Secrecy in the Boy Scouts? Meh.


Here it comes. Yet another email from Change.org pleading the case of gays who want to completely rework the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization with private membership and private donors, operating completely under the protections of the First Amendment and a year 2000 court ruling upholding the same.

Oh, but the folks at Change.org don’t let a little thing like court rulings on Constitutionality bother them (unless it’s not working for their side).

Ok, Change.org-ies, let’s spell it out nice and clear. Starting with a layman’s common understanding as is found on Wikipedia.

Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group’s expression. However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group’s ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts’ right to free association.

Still not clear?

The point of view we advocate is, in part, moral straightness. The foundation of the Boy Scout movement is firmly established on a 1910 understanding of morality, which arguably eschewed homosexuality as a qualified behavior under the banner of moral straightness.

“Well,” you say, “these are modern times. It’s not 1910 anymore. Things have changed, and we must change with them. Let us be more Progressive in our ideals of what makes up morality!”

That is your opinion. The First Amendment protects your view just as much as it does ours. The courts, as noted above, have already made this plain.

Here’s the problem. Implied in that statement is the premise that everyone who doesn’t agree with you should be forced to change. That is antithetical to the First Amendment. Such change by force does great violence to my freedom to speak, think, or write as I choose. It imposes a Thought Police mentality on every action and behavior and philosophy produced by the organization, from then on.

Scouts reaffirm the scout oath at the 2007 Wor...

Scouts reaffirm the scout oath at the 2007 World Scout Jamborree (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the contrary, there is no implication in the Scout Oath that anyone outside of the organization is under any obligation to live the BSA’s definition of morally straight.  There is also not even a hint that anyone not subscribing to the BSA’s Scout Oath would be forced to join the organization.

There is no evil conspiracy in this. The fact that the committee is a secret one has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of its decisions, nor on the organization. The BSA has chosen a military/democratic hybrid command structure and not a purely democratic structure for its hierarchy and governance. They can do that! It’s America!

Yet, scouting under the BSA’s bylaws is a completely voluntary oath and association! Those who no longer wish to associate in that way are free to leave the BSA and join or start another organization!

In fact, if you check the history of the Scout Oath (Promise) you will find that, under the non-binding bylaws of the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM), the Boy Scouts counterpart to the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), the Oath has changed according to various combinations of age, nationality, culture, and belief. That’s not rigid at all! It’s quite accommodating, in fact. Therefore, isn’t it obvious that the door is wide open for anyone who wishes to may indeed create their own organization governed by their own points of view and ideals?

A “Gay Boy Scouts of America”? Sure! Why not? A “World Organization of the Gay Scout Movement”? Do it! Put your efforts into building your own sandbox and castle instead of telling people in another sandbox how to build their castle.

What about that is so hard to understand? I just don’t get it. Enlighten me, please.

Boy Scouts Reaffirm Right to Assemble Upheld by Supreme Court


History of the Boy Scouts of America

In 2000, gays tried to bully their way into the Boy Scouts of America, an organization with a primary oath that includes being morally straight. The oath of the BSA is no secret. Everyone who joins the BSA necessarily takes that oath. I guess the gay lobby doesn’t mind ignoring that part.

Here we are in 2012 and gays are still trying their best to infiltrate through “test case law” and sabotage one of the last organizations in the world to stand its ground against homosexuality in its ranks.

As I have said repeatedly, and will continue to assert in light of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of the people to assemble freely and privately, it is well within the rights of gay agitators to start their own organization to cater to their every whim and lust. If they want to start a Gay Boy Scouts of America or Rainbow Scouts of America, they are perfectly within their right to do so. I will say not one word against them so long as they don’t try to pass it off as the same organization as or on par with or sanctioned by the Boy Scouts of America.

However, it looks as if they aren’t really all that interested in a scouting organization per se. No, this is all about payback and infiltration and cultural imperialism. This time around, they’re no longer shy about their motives and way of operating from within to destroy an organization’s founding principles.

