A recent column published in The Washington Times by Robert Knight bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theorist’s ravings. Hell-bent on the ruination of voters’ opinions of the Obama Administration, Mr. Knight has written a piece worthy of the best propagandists of our time.
Mr. Knight first attacked Obama and his administration’s ignorance of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Enacted in 1996, says that only a man and a woman can be considered as married, and allows states to be released from all liability in having to recognize same sex unions from other states. What’s wrong with Obama’s interest in killing it? It’s in the hands of the courts anyway. In the end, he won’t really have any say as to the final decision.
Next Mr. Knight next picked upon the administration for failing to defend the 15thAmendment as the right to vote. On November 8, 2008, two Black Panthers (yes, only two) stood in front of a door to a polling place in Philadelphia. One of them was a “poll watcher”; the other, another Panther who seemed to think that brandishing a nightstick was appropriate. A few voters left rather than entering, and the police were called. The nightstick-bearing Panther was removed, while the poll watcher was allowed to stay. Not one person filed a complaint with the government. As a result, the decision to persecute the Black Panthers in general was dropped. How can the actions of one individual relate to the entire group? He was obviously a little mental, and was dealt with appropriately. Republican vice-chair Abigail Thernstrom wrote a piece for National Review Online about why the commission didn’t aggressively go after the Panthers: “Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division. [National Review Online, 7/6/10]” The Obama administration was not at fault here, and the decision not to penalize all of the Panthers appears to be fair. To continue to waste money on litigating it (and the money that was already wasted) would have been foolish. Two Panthers do not make an army, do they?
Mr. Knight went on to state: “The Obama administration has ignored the illegal actions of “sanctuary cities” and sued the state of Arizona in July 2010 for enforcing federal law.” Arizona decided that it would be prudent to give their police the right to pull over and check the immigration status of anyone they want to. This amounts to racial profiling, and the government got angry over it. U.S. Customs and Border Protection showed that its statistics were getting better when curtailing jumps at the border, but Arizona disagrees. They have since filed a counter-suit.
“Cap and trade”: In 2010, the Senate rejected a sweeping environmental bill that would have created a massive federal carbon regulation system. Despite this, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would treat carbon dioxide (the air we breathe out) as a pollutant and begin cracking down on America’s businesses and power plants.” This implies that the EPA is going to knock on your door and tell you that you’re breathing too much! (Of course he probably did not mean it this way, but that’s the way it reads.) In 2010, the EPA discovered that 13 states failed to report their carbon emissions: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska; Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming. As a direct result, the EPA decided to enforce those states’ carbon emissions anyway. It’s like your boss asking for your travel expense report. Say you failed to supply it? Wouldn’t your boss cap your spending, if he couldn’t figure out what you were doing with the company credit card? On saying that the EPA has become a “law” unto itself, well, one should rephrase that: “law enforcement body” might have been a better description, but it’s not especially true. Once again, one has to wonder, what is Mr. Knight defending: the unregulated pollution of our atmosphere by giant corporations? As for the judge’s ruling about drilling in the gulf: the government basically said, “We didn’t really get all the info from BP, and we want more time to figure out how to word a new suspension decision about drilling”. It appears that they are allowing shallow drilling (under 500 feet), but need data to support the safety of drilling in deep waters. They politely asked the judge not to go against them until they’d made a final decision. The judge sidestepped them again, lifting the ban. Now the Obama administration must issue an Emergency Application to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, if they are willing to see this out. It is highly possible that the appeals court will favor the Oil Companies and drop the moratorium. So no big deal, they’ll be drilling unregulated by the government pretty soon.
“Obscenity laws:” We’re discussing the First Amendment here, and the enforcement of the obscenity law. Knight complains: “the Internet is awash in illegal obscenity and even mainstream hotels peddle obscene materials via pay TV.” He also stated “U.S. attorneys don’t bother to enforce the law anymore, given the direction from the top.” Does Mr. Knight know that we have enough problems right now? Isn’t it possible that jobs creation is more important than suing a hotel for selling The Playboy Channel? And just whom would our government going go after for selling/promoting/and posting obscenity on the Internet? I’m guessing it would have to be almost the entire population of the world. Haven’t we all posted a bad word now and then? How many men and women have visited porn websites out of curiosity? Take note, too, that there is a growing and steady market for Internet porn. What are we going to do, shut down successful businesses now, in this economy? Mr. Knight appears to be living in the 1950’s.
Again, Mr. Knight harped on the First Amendment and suggested that the National Labor Relations Board is overstepping its authority to decide where Boeing should build its new plant. Union employees in Washington State are clamoring that they want it at home, while Boeing has decided to build in North Carolina. The trouble is that the NLRB has every right to counter Boeing because they have the authority to act in cases of interstate commerce, especially if it stands to negatively impact a state’s economy.
Since, through very little investigation, Mr. Knights’ comments can be completely disproved, why waste time on posting further proof as to his state of mind? He has made some hilarious remarks about Obama being pro-Islamic (when what Obama meant in his speech was obviously a comment on rights in the U.S. for even folks who practice Islam [Freedom of Religion]), that his attempt to rein in the Healthcare System was also unconstitutional: what does it matter, it’s over anyway…And finally, “Mr. Obama’s failure as commander in chief to lead our armed forces with honor.” One could also counter that with an argument that Bush had no right to start a war in the first place, did he? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has fallen, and we have yet to see if it will change the U.S. military. Why jump on it as a source of resentment? Doesn’t this speak to the rights of LGBT people to serve their country freely without fear of persecution?
“Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.” Americans should be frightened that a respected columnist is propaganda like this. Yes, the government has cut into our freedoms and civil rights, but in completely other and more important ways. Most of the loss of our freedoms occurred during the Bush Administration, in the name of Homeland Security. It is clear that this article was bent upon the dissemination of false statements without research and the toppling of the Obama Administration. It is a statement of the times, when respected reporters attempt to undermine their own government. It also speaks to the possible use of the media by person or persons unknown for their own gain. Until we hear more from Mr. Knight on his outburst, one might have to assume both.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/16/obama-tears-up-the-constitution/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/04/black-panthers-intimidating-voters-philadelphia-polling-station
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201102010009
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0211/With-lawsuit-Arizona-tries-to-stare-down-Obama-on-illegal-immigration
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-13/pdf/2010-30854.pdf#page=1
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/Obama_accused_of_defying_court_on_drilling_ban.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/u-s-deepwater-oil-drilling-ban-lifted-today-by-new-orleans-federal-judge.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board