Washington Times columnist Robert Knight wants the government to remove a transgender child from her parents and charge her parents “with endangerment, abuse and whatever else the authorities can find to deter such criminal insanity.”
Knight is referring to Tammy Lobel, the adopted daughter of a lesbian couple. Tammy, born Thomas, is on hormone blockers to delay puberty and her parents support her decision to live as a girl.
Knight claims that the parents’ support for their “acquired” daughter represents “child abuse,” and said that the only “civilized response to this news is to rescue the boy, revoke the adoption” and prosecute the parents.
According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry child’s gender identity, despite Knight’s suggestion, is not related to whether they are raised by opposite or same-sex parents. As Zack Ford at Think Progress notes, “Children understand gender by the age of 2, including their own, and Tammy was indicating she was a girl by age 3 and threatening to mutilate her own genitals at age 7,” and Tammy’s disposition and personality significantly improved after she began her transition.
Meanwhile, a bizarre child-abuse case is unfolding in California that the media are ignoring. State authorities should have stepped in long ago to stop the abuse — except that they apparently approve of it. After all, the parents are the perps.
Here’s what’s happening.
Two lesbians in Berkeley are turning their adopted 11-year-old boy into a girl. Seriously. The lad, who they acquired at age 2, is being given drugs via an implant on his left arm to block his puberty. The next step would be a surgery that will mutilate him forever. It’s supposed to be fine because the boy, Thomas, has bought into the idea. The two women say that the drug scheme will give the boy, now named Tammy, more time to think it over.
And we’re supposed to be OK with this?
Children cannot give meaningful consent to such an earth-shattering decision, which is why adults must protect them from their own folly. We must also protect them from child abuse, no matter the source.
The civilized response to this news is to rescue the boy, revoke the adoption and charge the women with endangerment, abuse and whatever else the authorities can find to deter such criminal insanity. The next step would be to take a hard look at an adoption process that allows such horrors to be committed and even encourages them.
Where are the adults? Where are the liberals who so often skate over legitimate parental rights in their quest to use government force to dictate child rearing?
American Civil Rights Union fellow Robert Knight has a column in the Washington Times today blasting President Obama and the American Civil Liberties Union for acting like Soviet commissar trying to extinguish religious liberty. Knight cites an upcoming Supreme Court case surrounding the town of Greece, New York, in which two non-Christian residents sued the town for exclusively inviting Christian pastors to open council meetings in prayer. The residents claimed that the town violated the establishment clause and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
But that is an interesting case for Knight to pick as proof that Obama is undermining the freedom of religion, since the Obama administration actually sided with the town of Greece.
Ever feel like an “outsider?”
If you have, then you have license to stamp out any public activity that you find religiously offensive.
That’s the claim advanced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups that have taken a chain saw to the First Amendment. They intend to establish secularist sentiment as the only acceptable public expression.
Like the Soviet Union’s commissars and President Obama, they support “the freedom to worship,” a cramped view of religious freedom that protects essentially nothing. You can do what you want behind closed doors or inside your head. God help you, though, if you want to have an active faith and exercise your constitutional freedom outside those doors. Since before America’s founding, public meetings have opened with prayer. Usually, atheists or people of other faiths who find the mostly Christian prayers meaningless shrug and get on with business.
Increasingly, professional pests like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are using lawsuits to stamp out freedom of religion.
A key case at the U.S. Supreme Court may help sort things out. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the town council of the upstate New York town contends that prayers before meetings do not violate the Establishment Clause. They note that George Washington prayed in public and that Congress opens with prayer.
No, the unraveling of a civilization takes time, even when it’s proceeding at blinding speed, aided by government coercion.
The American Civil Rights Union’s Robert Knight is calling for Southern California to secede from the rest of the state over marriage equality. Falsely claiming that same-sex marriages are only allowed in the northern part of the state, Knight writes that Southern Californians now have “more incentive to push secession.”
He goes on to warn that the American Civil Liberties Union is “proclaiming jihad” against states that ban same-sex marriage and will receive assistance from “ruling elites, who are determined to refashion America into an updated version of Sodom.”
According to Knight, one of those “elites” is Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he claims is “the most powerful man in America when it comes to advancing the homosexual agenda” and is responsible for turning the Supreme Court into “the most prominent hate group in the country.”
By accusing backers of traditional marriage of being motivated only by animus against homosexuals, the U.S. Supreme Court has become the most prominent hate group in the country.
