But, but, but...he's really a conservative. He only had to act liberal to fool the people in Massachusetts. < /sarcasm> U.S. Army Retired |
Posted on 12/27/2007 1:12:20 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
Finding an organization more all-American than the Boy Scouts would be hard. Take it from someone who is blessed to have not one, but two sons achieve the distinction of becoming Eagle Scouts -- this organization is up there with baseball and apple pie. According to its charter, it exists to “promote … the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others … and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance and kindred virtues.”
Since 1910, that’s exactly what the Boy Scouts have been doing. Thousands of men today in positions of leadership, from soldiers to salesmen, began learning lessons in responsibility when they were Scouts. Which makes it all the more curious that the city of Philadelphia is determined to kick its local Scout council -- the “Cradle of Liberty,” seventh largest council in the nation -- out of the building it’s been meeting in for 80 years.
The Scouts may not be facing a formal eviction, but that’s the upshot of an ultimatum that Philadelphia’s city council delivered to the group earlier this year. Eight decades ago, the Scouts made an agreement with the city to pay a nominal rent of $1 a year. How much is the city demanding that they pay now? $200,000. Sadly, that’s not a misprint. The Scouts really are facing a rent hike of $199,999.
The blatant unfairness of the situation is galling -- especially when you consider, as Robert Knight of the Media Research Center has pointed out, that the Scouts “built the building with their own money, and then gave it to the city in 1928.” The Scouts’ lease was “in perpetuity,” notes Bob Unruh, news editor for WorldNetDaily, but the city doesn’t seem to care.
You may be wondering: Have the Scouts done something wrong? Oh, yes. In our politically correct age, they have committed what liberals would call a major sin (if they believed in “sin,” that is): They prohibit openly gay men from serving as Scout leaders. And if this policy strikes you -- as it does me -- as just plain common sense, then welcome to Bizarro World.
“If the Boy Scouts were anti-God, championed homosexuality and were anti-establishment, I would venture to say they would find themselves welcome in Philadelphia,” Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie has commented. “It's the fact that they stick to and seek to promote a responsible and reasonable code of ethics that makes them a target of the anti-family left that tends to dominate urban governments such as Philadelphia’s these days.”
City Solicitor Romulo Diaz -- an open homosexual, according to media reports -- is spearheading the campaign against the Scouts. Officials defend the outrageously high rent hike with typical PC blather. “You cannot be in a city-owned facility being subsidized by the taxpayers,” Councilman Darrell Clarke told The New York Times, “and not have language in your lease that talks about nondiscrimination.” Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled several years ago that the Boy Scouts are a private organization entitled to set its own membership policies. Clarke and Diaz apparently answer to a different authority.
Perhaps a bigger question is, who’s next? According to Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman with the Philadelphia Scouts, dozens of other groups could be targeted next. Will, say, the tax-exempt status of some be questioned? Take the Catholic Church, which doesn’t allow women ministers. How would it fare under an extreme PC regime? As Jubelirer says, “How are [city officials] going to justify differentiation in treatment? There are wonderful arts organizations, museums, a public radio station. They’re on that list.”
The hypocrisy at work here is astonishing. How often do radical liberals lecture us about the First Amendment, insisting that it’s meant to protect unpopular points of view from censorship, only to turn around and find some sneaky way to try and muzzle an upstanding group like the Boy Scouts for daring to offend their leftist orthodoxy?
Besides, the Scouts happen to have a logical reason for their policy. “The Scouts bar openly homosexual Scoutmasters and members for moral reasons and for the sake of protecting young boys from possible harm, not because they are motivated by bigotry or prejudice,” Robert Knight says. Their opponents act “as if the Scouts have no rational reason for wanting to determine whether prospective leaders or members are attracted sexually to males.”
Fortunately, the city’s disgraceful campaign against the Scouts hasn’t gone unnoticed by the public. Indeed, writes Bob Unruh, “Citizens outraged by the city's ultimatum crashed the e-mail system of the Philadelphia mayor's office.” But, he also notes, Philadelphia isn’t alone: “City officials in San Francisco and Boston have made similar decisions to displace the Scouts because of the group’s behavior code.”
So whose “behavior code” makes more sense? The Boy Scouts, who make their communities better places to live, as they turn boys into responsible young men? Or PC government officials determined to push a warped social agenda on the rest of us? If you side with the Scouts, learn more and speak up -- responsibly but firmly. Our Scouts deserve nothing less.
Back in 2000 Coulter was reporting that the Scouts were removing Clinton's signature from Eagle Scout certificates. Why should they be surprised if some Democrat returns the favor and refuses to act as their leader?
