Congress. Mr. Gates himself hinted at the answer: Training (i.e. brainwashing) could begin earlier. Think about that. Troops drawn from America's heartland will be "trained" to appreciate sodomy - or else. Wonder if they'll break out those little Maoist dunce caps while they're at it?
Last week, the Washington Post reported on a Pentagon study group that found minimal risk to repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to two sources familiar with the report -- which is slated to be released on December 1 -- overturning the law would actually have "positive, mixed or nonexistent effects," and military objections to allowing openly gay men and women to serve would subside once repeal took effect.
Good news, right? Not if you're Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries.
In an op-ed in today's Washington Times, Knight, a conservative activist and writer with a proclivity for making homophobic remarks, pushed back hard against the report, deriding its leak as part of a mission to "destroy the military's backbone" and expressing skepticism that most soldiers indeed support repeal:
Not all of the snipers targeting U.S. military personnel are in caves or perched on cliffs in Afghanistan. Some are right here in America, planting stories instead of explosives. Their mission: to destroy the military's moral backbone. On Oct. 28, unnamed "sources" claimed to the Associated Press that a survey conducted by the military over ending the ban on homosexuality reveals that most soldiers are thrilled with the idea. Sure they are.
Knight also claimed the military would "be used as a battering ram against American society's resistance to mandated acceptance of homosexuality" and concluded, "Watch this week for more leaks and talking heads concluding that the 'science is settled,' that GI Joe really does want Gay Joe for a bunky."
Knight's op-ed is just the latest anti-gay screed the Washington Times has tastelessly chosen to publish. As we've previously noted, the Times has an extensive history of plugging anti-gay smears, falsehoods, and distortions, including that repealing DADT would "break" the military."
However, mounting evidence reveals that the law isn't working and that repeal would not undermine unit cohesion and morale. Moreover, polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans support overturning the policy.
When it comes to DADT, it's clear that the arguments put forth by the Times fly in the face of the facts. Rather than offer substantive evidence, the Times goes to great lengths to promote an anti-gay agenda that relies solely on conservative dogma and the vitriol of other homophobes. This is both an insult and a disservice to all members of the military and the general public.
Once again, Robert Knight has penned a bigoted column for the Washington Times. Knight claims that by sticking up for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, the ACLU is "trying to force sexual dystopia on high schools" and that the organization "insist[s] on promoting perversity as diversity." He also wrote: "In effect, the ACLU is at war with nature and nature's God."
From Knight's October 8 column:
[T]he ACLU was busy trying to force sexual dystopia on high schools in Mississippi. On Aug. 17, the ACLU and the ACLU of Mississippi sued the Wesson Attendance Center for leaving a picture out of the yearbook of a female student who insisted on dressing in a tuxedo instead of female attire.
The suit alleges that the school violated Ceara Sturgis' rights under federal code Title IX, which prohibits discrimination "based on sex and sex stereotypes," and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
"It's unfair and unlawful to force students to conform to outdated notions about what boys and girls should look like," said Christine P. Sun, senior counsel with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project.
Outdated? Perhaps we could solve the attire problem once and for all if everyone - and I mean everyone, including the football team - wore only burqas. It also would cover up those pesky cross necklaces and other Christian symbols, so it would be a win-win for the ACLU.
Back in March, the ACLU went after Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Miss., for canceling a prom because a lesbian wanted to show up with a girlfriend. Failing to allow Constance McMillen, 18, to turn the prom into a circus violated all sorts of constitutional rights to annoy your classmates, the ACLU contended, not in so many words. Constance is doing OK, though, nursing her grievances by starring as a victim of America's intolerance at leftist events.
In the ACLU's world, any public reflection of normalcy is regarded as a "sexual stereotype." In effect, the ACLU is at war with nature and nature's God, who specifically created male and female to be gloriously different and complementary.
Is any school safe from the ACLU's insistence on promoting perversity as diversity? Don't bet on it.
In an October 5 Washington Times op-ed, Robert Knight wrote that "the left is shameless about sin and demands that others celebrate it and pay for its consequences."
Further, Knight wildly inflated the size of the September 2009 tea party rally in Washington, D.C., suggesting that at least 1 million to 1.5 million people attended. As Media Matters has noted, the Washington, D.C., fire department estimated that about 70,000 attended.
From Knight's op-ed:
The pattern has unfolded for years: dirty leftist events and clean conservative events. It's the entitlement mentality versus personal responsibility, playing out on the grassy fields and public streets.
The Obama inauguration crowd on Jan. 20, 2009, for instance, celebrated hope and change by leaving mountains of trash. The Washington Post reported that the crowd of 1 million to 1.5 million generated so much trash that the "rubbish left behind was of historic proportions."