It’s hateful to defame people by falsely accusing them of bigotry. If you want to see how it’s done, check out the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been defaming Christians for years. Or read Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor.
Proponents apparently knew the fix was in. The American Civil Liberties Union ran a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal the next day, proclaiming jihad against the 36 states that aren’t in the “freedom to marry party.” As for the freedom of millions who disagree? Ah, well.
The jihad won’t stop with the same-sex counterfeit. If sexual complementarity is no longer a valid requirement, why should marriage be limited to two people?
Justice Kennedy has emerged as the most powerful man in America when it comes to advancing the homosexual agenda and uprooting Judeo-Christian sexual morality. In 1996, he wrote the Romer v. Evans ruling that struck down Colorado’s voter-approved Amendment Two, which barred inclusion of the amorphous “sexual orientation” in state and local statutes. Clear-headed Coloradans had seen how such a term could be abused to distort civil rights and tried to head it off.
They ran into the buzz saw of a liberal judiciary, topped by Justice Kennedy’s unctuous ruling accusing them of bigotry.
In 2003, Justice Kennedy struck again. Citing junk science and foreign laws, he wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that vacated anti-sodomy laws. It helped that the state’s advocates didn’t bother making a public health case against behavior that still accounts for the bulk of new HIV infections in America and a host of other deadly illnesses. If you keep throwing away aces, don’t expect to win the poker game.
Wednesday’s related Hollingsworth v. Perry, a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice John (“I learned to love Obamacare, and you can, too”) G. Roberts Jr., denied standing for defenders of California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 constitutional marriage amendment. Instead of hearing the merits, they punted it back to the court where U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had struck it down.
By ducking the case, the Supremes managed to put another bullet into marriage, not to mention self-government. The takeaway: Any time an executive branch official disagrees with a constitutionally enacted law or amendment, the law is null and void. This means that governors, like the president, are now more like kings than public servants constrained by constitutional divisions of power.
The concept of self-rule is fast becoming only a speed bump to the ruling elites, who are determined to refashion America into an updated version of Sodom. They will let nothing, certainly not state laws or the U.S. Constitution, get in the way. Judge Walker, who is homosexual and should have recused himself, could find no societal reason for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman other than “animus” towards homosexuals.
Judge Walker’s ruling applies only to the Northern District of California, leaving the rest of the state’s law intact. This gives Southern Californians more incentive to push secession. For years, sensible Southland folks have wanted not to reside in a state represented in Washington by Rep. Nancy Pelosi or in Sacramento by Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown.
There would have to be a gerrymander, with Hollywood joining the north, but politicians are good at this.
I hope they can pull it off, but I wonder where the rest of us are going to live when mere belief in the biblical definition of marriage is grounds for civil action and eventually criminal prosecution?
It’s not as if we can trust the courts to give us justice.
Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union today penned an “if I were the devil” column, inspired by radio commentator Paul Harvey. As you probably already guessed, he claims Satan is pushing marriage equality to attack religious people, convinced the Boy Scouts to “commit suicide” by including openly gay scouts and expanded healthcare access through Obamacare.
Knight, while writing for the Unification Church-tied Washington Times, called the Episcopal Church a “subsidiary” of the Devil and claimed the government is becoming a Satanic tool to “throttle freedom of speech, religion and association,” to use same-sex marriage to “unleash the power of the state against all those ‘religious’ folks” and convinced the Boy Scouts to “commit suicide.”
If I were Beelzebub, I’d work to destroy Western civilization, because its chief religions, Christianity and Judaism, have a timeless book that reminds people of my existence. I’m most effective when unacknowledged.
To this end, I’m working to do away with institutions that are in the way of my goal of destroying humanity. These pesky confederations include churches, observant temples, private groups and governments that support so-called traditional values such as honor, fidelity in marriage, strong families, personal responsibility, civic pride, charity and patriotism.
When these things are compromised, I move on to the game board’s next square — economic freedom, which I cannot abide and which cannot thrive without the virtues imparted by those irritating groups just mentioned. For a look at one of my greatest successes, take a walk through what used to be Detroit.
Once free enterprise is broken to the saddle of the state, I can throttle freedom of speech, religion and association, using some of the giant corporations spawned in the unprecedented liberty created by America’s system of constitutional rights, including private property.
