Skip to comments.Obama: An Enemy Of Boy Scouts
Posted on 01/26/2009 5:03:57 AM PST by IbJensen
Boy Scout Troop 358, one of the oldest African-American troops in the county, participated in history as it marched in the Inaugural Parade in Washington, D.C. as the first African-American became President of the United States.
Truly an honor for any Scout troop, however have the leaders of this troop taken a close look at an issue that will directly affect the very existence of Boy Scouting in America? The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide family group, is questioning whether they realize President Barack Obama supports the very policies that are targeting their headquarters in Philadelphia.
Troop 358 is part of the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council, which has been in a pitched battle with the City of Philadelphia to retain the headquarters they built and have maintained since 1929 on property the 1928 City Council gave the Scouts free use of in perpetuity or forever.
Last May, the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council sued the city to prevent their eviction. That case was given a green light to proceed by a judge last fall, remarked Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
Why is the City of Philadelphia seeking to evict the Scouts? It is because of their ban on allowing open homosexual leaders and members.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Scouts have the right, as a private organization, to choose who they want to be leaders and members. Ever since that time they have been targeted by homosexual organizations and activists who are trying to remold the Boy Scouts of America in their image.
In 1983 Philadelphia added sexual orientation to its Fair Practices Ordinance. Two decades later, under pressure from homosexual groups, the attack against the Scouts began.
Pressure on the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council, one of the largest in the nation serving more than 69,000 youth, has been intense over the past six years as they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of support from Pew Charitable Trust and Southeastern Pennsylvania United Way, in addition to the threat of eviction.
Yes, it is a great honor to be part of the inaugural parade, but at what costs? Do these Boy Scout leaders fully realize that President Obama supports a wide range of so-called gay rights measures. He has said he will use the Office of President as a bully pulpit to advance their causes.
Mr. Obama, knowingly or unknowingly, may be a part of the end of the Boy Scouts of America as we know them, Ms. Gramley further stated.
No Boy Scout was he.
Obama insists that the Boy Scouts of America is obligated to set themselves up as hunting grounds for pedophiles.
You’re damn right I’m discriminating against homosexuals having that opportunity!
Anyone who cannot see the conflict between young boy scouts and homosexual scout leaders is too dumb to breathe.
He’s a Liberal! He’s either gonna hate the boy scouts or like them WAY too much! nudge nudge... wink wink...
Hussein would prefer something like the “Lil Black Panthers”, or the “Union Thug Chilren”, or the “Young ACORN Nuts”.
Obama is a maxrist who is (and will be) against anything that fosters anything like that. He is already demonstrating this in his first weeks in office and it will continue and get worse.
He’s a Liberal! He’s either gonna hate the boy scouts or like them WAY too much! nudge nudge... wink wink...
My only charity boy scouts.
If Obama has in mind making enemies out of the Boy Scouts then he is a fool.
That would be like making enemies with 100,000+ MacGyvers, across the Nation and around the world. That would be like unleashing the A-Team upon one’s self: not just one A-Team, but thousands of them, around each street corner, waiting to spring into action. Boy Scouts make al Qaeda look like girlie men (well, because they are — but that’s beside the point!)
I would not want to have the Boy Scouts for enemies. No way! They are infinitely resourceful, cunning, and always prepared. And they stand for good wholesome values, and they never give up.
Their proud alumni would reach into all branches of life and well into the military and corporate circles. Once a Scout, always a Scout.
He is a fool to meddle with them. There are a lot of votes in the Scouting movement.
Although identified only as Frank in Mr Obamas memoir Dreams from My Father, it has now been established that he was Frank Marshall Davis, a radical activist and journalist who had been suspected of being a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s.
Mr Davis moved to Honolulu from Chicago in 1948 with his second wife Helen Canfield, a white socialite, at the suggestion of his friend the actor Paul Robeson, who advised them that there would be more tolerance of a mixed race couple in Hawaii than on the American mainland.
A bohemian libertine who drank heavily and loved jazz, he became friends with Stanley Dunham, Mr Obamas maternal grandfather in the 1960s. Mr Davis died in 1987 at the age of 81, five years before Mr Dunham.
He knew Stan real well, said Dawna Weatherly-Williams, a close friend of Mr Davis Theyd play Scrabble and drink and crack jokes and crack jokes and argue. Frank always won and he was always very braggadocio about it too. It was all jocular.
They didnt get polluted drunk. And Frank never really did drugs, though he and Stan would smoke pot together. While his mother was in Indonesia during part of his teenage years, Mr Obama lived with his white grandparents. Mrs Weatherly-Williams said that the poet was first introduced to the future Democratic presidential candidate in 1970 at the age of 10.
lf-white, Stans grandson wStan had been promising to bring Barry by because we all had that in common - Franks kids were haas half-black and my son was half-black. We all had that in common and we all really enjoyed it. We got a real kick out of reality.
Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister, told the Associated Press recently that her grandfather had seen Mr Davis was a point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother".
In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. At one point in 1979 Mr Davis described university as an advanced degree in compromise that was designed to keep blacks in their place.