Nine months later, at the Tea Party rally of Sept. 12, with at least as many people and perhaps more, the Mall was virtually free of litter. A lot of people were wearing pants with cuffs, apparently.
The good news is that it's getting harder for the left to cover up its dirty ways.
Not that the left has a monopoly on dirt. There also are folks on the right who think they're entitled to live by a different set of standards than the quaint morality of those they lionize as "the people." The difference is that the left is shameless about sin and demands that others celebrate it and pay for its consequences.
With the guest lineup of World Net Daily's Taking America Back 2010 national conference, it was no surprise that birtherism and bigotry were prevalent throughout the convention. After all, WND's Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi are perhaps most (in)famous for their repeated birther attacks against President Obama.
Displaying shocking ignorance of his own publication, Farah kicked off WND's first national convention by asking if "anyone at WorldNetDaily ever asserted" that President Obama "is foreign-born." We can. It turns out that one of WND's commentators, Craige McMillan, has referred to President Obama as an "illegal alien" in at least three separate posts on WorldNetDaily's website. Despite Farah's suggestion that WorldNetDaily held itself above the tired questions about President Obama's citizenship, Jerome Corsi was quick to jump on the case.
Questioning the president's citizenship, and thus his eligibility as president, was not the only way speakers at WND's convention attacked Obama. Speaker after speaker attacked Obama's faith as a Christian. Jerome Corsi alternatively claimed that Obama "doesn't believe in God" and that he's a Muslim, Floyd Brown claimed that Obama "hates Christianity" and "is a Muslim," while Aaron Klein said that the president "has a certain affinity toward Islam."
Other attacks against Obama included the zombie lie that Obama supported "infanticide" and an absurd demand by Corsi that Obama "come out and renounce Lucifer." Floyd Brown also stated that the "most important step" for the next session of Congress is to impeach President Obama.
Anti-gay bigotry was also out in force at the Taking America Back convention. WorldNetDaily founder, editor, and CEO Joseph Farah suggested gay marriage would lead to "sexual anarchy" and claimed that opposing gay marriage was akin to opposing "sexual offenses" such as "polygamy, incest, statutory rape, child pornography, molestation, [and] prostitution." Noted anti-gay bigot Robert Knight similarly compared a gay marriage ban to bans on polygamy and incest. However, Jerome Corsi refused to be outdone in this vein, going so far as to link same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.*
Speakers at the convention were also, to put it mildly, displeased with Imam Rauf's proposal to build an Islamic community center in Manhattan to serve an existing Muslim community as a place for worship and community. After nine months of right-wing anti-Muslim bigotry and incidents of violence against mosque sites nationwide, WND's speakers decided to rachet up the rhetoric against the Islamic community center by declaring that its intention is to promote further attacks by Muslims against America. Aaron Klein flatly stated that "the individuals behind" the Islamic community center in Manhattan don't "have peaceful intentions." As well, WND speaker William Murray said that the purpose of the community center is to host "raiders" to "do even more damage" in America.
Just how does WorldNetDaily plan to top all of this with its next national convention?
From WND's Taking America Back 2010 convention in Miami, FL:
Loading the player reg...
In an August 11 Washington Times op-ed, Robert Knight wrote that "[p]retending that a brideless or groomless union is a marriage is a fantasy cooked up in hell." Knight added: "The devil is laughing, but not at marriage defenders, who still irk him. He's convulsing with mirth at the lengths to which the intelligentsia will go to deny the obvious."
Knight further compared homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and bestiality, writing: "Marriage as the union of a man and a woman predates all other human institutions. It was not created to annoy homosexuals. Marriage laws exclude all but one man and one unrelated woman. Yet I have not seen any media report the demise of the 'incest ban,' or the 'polygamy ban' or the 'bestiality ban.' "
The Washington Times has frequently featured Knight's anti-gay op-eds as part of its extensive history of promoting anti-gay smears, falsehoods, and distortions.
From Knight's op-ed:
The liberal media are crowing that the death knell of marriage as we know it is a sweet, sweet song. The Washington Post called the Prop. 8 campaign "mean-spirited," and said "It is hard to quarrel with the conclusions of the federal judge" that, as the Post phrases it, traditional marriage serves no "legitimate public policy purpose."
Really? That would be news to millions of voters and legislators in 45 states who have worked hard to strengthen their marriage laws. Or to the 342 congressmen and 85 senators, plus President Clinton, who enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. They all did this out of hatred, according to Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who writes triumphantly: "Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow."
Well, something has suffered a grievous blow. That would be truth itself. Pretending that a brideless or groomless union is a marriage is a fantasy cooked up in hell. The devil is laughing, but not at marriage defenders, who still irk him. He's convulsing with mirth at the lengths to which the intelligentsia will go to deny the obvious.