The announcement suggests that hurdles may be high for a couple of members of the national executive board — Ernst & Young CEO James Turley andAT&T CEO Randall Stephenson — who have recently indicated they would try to work from within to change the policy. Both of their companies have been commended by gay-rights groups for gay-friendly employment policies.

Stephenson is on track to become president of the Scouts’ national board in 2014, and will likely face [ED: and give in to] continued pressure from gay-rights groups to try to end the exclusion policy. Asked for comment on Tuesday about the Scouts’ decision to keep the policy, AT&T did not refer to Stephenson’s situation specifically: “We don’t agree with every policy of every organization we support, nor would we expect them to agree with us on everything,” the company said. “Our belief is that change at any organization must come from within to be successful and sustainable.”

There you have it, from the mouth of a plant from the gay “rights” lobby. If we can’t destroy from the outside, we’ll destroy from the inside.

I hereby call on the BSA to remove Turley and Stephenson from the national executive board. Stephenson, especially, is a Trojan Horse.

That is all.

Boy Scouts feel a mother’s wrath – CNN.com


When will people realize that the Constitution guarantees freedom of association? If they want a gay Boy Scouts, they can start a gay Boy Scouts. There’s no need to cause all this wrath and conflict.

When you join the BSA, you are given every opportunity to understand its values and expected behaviors. “Morally straight” is right there in the Boy Scout Promise. Some people, unfortunately, join the BSA just for the purpose of causing trouble.

Sorry, nothing quoteworthy in this “journalism”. It’s all just cheerleading, mob raising, and GLSEN and GLAAD talking points I’m seeing in here.

via Boy Scouts feel a mother’s wrath – CNN.com.

News of the obvious: Conservatives better educated on political issues than Liberals


Obamanomics at Work
Obamanomics at Work (Photo credit: wstera2)

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”

The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

“Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.

The widest partisan gap in the survey came in at 30 points when only 46 percent of Democrats — but 76 percent of Republicans —- correctly described the GOP as “the party generally more supportive of reducing the size of federal government.”

The widest difference that favored Democrats was only 8 percent, when 59 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats recognized the liberal party as “more [supportive] of reducing the defense budget.”

The survey quizzed 1,000 people, including 239 Republicans and 334 Democrats.

Multiple black-on-white crime unreported by media? Says who? | Deep Brain Media, Inc.


Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000
Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime 2000 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Point of fact: I am not a racist. I just believe that justice is blind. All allegations and accusations ought to be afforded the same weight of investigation, whether it be by the media or by the police. All crimes ought to be prosecuted…not just so-called “hate crimes” that are defined as such by whatever minority happens to be loudest at a given moment in legislative history.

Now, on to the rest of the story.

Apparently, to get into the club of “hate crime victim”, one has to have either be part of the right protected group, or have an amazing PR team, like “Reverend” Jesse Jackson of the Pushy Rainbows, or “Reverend” Al “Kill-all-the-Jews-in-Hymietown” Sharptongue.

“Deep Brain” Bill Schmalfeldt gives us the criteria in his post defending the media’s decision to ignore these stories:

First, there is no evidence that the media even censored this one case.  The victim “e-mailed” two TV stations and a newspaper.  If you really wanted media attention, you would call them, not e-mail them.  E-mails are easy to ignore and are read by underlings who decide whether or not to pass them up to a reporter.  A direct phone call to the news director at a radio or TV station is much more likely to get results!

So, it’s the victim’s fault if the newspaper accidentally tosses into the “Spam” folder a first-hand account of a crime by the victim? Rrriiiiiight.

Also, the “reporter” Bill Schmalfeldt “interviewed” the victim via his Facebook account and gave us the transcript (or was it just snippets? who knows?):

When I got home I was bleeding, no insurance, and tired. I just wanted to sleep and, at the time I felt to myself “what will the police do anyways?” I called the Police the next day and they told me to come down to make a report I also called a detective unit but got a voice mail.

I did not go to the station as I could barely walk the next day and was in so much pain. Only when the detective called me back some 36 hours later did he tell me the police could come to me to take a report.

and then provides this brilliant journalistic analysis,

Jason says the detective mentioned these [other black-on-white] cases to him, but there is no evidence of that.  No proof of that.  And proof is the standard by which we must weigh cases like this.  Anyone can say anything they like.  Can you prove it?  And there is the problem.