Mr Obama quoted him as saying: Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. Youre not going to college to get educated. Youre going there to get trained.
He added that theyll tank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid ******, but youre a ****** just the same.
It has also been established that Mr Davis, who divorced in 1970, was the author of a hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Greene.
In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Greene confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the similarities in style and phraseology between the pornographic work and his poetry.
I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine. In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Davis explains that although he has changed names and identities all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences.
He stated that under certain circumstances I am bisexual and that he was a voyeur and an exhibitionist who was occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism, adding: I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double but different sensations of oral and genital copulation.
The book, which closely tracks Mr Daviss life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.
One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. Im not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually Id rather not bed a babe under 20.
But there are exceptions. I didnt want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.
He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was. She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes .I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.
On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.
He boasted that the number of white babes interested in at least one meeting with a Negro male has been far more than I can handle and wished America were as civilised as, say, Scandinavia. He concluded: I regret none of my experiences or unusual appetites; for me they are normal.
According to Mrs Weatherly-Williams, Mr Davis lost touch with Mr Dunham some time in the 1980s. John Edgar Tidwell, who wrote the introduction to Davis's memoir and edited a collection of his work, said that there was no mention of Mr Dunham or Mr Obama in any of Mr Daviss papers.
He's a communist! G. W. Bush was a Liberal.
Me too, plus the Salvation Army.
Yes, to simply tell her she was too young, emotionally, physically, and legally, would have crushed her. Thirteen!? Libs and lefties can rationalize or jutsify anything.
O is a modern day “Manasseh.” This man knows no end to his wickedness. Look at what God Almighty did to Judah because of him. Will he not do the same thing to us?
Somehow, one never seems to encounter a large number of blacks who really believe that homosexuality equates to skin color in terms of civil rights. The churches were at the heart of “the Movement.”
It makes one wonder as to the legitimacy of these 'churches.' They appear to have little to do with Jesus or God, and much to do about massaging the egos of the 'ministers.'
IMO, the gays need to stop trying to infiltrate into groups in which they are not wanted. They have been out to destroy the boy scouts for a long time and just last year one of them took on eHarmony and won. They should start their own versions of what ever it is they want to do - amazingly enough they will be left alone.
What state wants a heavy concentration of perverts?
Oh, I know. Californicate.
And Gypsies, Poles and Jews too? Psst - it's been tried before. Caused all sorts of trouble.
Oh, I get it. Comparing the quarantining of our valuable perverts to Nazi concentration camps.
How about we go after the pedophiles who are the real threat in this situation instead of just painting everyone with a broad brush?
When you suggest refraining from 'painting everyone with a broad brush' you ignore some basic facts about homosexual activity.
Homosexuals head the list of serial killers.
Homosexuals spread disease by their untidy actions during their so-called 'love-making' sessions in that they ingest fecal matter and are apt to 'score' with multiple partners.
The imbecilic attempt to legitimize thereby making a mockery of marriage is anathema to a well-ordered society. Homosexuals tend to flit from partner to partner and no piece of paper is going to stop that.
I believe that homosexuals and their agenda for this nation and the world is as dangerous as terrorists. Damage after terror attacks can be repaired. The damage homosexuals do eats into the moral fiber of America and will last until the Second Coming unless it is curbed once and for all.
“All homosexuals are potential pedophiles. “
Pure bologna. The vast majority of homosexuals have no interest in underage persons. Where do you get this idea that ALL homosexuals are potential pedophiles? I have never heard that argument before, so I’m curious what you base this claim on.
An ox is gored.
List if you want it.
NinoFan, homosexuals who are not pushing the homosexual agenda are welcome on FR. But your support of the homosexual agenda is not welcome at all. If you want to make false assertions such as the above, you must cite sources to support it. But, since you won’t be able to, you should shut your trap.
I have noted that your comments are generally polite and do not incite rudeness. But I am sick of your support of the homosexual agenda and its lies. It is a lie that homosexuals in general are not interested in underage males. I used to run the Homosexual Agenda pinglist and still help out. I used to have (thanks to Scripter especially) tons of links, sources and facts and figures - many from homosexual researchers and sites - that support the FACT that homosexuals are more prone to molest and seduce underage youths.
I don’t have those links and sources at my fingertips right now due to various reasons including three computer deaths. Maybe someone will show up with some facts. But I don’t need any links to know for a fact - due to studying this topic for years - that your assertion is a rotten lie and I will hit abuse on you if I see any more support of the homosexual agenda coming from you.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Have you read that disgusting poem 0bama wrote about the stains on the shorts? (gag)
PING - Obama enemy of the Boy scouts.
Excuse me, your bullying will not work on me. You do not get to say what I can or cannot discuss here on FR.
I have been more than careful to follow the rules. I have been a good member here for only a little less time than you have. I have donated significantly to this site. Being that I have posted frequently in support of conservative causes, my credentials here are not in doubt. And if they are in doubt, you are certainly not the one who gets to second guess them.
As for my “support of the homosexual agenda”, I have made clear that I do not support activist judges. Debate over gay issues should be for the voters, not for tyrants in black. The threads I comment on are those where people get out of hand the other way. It’s an extreme position to say that all homosexuals are potential pedophiles and when people say such extreme things, they should expect people to respond.