In fact, I used some of those firms just the other day to induce the Boy Scouts of America to commit suicide, one of my prized outcomes. Under corporate-donor pressure, the Scout leadership threw aside the common-sense rule preventing open expression of homosexuality. This pretty much did the trick in Canada. It may take a few years, but the Scouts in the United States are finished, believe me. If you like what you see in the inner cities among fatherless boys, you’ll thank me later.
In 1993, the Girl Scouts USA opened their leader ranks to lesbians and atheists and adopted a policy allowing girls to substitute “Allah” or “Buddha” or perhaps “Elvira” in the Girl Scout promise, “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country.” Most of the girls and their local leaders peddling cookies are blissfully unaware of such fundamental ferment at the top, and I’m determined to keep it that way. So keep this under your hat, will you?
Other projects going smoothly include weeding Christians out of the U.S. armed forces, concentrating ever more power in Washington, D.C., through Obamacare, expanding the Infernal Revenue Service (no, it’s not a typo), opening the floodgates of pornography even wider, and pushing for universal preschool to get the tykes away from bothersome parents sooner.
Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be finishing up perhaps my most important project since World War II: Using the Supreme Court to wreck the most vital, irreplaceable institution in society — marriage. If I can persuade one more justice that the Constitution harbors the “right” to abolish marriage through radical redefinition, I can unleash the power of the state against all those “religious” folks who cling to their, well, religion.
But not all of them.
One of my subsidiaries, the Episcopal Church USA, is doing marvelous work muddying up what the Bible clearly says is right and wrong. I’m thinking of upping their budget to purchase a new, improved smoke machine.
With Religious Right activists increasingly torn over the debate on immigration reform, American Civil Rights Union senior fellow and Washington Times columnist Robert Knight is warning Republicans of grave consequences if they support the bipartisan Senate bill.
He claims that offering a pathway to citizenship for “unregistered Democrats” means that the GOP will commit “political suicide”: “flooding America with millions more people who have no understanding of constitutional, limited government is a fast track to dependency, one-party rule and socialism.”
The bill would have to go to a House-Senate conference committee, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would almost certainly trash border enforcement and ensure mass amnesty for an estimated 11 million illegal aliens, also known as “unregistered Democrats.”
On immigration, the best thing the House could do right now is nothing. The immigration “crisis” did not emerge overnight, and it will take years to sort out. The United States needs a secure border and hard-working, legal immigrants, not anarchy. But Democrats and big-business Republicans are hoping to stampede the House GOP leadership into committing political suicide. Flooding America with millions more people who have no understanding of constitutional, limited government is a fast track to dependency, one-party rule and socialism.
The immigration gambit is part of an overall political game plan that has become strikingly obvious:
Print billions of dollars to keep Wall Street happy while the Main Street economy caves under the weight of thousands of new regulations and impending Obamacare taxes. Issue misleading reports about unemployment that seriously underestimate the number of people out of work.
Make as many people dependent on government as possible. Begin by adding millions of people to achieve a shocking 50 percent increase in food-stamp recipients.
Finally, rely on the media to pretend that the growing abuses of power in Washington, including the Benghazi, Libya, killings and cover-up, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, and the NSA’s massive personal-data grab, have nothing to do with “the most transparent administration in history.” These are the people we’re supposed to trust on immigration reform.
What’s that? The media are ticked that the Justice Department seized Associated Press reporters’ phone records and labeled Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible criminal co-conspirator?
They’ll get over it. Or maybe they’ll start doing their job, such as reporting the real costs of illegal immigration.
The lesson of the Jason Collins story, according to Religious Right activists, is that true courage is found in attacking gay people… since not enough people are doing it these days.
In his daily radio bulletin, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council contended that Chris Broussard, the sportscaster who claimed that Jason Collins was rebelling against God, showed “real courage,” unlike Collins…because no one criticized him for being gay, except for Broussard (and many, many, many others).
Jason Collins doesn't play for the Trailblazers, but he's being treated like one. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. When the NBA's Jayson Collins announced he was gay, people were literally jumping through hoops to praise him. But if you want to know what real courage looks like, try standing up for truth. NBA reporter Chris Broussard did--and he found out that coming out as Christian might be harder than admitting you're gay. "There [are] a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant ...[T]rue tolerance and acceptance is being able to [act like] mature adults and not call each other names." Personally, Chris said, he didn't know how Collins could reconcile homosexuality with his faith. "If you're openly living in unrepentant sin... not just homosexuality, [but] adultery... premarital sex... whatever... that's walking in open rebellion to God..." ESPN apologized for his comments, but they should have been sorrier for fouling up the debate.