OUT OF: “Are you suggesting a federal takeover of the BSA?”
On the assumption you actually ask a serious question, the answer is no. The BSA is a private organization which has a nationwide ban on homosexual teens or adults. Maintaining that national policy is a private organization matter unrelated to a “federal takeover.”
Romney’s opposition to that private organization policy provides noteworthy insight into his PC worldview.
The Scouts’ worldview, and that of pro-family values conservatives, is that the policy protects young boys from exposure to immoral behavior in violation of the Scout Oath to be “morally straight.”
Romney’s worldview, shared by homosexual activists, is that not allowing homosexual Scouts or Scoutmasters constitutes unjust “discrimination.”
His “let each local council decide” dodge is intended to elicit defensive support from shallow thinkers whose first knee-jerk response is some ridiculous suggestion that supporting the Scouts’ current private organizational membership policy somehow equates to “a federal takeover of the BSA.” You can still save face.
Romney’s position has nothing to do with govt policy. It’s an indicator of whether he shares our values and worldview. He doesn’t.
“Show me where he said he supports homosexual scoutmasters.”
Show me where he said he didn’t, or says today that he doesn’t.
He said “all people,” and he offered no exceptions.
Show me the dictionary where the English word “all” is defined to mean one category but not another. Most dictionaries define “all” to mean each and every category.
Since it’s a matter of common knowledge that the Boy Scout policy applies equally to both teens and adults, please post any evidence — any — which indicates that he meant to refer to Scouts only and not Scoutmasters.
Hint: call the Romney campaign and ask them for such evidence. Maybe you’ll actually get it.
Not me, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
No more "promises" of turning the corner on your beliefs when you have your record of quite a number of years in public life to serve as proof positive of your real beliefs!
In 1994, ROMNEY said: “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
(Emphasis mine.) The term all people clearly includes both the scouts and their leaders. Their is no suggestion whatsoever that he's referring to just the scouts in this statement. Had he said all boys, I'd agree with your interpretation, but he didn't.
“Maybe you’ll actually get it.”
By which I mean, once they calculate that it’s getting sufficient traction, they’ll likely issue a statement establishing Romney’s newest position on the issue.
“Had he said all boys...”
And if he had said that — which he didn’t — that too would only confirm that he opposed the Boy Scout policy, which applies to both boys and adults.
| But, but, but...he's really a conservative. He only had to act liberal to fool the people in Massachusetts. < /sarcasm> U.S. Army Retired |
Not at all surprising to find that Bill Richardson is light in the loafers.
To now deny that Mitt supported gay scout leaders is an utter lie and denial of basic history. The whole issue WAS gay scout leaders; you may have seen it in the papers? It eventually made it to the Supreme Court, where the gay Scout master lost. The lawsuit was first filed in 1992. But I guess you never noticed.
So, what does the President of LDS say about the question of turning the homosexual activists loose on the little boys?
That's the only Mormon opinion that counts you know. Mitt's gotta' follow it or become a Methodist or something. Maybe he can get Huckabee to baptise him!
Figuring out someone’s position from sound bytes rather than a prepared speech or book is not good practice. It’s good politics, of course, but it’s manifestly unfair to those who suffer hoof and mouth disease (which is doggone near everybody except the guys who can’t speak at all).
Exactly my reaction.......I wonder.
Such as Mike Huckabee's apology for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto :-).
(Doesn't affect my opinion of Huckabee - I just think it's funny.)
Has Mitt ever specifically said he no longer supports gays in the Boy Scouts?
Has he even been asked?
Why would you term this a sound bite? His statement of support for all people to participate in scouting regardless of their sexual orientation is clear and complete in its own right.
How else do you think it could be interpreted? How could it be clarified by surrounding it with more verbiage?
“Has Mitt ever specifically said he no longer supports gays in the Boy Scouts? Has he even been asked?”
In at least one private meeting with social conservative leaders earlier this year in D.C., he was asked and gave the Artful Dodger “let each local Scout council decide” pablum.
And nodbody pressed him further on the issue.
Other than that, he was only confronted publicly by Brownback, after which some media reports reported the “local council” position and some reported only his insistence that he supports the Boy Scouts. (Which isn’t the question, of course. Which candidate of either party would say they don’t support the Scouts?)
Ah yes, Sheena...
Who by employing barnyard vernacular, encapsulates the scope of Romney’s believability in a single word.
But she asks us to ignore his record, his statements, his fabrications, and just BELIEVE the B.S.
| Look, I don't like Romney either, or rather his record and what he will do to this country, but I would not call him excrement of any kind. U.S. Army Retired |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.