But know this, since you threatened me, if you choose to harass me, I’ll be forced to hit abuse on you as well.
Oh, and cholerajoe, thought you might be interested in getting in on this discussion, since it seems he’s pinged his FRiends, I thought I’d invite you to join in.
I only pinged wagglebee becauase he does most of the pinging lately. And Scripter, although he’s not here much, because he’s got links and sources.
JR says on FR’s home page that he does not want FR supporting the homosexual agenda. I’m not bullying you, just telling you that if I see any posts in which you support the homosexual agenda, I will hit abuse. Since I don’t support the homosexual agenda or any liberal or leftist causes, I don’t think you’ll find any reason to hit abuse on me.
You hit abuse on me when you feel it necessary, and I will do the same on you when I feel it is necessary. We’ve made our positions perfectly clear in this matter, so any further discussion at this time would just be us letting anger get the best of us (and we’re both better than that).
Have a good afternoon.
Actually, it has never been scientifically proven that homosexual adults are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual adults. Most pedophiles cannot be accurately described as either heterosexual or homosexual, since they are usually incapable of having a healthy sexual relationship with an adult of either sex.
Here are six scientific references I found in a brief search of the medical literature: (Oh and before you go calling me names, too, I'm a physician, and a confirmed heterosexual with a strong preference for adult women.)
Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."
The FRC cites this study to challenge the Freund et al. data (see the previous paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different. Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and they assessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study. Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.
The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.
On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).
A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.
This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.
Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:
This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.
In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.
This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nude males and females of various ages and listened to audiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where he was instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.
The FRC cites this study as showing that "a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders." This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.
The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.
the gays need to stop trying to infiltrate into groups in which they are not wanted. They have been out to destroy the boy scouts for a long time and just last year one of them took on eHarmony and won. They should start their own versions of what ever it is they want to do - amazingly enough they will be left alone.””
You might also look what the gayzos did to the Catholic Church too.
Thank you for your support of the homosexual agenda.
The homonazi pederasts have relentlessly attacked the BSA for years.....
Same deal with the Catholic Church...
Yet here and your “budd” are here on this thread defending the perverts.
Last time I checked; Male +
Male + sex = homosexuality!
The ones after the “boys” are homosexual pederasts.
perversion cheerleader alert.
I do not have access to my files. Perhaps one of you guys still have links..
“Actually, it has never been scientifically proven that homosexual adults are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual adults.”
ACTUALLY -it has never ever been proven that there are homosexual adults -there are only those that ‘feel’ predisposed to enegage in homosexual activities and or those that choose to engage in homosexual activities -of these some reveal the claim and some do not///
How does one prove they are a homosexual adult there Einstein...
You must concede that any study premised upon a group such as those that claim to be homosexually inclined YET claim not to engage in sexual activities with minors would of course be completely subjective and as such irrelevent...
Maybe better put would be my study that claims 100% of men that molest boys are by definition homosexual...
“Have a good afternoon”
Nino Fan? Boy fan? This is surreal...
Don’t even go there, you sicko. Nino is Antonin Scalia’s nickname. I’m a huge fan of his jurisprudence.
Sicko? Suggest you recalibrate...
I understand your love of Scalia now. How would Scalia decide this issue?
Hey, you’re the one who jumped to the conclusion about it meaning ‘boy fan’...
As for Scalia’s opinion on gay issues, I don’t really know. I do know his opinion on the Constitution and the equal protection and due process clauses in relation to gay rights (such as his dissents in Romer and Lawrence), but I have no idea how he thinks as a private individual and voter on gay issues. One thing I like about him is that he’s able to separate his personal views from his judging. It’s what a judge should be able to do. He recognizes that legislatures and courts have different functions. I like Justice Thomas for that reason, too. (And, in fact, Justice Thomas has indicated that he finds criminalizing homosexuality to be a silly thing for a legislature to do.)
BTW, I fully support the right of private groups to exclude whoever they want for ANY reason no matter how much I may disagree, because frankly, who private individuals choose to associate with is none of my business. If the Boy Scouts don’t want gays, that’s their right, IMO. If a women’s gardening club wants to exclude men, that’s just fine. I’m rather libertarian in that sense.
Also, an article from 1999 Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the likelihood, the lasting effects
And from my profile:
Targeting Children, Part 1: How the gay movement intends to capture the next generation
Targeting Children, Part 2: How the homosexual movement uses public schools as instruments of change
Targeting Children, Part 3: Activists encouraging experimentation
Targeting Children, Part 4: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation
Nobody is saying all homosexuals are child molestors... in fact far from it — most homosexuals do not molest children. Still, the issue is the disproportionate number of child molestations by homosexuals.
Thank you, Scripter - I should (re)familiarize myself with what you’ve got on your profile page.
(I’ve been laid low the last couple of weeks but will be able to send a little something soon.)
He is, indeed, polite, but most agenda sycophants are to a certain point. They can become ranting, foaming at the mouth zealots if they can't obtain some concession in debate.
Best not discourse.