Marriage as the union of a man and a woman predates all other human institutions. It was not created to annoy homosexuals. Marriage laws exclude all but one man and one unrelated woman. Yet I have not seen any media report the demise of the "incest ban," or the "polygamy ban" or the "bestiality ban." Just because homosexual activists have led the assault is not an excuse to pretend that marriage has only the purpose of excluding them.
The Washington Times has an extensive history of promoting anti-gay smears, falsehoods, and distortions. In the latest example, the Times compared Judge Vaughn Walker, who found California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, to "brutal" Roman Emperor Nero, writing that Nero, "like Judge Vaughn, wanted the community to embrace his unnatural way of life."
In his latest Washington Times op-ed titled, "Wanted: Grown-up governance," Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries sought to paint the current administration as "a gang of perpetual adolescents," adding that brain research "has shown that adolescents ... haven't developed the part of the mind that governs risk aversion." He went on to berate the Obama administration for its fiscal policies and accused "the Washington gang" of "yearn[ing] to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations and international legal elites."
That inanity aside, Knight went on to unleash a torrent of misinformation -- not the first time he's done so.
In the name of love and peace, our nation's adolescent leaders are ignoring the constitutional mandate to secure our border. Instead, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department is suing Arizona for acting like a state run by grown-ups and enforcing federal immigration law. At the same time, Justice is blessing "sanctuary cities" that explicitly vow to ignore the law. Right on, dudes! Mr. Holder also dropped charges against members of the New Black Panther Party who were videotaped intimidating Philadelphia voters in 2008. Wow, look at those cool fatigues and baton!
Many of these power-wielding adolescents in government and the media apparently are unfamiliar with our Constitution. This is by design. When Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was dean of Harvard's Law School, constitutional law was dropped from the list of mandatory courses, while international law was added.
Some basic facts: The Holder Justice Department is not suing the state of Arizona for "enforcing federal immigration law"; DOJ believes the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional -- and numerous experts agree -- and its lawsuit is centered on the fact that immigration policy is "strictly" the purview of the federal government. Further, the Arizona law does not simply "enforc[e] federal immigration law" -- the state law is a dramatic departure from federal policies.
Knight's claim that the attorney general "dropped charges" against members of the New Black Panther Party also has been thoroughly debunked. Fact: The Bush Justice Department made the decision not to pursue criminal charges in the case, and in May 2009, the Obama DOJ "sought and obtained" the "maximum penalty" against one of the New Black Panthers accused of carrying a baton outside the polling station.
Knight's claim that as dean of Harvard Law, Kagan "dropped" constitutional law from its list of "mandatory classes" in favor of international law is false as well. The facts: Prior to Kagan's tenure, constitutional law at Harvard was not a requirement for first-year law students. Furthermore, Kagan did not drop con-law, but added "new first-year courses in international and comparative law, legislation and regulation, and complex problem solving," which were unanimously approved.
To grown-ups, facts do matter.
In a July 16 Washington Times op-ed, Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries claimed that the left has tried "to instigate racial animosity in America" and called the NAACP's resolution denouncing "racist elements" within the tea party movement "absurd," claiming that it was "the latest gambit in the campaign to divide Americans and perhaps even to spark violence."
So it had to sting for Knight when, two days later, a prominent tea party leader was expelled from the movement over a racially charged blog post.
While Knight's claim was already weak -- Media Matters has documented the right-wing media's desperate attempt to erase evidence of bigotry and racism from within the tea party movement -- it completely collapsed on Sunday when tea party leader Mark Williams and his organization were expelled from the National Tea Party Federation over a racially charged blog post written by Williams.
Media Matters has previously noted Williams' long history of incendiary and racially charged remarks.
Knight also used his Times column space to trumpet the phony New Black Panthers scandal, claiming that "Justice Department officials won't prosecute any cases involving minority defendants, according to J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney who resigned in protest." Media Matters has documented that Adams is a right-wing activist whose accusations don't stand up to the facts and that numerous media and political figures, including Fox News contributors and Republicans, have dismissed the phony scandal. In fact, the Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has called the case "small potatoes" and recently stated that her fellow conservatives on the commission said they wanted to use the case to damage the Obama administration.
On top of that, Knight pushed the false claim that Arizona's controversial new immigration law "bars racial profiling." In fact, law enforcement officers have expressed the concern that the law introduces racial profiling, and legal experts have rejected the claim that the law's language eliminates the risk of racial profiling.
Not surprising from a Washington Times contributor whose last column was a homophobic screed fearmongering about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.