Posted on 04/26/2013 1:43:57 PM PDT by NYer
There’s deception going on in the front office of the Boy Scouts. It includes deliberate misrepresentation of polling data, and threats to pack an upcoming meeting with anonymous and unqualified voters so that the Boy Scout policy on homosexuality gets forced on the majority of Scouts and parents who don’t want it.
The Boy Scouts are considering changing their policy of not allowing open homosexuality in either their Scout or leadership ranks. The policy has placed the Boy Scouts in the buzz saw of the zeitgeist and up until recently they have resisted. There are some weak-kneed leaders who want to throw over the policy and appear willing to violate the Scout Law to do it.
The Scout front office released the result of a national survey and “listening” process that purported to show that the Scouts—boys, parents, leaders and donors—favor a change in the policy. The Boy Scouts say the process reveals great changes in attitudes and that a majority of those at all levels of Scouting “tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.”
This was dutifully and even triumphantly reported in the mainstream press. The only problem is the news reports were wrong. And the news reports were wrong because the Boy Scouts misrepresented the results. One close observer of the Boy Scouts calls the poll “a pack of lies.”
Do Scouting parents want to overhaul the policy and allow open homosexuality in the Scouts? The Executive Summary of the Poll says, “yes”, but the numbers say “no.” Fifty percent of Cub Scout parents support the current restrictive policy while 45% oppose it. A whopping 61% of Boy Scout parents support the current policy.
How did Boy Scout leadership get anywhere near the assertion that a majority of those in Scouting support homosexuality in Scouting? Part of what they did was what is known as a push-poll, a questionnaire designed not to elicit an accurate opinion but one designed to change opinions.
Here’s the most sympathetic scenario presented to the respondents: “Tom started in the program as a Tiger Cub and finished every requirement for the Eagle Scout award at 16 years of age. At his board of review Tom reveals he is gay. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the review board to deny his Eagle Scout award based on that admission?”
Read this way, you may conclude that it is not right or just to deny Tom his award. Even so, the numbers show that a majority of parents still continue to support the current policy.
What is going on here? Deception, that’s what. There is a small group on the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts who want this policy to change. What they face is a membership that largely opposes the measure. So, they try to get their way by lying about a poll. But there is more deception than that.
The Executive Board took up the issue a few months ago and after a tsunami of protest punted the issue to a vote of their National Council set to take place on May 20th. There are usually 1400 voting members of this body who qualify through strict criteria. Insiders have been told there may be an additional 2,000 voting members at the upcoming meeting. Who are they? The Boy Scouts leaders aren’t telling. Are they trying to pack the meeting? It sure looks that way.
A group of Scouting parents have grown alarmed over these deceptive practices and have hired not one but two lawyers to represent their interests and not just their interests but the interest of fairness and making sure the Boy Scout Executive Committee sticks to their own by-laws that are very clear about who can vote. There are legal issues here and this whole process could end up on court.
On the eve of the vote the Executive Committee will make a presentation on this issue to the National Council. The Executive Committee is the group driving this change and is the group presenting these deceptive numbers. You can be sure in that meeting there will be no presentation from supporters of the current policy, and you can be sure the Executive committee will continue to spin their deceptive tale about how most of Scouting is fine with open homosexuality in the program.
All this goes to show once more the lengths of deception that some will go to advance an agenda that is offensive to most Americans. They cannot win an up or down vote so they lie about a poll. They cannot convince regular people so they have to pack the meeting.
The number one item in the Boy Scout law is to be trustworthy. The process ought to be stopped and there ought to be a housecleaning and all these untrustworthy guys should get the boot.
1991 – today – More than 70 local United Way (UW) chapters (out of ~1,400 total) across the land have defunded BSA local councils within their boundaries. Most councils (~294 total in 2013 – the number is soft because some council consolidations are still occurring) have several local UW chapters within their boundaries. The UW chapters claimed that their local charters prevented them from distributing funds to non-profit organizations which discriminated. Several corporations during the 1990s announced they would discontinue donations to BSA. They included CVS, Levi-Strauss, SeaFirst Bank, and Wells Fargo. Anecdotal reports from the field indicated that local council professionals were encountering harsh business reactions when they attempted outreach for financial support. The councils most affected were primarily located on the west coast, upper mid-west, and east coast/northeast. In JUL 2003, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by a U.S. District Judge that excluded the BSA from an annual (state government) workplace charitable campaign (United Way) run by the state of CT because of BSA's exclusive membership policy. In MAR 2004, the SCOTUS declined to review the case. Currently on average, UW chapter contributions account for ~ 30% of local councils’ operating budgets.