Proof!  We need proof!  We asked the writer for some proof.  He has been silent since last night.

Mr. Schmalfeldt, crime is messy. It doesn’t conform to your deadlines. It’s messy for the perps, but it’s messiest for the victims, who have to sort out psychologically what has happened to them and what to do next. This process varies from person to person and won’t fit neatly into your crime reporting template in Word.

Proof? How about just the facts?

Fact:
A man reported he was chased and beat up by criminals with a chain after leaving a bar.

Same for the flip side…

Fact: A man reported he was chased and beat up by criminals with a chain after leaving a bar.

What’s missing from both facts? That’s right. Race. Because crime knows no race. It’s just a crime no matter the skin color of the perp or the victim. Just report what happened. Don’t try to be a mind reader.

More than anything, I hope this “journalist” doesn’t report on accusations of rape or child abuse. What kind of proof does he want for cryin’ out loud? Does the media really mean to be CSI, judge, jury, and executioner? Or can’t they just post the police blotter–the WHOLE–police blotter, leaving out their opinions of the motives of the criminals, and leave it at that, like they used to?

So, before you become a victim of a hate crime, make sure you are feeling well enough very quickly to make your report to the police. Women, don’t do anything else but get yourself directly to an emergency room for a rape kit, no matter how traumatized you are and no matter what your circumstances directly after the assault.

Most of all, everyone, whether you’re black or white. No matter if you’re hispanic, like alleged Nazi Skinhead George Zimmerman). Before you are assaulted, make sure that you’re measuring up to the political correctness standard for “victim” so that your story will “count” enough to be investigated further by our media and police corps.

via Multiple black-on-white crime unreported by media? Says who? | Deep Brain Media, Inc.

It’s LGBT Pride Month at work! Are you sufficiently repentant, you mean old conservative, you?


www.gaydar.nl

Image via Wikipedia

I just got the company’s monthly diversity newsletter. Guess what? June is “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”!  This year’s theme, at least at my place of employment, is about “Building Bridges”.

The problem I have with this “Gay Pride Month” stuff has less to do with the present, sexual behavior-driven culture than with the fact that if I were to propose a similar “Christian Pride Month”, I would get a pink slip quicker than I could drop the suggestion in the suggestion box.

Let’s break this down.

Without getting too specific (and therefore possibly raising red flags with my employer), the topic of the first diversity workshop this month is exclusively focused on teaching “straight” people to accept the LGBT culture within the company.

Question: How does a workshop on accepting sexual behaviors that I believe to be biologically and theologically incorrect help me to do my job better? Can’t I just “not ask” and “not be told” what certain folks’ sexual proclivities are and just get to the business at hand? I’m much happier with that option, thank you. Besides, nobody’s bothering to ask me what my sex life is all about. How are my co-workers going to be able to function professionally without this knowledge?

Another workshop proposes to show the financial and business gains to be had simply by ensuring that we focus our hiring efforts on homosexuals. Ok, correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the point of fostering an atmosphere of “inclusion” to actually, you know, foster an atmosphere of inclusion by not saying that one group has an advantage over another?

If they’re making the case that “LGBT businesspeople are just as good as straight ones”, they’ve mangled the execution by titling the workshop to focus just on the advantages of hiring LGBT folks. The assumption that any rational human being would rightly make is that if a hiring manager has a pile of résumés on the desk, there are going to be at least a handful of LGBT applicants mixed in with “straight” ones and that the purpose of the workshop is to boost LGBT hires by persuading managers to favor the LGBT applicants.

And what is going to be the criteria by which a hiring manager selects an LGBT candidate over a straight one? Ask them in the interview? Last I heard, it was an EEOC no-no to ask deeply personal questions during a job interview. I’d be curious to know if there are LGBT folks putting their sexual orientation on their CVs to try to fish for some affirmative action. Straights, don’t try this trick at home. Common sense has long held that by putting the fact that you married someone of the opposite gender on your job application, you are putting your future employment at risk. Does the same no longer hold true for LGBT applicants?