The American Civil Right Union’s Robert Knight made the same case in the Washington Times, arguing that the really brave people are those who attacked Jason Collins since not enough people attacked him.
“A lynch mob is chasing ESPN the Magazine writer Chris Broussard,” Knight writes, “Like openly devout quarterback Tim Tebow, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Broussard are the brave ones — rocks in a flood tide of insanity and cowardice.”
When pro basketball player Jason Collins “came out,” the media went nuts. He was toasted from coast to coast, received congratulatory phone calls from President Obama and Bill Clinton, and made magazine covers.
On May 1, Washington Post sportswriter Mike Wise joined the parade by bashing “Old Testament moral certainty” and denouncing anyone who “trumpeted their bigotry under the guise of ‘religious beliefs.’” There’s no hint in Mr. Wise’s vitriolic column that someone could possibly hold sincere, faith-based moral beliefs. Bullies like the oxymoronically named Mr. Wise are types that the Age of Tolerance is spawning by the truckload.
This brings us to our final word, which is “brave.” Mr. Collins was widely hailed as brave, but it’s the few people who dared question the wisdom of his volitional behavior who are brave.
A lynch mob is chasing ESPN the Magazine writer Chris Broussard because he reiterated classic Christian doctrine to an interviewer: “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be — not just homosexuality, [but] adultery, fornication, premarital sex, whatever it may be — I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian, because I don’t think the Bible would characterize him as a Christian.”
Another brave soul is Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III, who on April 30 tweeted: “In a land of freedom, we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness.” Like openly devout quarterback Tim Tebow, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Broussard are the brave ones — rocks in a flood tide of insanity and cowardice.
As we watch word after word twisted into doublespeak by corrupt elites, it brings to mind George Orwell’s observation: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Truth In Action Ministries, which last year produced a film warning that the “radical homosexual agenda” will destroy America like an iceberg hitting the Titanic, is out with a new short film opposing gay members in the Boy Scouts. Featuring Religious Right leaders like Bob Knight of the American Civil Rights Union, Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the anti-gay activists warn that gays pose a physical and spiritual danger to children and do away with morality.
Watch highlights here:
Washington Times contributor Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union warns in a column today that “the left’s drive for ‘gay rights’ poses the greatest domestic threat to the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly.” He asserts that legalizing same-sex marriage “will lead to less freedom and more government” as “civil rights enforcement becomes a gun aimed at the head of citizens, forcing them to choose between God and Caesar.”
“Tyranny is masquerading as enlightenment,” Knight writes, arguing that the effort to overturn statutes banning same-sex marriage is really a drive to “repeal reality.”
Recently, Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, announced support for homosexual “marriage” because his son is homosexual.
It’s one thing to have unconditional love and compassion toward a friend or loved one, and another thing to redefine marriage for the whole nation. Public policy is the force of law. Civil libertarians who are jumping aboard the homosexual “marriage” bandwagon might want to stop and consider why this will lead to less freedom and more government.
Sundered by no-fault divorce and cohabitation, marriage as a “genderless” institution will lose even more legitimacy and contribute less to stability, prosperity and self-sufficiency. As nuclear families fail, government grows to pick up the pieces — and to enforce the new reality.
This brings us to the bigger picture. The left’s drive for “gay rights” poses the greatest domestic threat to the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly. When traditional morality is equated with racist bigotry, civil rights enforcement becomes a gun aimed at the head of citizens, forcing them to choose between God and Caesar. That should never happen in America, where our Founders said rights come from our Creator, not capricious man, who can mistake fashion for morality.
In Massachusetts, which legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2004, public schools openly entice children to try homosexual behavior despite well-documented health risks. Penalties are enforced against dissenters. People are losing jobs. Catholic Charities, the largest Massachusetts provider of foster homes for orphans, closed its doors rather than give up placing children only in married, mother-father homes. Tyranny is masquerading as enlightenment.
In New Jersey, the Southern Poverty Law Center is suing Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) under consumer fraud law. They contend that no one can overcome this particular temptation, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
In California, legislators passed a law making it criminal for parents to take their children to counselors for help in overcoming unwanted same-sex desires — even children who have been molested. A court has enjoined the law for now, but is this still America, land of the free and home of the brave?