But let’s cut through the crap. What this is really about is payback, pure and simple. A vocal minority of the population with an axe to grind has managed to capture the popular sexual-political zeitgeist and is using that as leverage to exact a bit of sweet revenge for their oppression.  The Indian (er, sorry, Native American, er, sorry, Disenfranchised Original Occupant) saying about walking a mile in another’s shoes is an apt one. If I were in their shoes, I guess I couldn’t resist the opportunity to “stick it to the man” either.

But what if you were “the man”. Further, let’s say that you, as “the man”, own a small to medium-sized business. Let’s also say you’re a Christian who believes in complete abstinence before heterosexual marriage and complete fidelity after heterosexual marriage, and you happen to support political causes that reflect those beliefs, not out of meanness, but out of a sense of attempting to recover a long-lost morality that used to make this nation great. Let’s also say that, like the majority of good Christians out there, you’re inclined to live as the Savior lived, accepting all kinds of people as the children of God they are and not excluding them, as the Pharisees did, simply because they’re struggling against temptations and natural (or unnatural) urges.

Would you hold a “Gay Pride Inclusion” month?  Or would you simply honor all human beings, 365 and one quarter days of the year, as ought to be the method of respecting our differences?

And can we do away with that word already? DIVersity = DIVision. I prefer the term “variety“. Besides, the only thing God divided at Creation was dark from light, night from day, evil from good. We are supposed to be one, not diverse.

I love it when Liberals talk dirty to me


Yup, this is what still, post-Tucson, passes for “civility” from the left. I don’t even have to say “I hope they keep it up so that they will continue to expose themselves as hypocrites.” That would be a logical tautology.

Also, below are a bunch of great links from Michelle Malkin today.

Beyond race: The real “No Labels” movement

What’s to Blame for the Crisis in Egypt? You Guessed it: Global Warming

Unconstitutional: Florida judge strikes down Obamacare mandate; full decision embedded; all 47 GOP Senators sign on to DeMint repeal bill; White House reax: ruling is “odd,” “overreaching” “activism;” DOJ readies appeal

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Conducts Gun Sting in Neighboring… Arizona

About That School Obama Highlighted in the State of the Union…

Hollywood Enviro-Hypocrite of the Week – True story…my college room mate used to live near Redford’s digs in Utah. My roomie used to ride his four wheeler onto Redford’s property just to tick him off. Redford was the ultimate “Get off my lawn!” liberal then as he is now.

Related articles

The Violent Hypocrisy of the Left


Every time someone uses violence against individuals to make a political statement, it is wrong. When the Left does it, however, all is quickly forgiven and inevitably blamed on the Right.

Michelle Malkin has put together an encyclopedic list of violent hate crimes and hate speech performed by leftists, many of which were ignored by our intrepid media outlets, and the rest of which were blamed on the Right.

As Screwtape advised young Wormwood:

Your patient must demand that all his own utterances are to be taken at their face value and judged simply on the actual words, while at the same time judging all [others'] utterances with the fullest and most oversensitive interpretation of the tone and context of the suspected intention.

Yeah, the Right has had its whackjobs. I’m not denying that. But the next time your leftist friends, family, and co-workers try to pin all violent political acts on the Right, send them this list and remind them where the majority of violence and hatred is truly coming from.

(Warning: Many of those links and embedded images are NSFW.)

Related articles

Is Gaza the world’s largest prison?


Is the Gaza Strip the world’s largest prison, as we are told by countless news agencies “covering” the stories in that tiny, undoubtedly troubled region of the Middle East?

Peter Hitchens begs to differ.

Can anyone think of a siege in human history, from Syracuse to Leningrad, where the shops of the besieged city have been full of Snickers bars and Chinese motorbikes, and where European Union and other foreign aid projects pour streams of cash (often yours) into the pockets of thousands? Once again, the word conceals more than it reveals.