Yet, conservatives, the GOP and even the Tea Parties are told they must bow before this increasingly intolerant movement. President Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Lady Gaga and the Democratic Party embrace homosexual “marriage,” so it must advance conservative principles, right?
Laurie Higgins, a perceptive writer for the Illinois Family Institute, asks this question: “What if Portman’s son had announced he was bisexual or polyamorous? Would Portman then seek to have the government recognize plural unions as marriages? Imagine if everyone decided that the ‘Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion’ and the ‘belief that we’re all children of God’ compel us to affirm all the feelings, beliefs and life choices of our loved ones. The truth is, it is entirely possible to deeply love people while finding their feelings, beliefs and life choices disordered or false. In this wildly diverse world, most of us do it all the time.”
Instead, we’re being asked to repeal reality, which is an unreasonable and dangerous request.
American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today warned listeners that gay rights advocates are promoting a form of “fascism” and that gay equality will result in a “lack of freedom.”
Rios: We all watched the inauguration recently of the President and we saw on the platform where things lie. We know that if you think that homosexuality is a problem you will not be allowed into public service hardly in any way. If you think that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt, if you have a problem with that, then you are out of the adoption business. I think it is fascism personally; I would go to that extreme and say that, it’s a lack of freedom.
Her guest Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union also criticized gay rights supporters and argued that any shift in the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay membership “would destroy the Boy Scouts,” and later called for a “new board of directors” who would not “entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals.”
Knight: What they are saying is they are going to leave it up to parents and local councils and Scout troops on whether to allow homosexual leaders and members in. This would destroy the Boy Scouts, let’s cut to the chase, what parent would put their young boy under the authority of men who are attracted to males and take them camping and swimming, etcetera. It’s not designed to make the scouts fairer it’s designed to destroy the Boy Scouts as we know them.
Rios: There’s really no pressure in the courts and the financial pressures they were facing earlier had subsided so this is like a new assault on them, isn’t it? Now they are coming out because of the corporate angle.
Knight: Yeah and I think what people have to do is say the Boy Scouts need a new board of directors if they are going to entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals. This is about getting corporate money so they can keep their fat headquarters in Texas. Think about it, Scout troops raise money locally they can survive just fine without corporate donations, but not the people at the top, they are the ones who ought to be replaced.
Mission America’s Linda Harvey hosted Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union this weekend and expressed her dismay that the Jewish community in the U.S. is not rallying en masse against President Obama, as polls show that Obama has a commanding lead among Jewish voters, and that she has even met Jews in Israel who favor Obama. Knight explained Jewish support for Obama by arguing that he is merely winning the backing of secular Jews, pointing to his former chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel who he said “is Jewish himself but he is secular Jewish” (both Emmanuel and Obama’s current chief of staff Jack Lew are Orthodox Jews). "Liberal politics is the religion, that’s the mindset, that’s the values world that they live in,” Knight claimed, and Harvey added that “Judaism for those folks who are secularists are just an identifier, kind of tribal, but in so many ways they just don’t get it.
Harvey: There is so much of a legacy of traditional liberal values lining up with pretty much secular Jews and that’s true in the US too, and their eyes are being opened, don’t you think?
Knight: I do, I think when the election rolls around we’ll see a record percentage of Jewish votes for the Republican candidate. Not that they love Mitt Romney but I think that they fear Barack Obama and they’ve seen him in any number of ways signal to Israel that he’s not their friend. It’s kind of funny because of his chief of staff used to be Rahm Emmanuel who is Jewish himself but he is secular Jewish, his family wasn’t but he is. Apparently, liberal politics is the religion, that’s the mindset, that’s the values world that they live in.
Harvey: Judaism for those folks who are secularists are just an identifier, kind of tribal, but in so many ways they just don’t get it. But they’re starting to I think so many folks are waking up and are starting to understand that this man is no friend to Israel and will betray you.
Harvey, who earlier argued that Obama “bends over backwards for Islam while sticking it to Christians time and again,” asserted that liberals are now aiding advocates of Sharia law, which Knight said is because both groups “hate America” and are “trying to destroy Judeo-Christian America.”
Harvey: Anybody who is an apologist for Islam is no friend to liberalism, either, I find myself looking at these strange bedfellows of all the left who are such apologists for the repressive values of people that advocate Sharia.
Knight: It’s a weird alliance…what they have in common is the liberal left hates America and the Islamists hate America and they have common cause, trying to destroy Judeo-Christian America, that is the main enemy.