The “refugee camps” are political pawns allowed their perpetual existence by a handful of elite Arabs controlling the political and military demagoguery going on in the Strip. While they luxuriate in extravagance, sometimes having multiple abodes there and in Dubai, the subjects they claim to represent and be fighting for languish in poverty.

Siege? Not exactly. What about Gaza’s ‘refugee camps’. The expression is misleading. Most of those who live in them are not refugees, but the children and grandchildren of those who fled Israel in the war of 1948.

All the other refugees from that era – in India and Pakistan, the Germans driven from Poland and the Czech lands, not to mention the Jews expelled from the Arab world – were long ago resettled.

Unbelievably, these people are still stuck in insanitary townships, hostages in a vast struggle kept going by politicians who claim to care about them. These places are not much different from the poorer urban districts of Cairo, about which nobody, in the Arab world or the West, has much to say.

It is not idle to say that these ‘camps’ should have been pulled down years ago, and their inhabitants rehoused. It can be done. The United Arab Emirates, to their lasting credit, have paid for a smart new housing estate with a view of the Mediterranean.

It shows what could happen if the Arab world cared as much as it says it does about Gaza. Everyone in Gaza could live in such places, at a cost that would be no more than small change in the oil-rich Arab world’s pocket.

But the propagandists, who insist that one day the refugees will return to their lost homes, regard such improvements as acceptance that Israel is permanent – and so they prefer the squalor, for other people.

Something needs to be done to turn around the smokescreen applied to this situation by the world’s journalists. Someone needs to step forward, gird their journalistic integrity, and report on what’s really going on in a very public way. Peter Hitchens is a pioneer.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319157/Gaza-Strip-Lattes-beach-bbqs-dodging-missiles-worlds-biggest-prison-camp.html#ixzz12LqSdzlX

The War on Children


There Goes the Neighborhood
Rage against the ‘breeders.’

“graylandgal: I won’t make any apologies: I hate kids, especially babies. If parents can’t afford or locate a sitter, then stay home. I am bloody sick of having my feet and Achilles tendon rammed by knobby-tired strollers the size of Smart Cars; I am bitter about extortion for baby showers, christening gift, etc., for droolers who won’t thank me now any more than they will when graduation extortions start; I am nauseated by the stench of dirty diapers changed in public areas because a lazy-ass parent won’t adjourn to a restroom I am tired of “friends” dragging their hyper-active germ-spreaders to my antiques- and breakable-filled home for events clearly meant for grown-ups because, gee, everybody thinks they’re SO cute; and I weary of replying “hi” 467 times to a toddler who hangs over the back of an adjoining restaurant booth because the parents won’t make it sit down and shut up. Bitter? You bet. .  .  . My parents did not inflict me on society until I developed continence, self-ambulation, and social skills.”

The right to parent is God’s to give and is not dependent on any one person’s or group’s notion of what good parenting is or who is or isn’t qualified. Anyone who espouses the belief that only “good people” or “healthy people” or even “responsible people” should be “allowed” to have kids is on a slippery slope toward eugenics. Such “misfits” (and their children) in Hitler’s day were called “useless eaters” (today’s equivalent is “breeders”) and eventually found their way into sterilization clinics, ovens and gas chambers.

Don’t think that could ever happen again? Who among the populace during and leading up to WWII would ever have thought of it themselves? It was as unthinkable for non-elites then as it is for non-elites today, yet those were the very individuals being incarcerated and sterilized against their will or murdered by eugenicist elites. It should come as no surprise then that this cycle repeats itself today, because if history can teach us anything, it’s that we never seem to learn from it.

I say this as the son of an intelligent and wonderful woman who happened to be born in the early 1940s with cerebral palsy, yet married for love, had a child and a successful career, and now has four golden, though sometimes misbehaving grandchildren to show for it. If some of the elites of yesteryear and, seemingly, today had their prejudicial preferences, my mom would have been institutionalized as a child, sterilized “for her protection” and left to languish in a hospital bed until early death.

The increasing bigotry toward families with children is all the evidence needed to show that we are headed towards a dark and ugly place as a society.