And one of the most dangerous things about these pedophiles is that they successfully intimidate their victims into silence thereby guaranteeing their easy access to more victims. When these b@st@rds are alone with the kids they have total control over them. Time and again when we hear about pedophiles finally getting caught it has been years or even many years after they began their crimes. They victimize kids time and time again.
Maybe the NRA should start it’s own Boy Scout organization.
>>intimidate their victims
Slusher threatened to murder his.
A Jeffery Dahmer in the making.
*United Way* is not united at all it is the Divided Way. They have chosen their lot. Let them *discriminate* against God and let us *discriminate* against United Way by not giving one penney to their foul organization. Where I worked before, all the employees were shaken down to make donations to the United Way. They wanted everyone to give something even a small amount so that they could have a 100% donor compliance. I guess it was supposed to show civic pride or something.
Truly awesome idea.
Right you are - "pledge your fair (1%) share." Yeah, the corporate executives really push this crap for their own ego. Of course, UW came up with a shell game to ease potential donors consciences - direct your donation to a specific charity you approve. But what they don't say is that the percentages for all of the approved charities have already been decided in advance. Unspecified $ will be directed away from those specified charities so it all evens out in the wash. If you are going to donate to BSA, do it through your local council's Friends of Scouting annual fund drive.
Everybody seems to be afraid of that big bad word D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N. Discrimination and not recycling are the only two sins left.
Wow.
BSA and NRA are birds of a feather. NRA provides support for the Shooting Sports merit badge and gun ranges at local council summer camps. Of course, NRA is fighting its own good fight with the Obama administration right now, and barely holding on.
As the author of the editorial at the top the page advises, "give the National Executive Committee (~23 members) the boot." The 3 reps from each of the 294 councils will decide this matter, unless it is stolen as the author alludes. Pray and contact your local councils' presidents. These guys are the ones who will make the difference.
I have to admit, it’s not my idea. A friend of mine suggested it.
I wonder if NRA would be interested?
Parents of Boy Scouts are going to need an alternative if things go bad.
From the Eagle Scout Charge:
"I charge you to undertake your citizenship with a solemn dedication. Be a leader, but lead only toward the best. Lift up every task you do and every office you hold to the high level of service to God and your fellow men -- to finest living. We have too many who use their strength and their intellect to exploit others for selfish gains. I charge you to be among those who dedicate their skills and ability to the common good."
Since an Eagle Scout also promises to carry the Scout Oath with him for the rest of his life, which includes the charge to be morally straight, then no. "Tom" can't be an Eagle Scout.
Did they do the direct your money to a specific charity after the controversy with the Boy Scouts or any other controversial organizations? Do they give to Planned Parenthood?
Clever arrangement of fact and supposition. This stuff is really tired. Who knows what goes on in people’s heads? One thing for sure, the goal of Scouting was always aimed at family, God and nation. For decades, gays have revised history and every major figure in order to cast aspersions of homosexual behavior wherever they could. Likewise, in an inverse way, many religious zealots try to make every historical hero a Christian hero. Remember Lincoln being sold as gay in the NYT book review a while back? Oh yeah. This stuff is so common that I often say that everybody is a Christian while they’re alive and gay when they’re dead.
Right you are. Straight out of Saul Alinsky's 1971 book, Rules for Radicals of which POTUS #44 BHO is an acolyte. Freepers have become well versed from this book since BHO was elected in NOV 2008
RULE 1 - Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
RULE 4 - Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules no more than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity. ... This strategy explained why Christian churches were muted regarding teaching the truth about homosexual sin. Fornication, adultery, and divorce had become so rife in the American general public by 1970 that the church would be clearly seen as hypocritical to condemn only homosexual sin. Also, there was concern that if religious leaders condemned heterosexual sin, especially divorce, from the pulpit, it would negatively affect attendance and membership.
RULE 5 - Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. ... “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report”, both of which are featured on the cable TV channel, Comedy Central, utilize this technique to devastating effect and are especially popular with young adults under the age of 30 who consider these satirical shows to be their primary source of breaking news information.
RULE 6 - A good tactic is 1 your people enjoy. They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. ... The 2011 ascension of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement was a sterling example. Gay Pride parades are another.
RULE 8 - Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters 1 approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 9 - The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. ... The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU have mastered the technique of intimidating groups at odds with their agendas by threatening lawsuits, e.g., local school boards of education and corporate boards of directors. One of the goals of these threatened lawsuits is to get the offending groups to agree to bring in outside consultants to facilitate diversity training.
RULE 10 - The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is the unceasing pressure that will result in the reaction of the opposition that is essential for the success of the campaign.
RULE 11 - If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. ... A good example of this is the homosexual rights movement. Judeo-Christian teachings for over 2,500 years taught that active homosexuality was destructive to the individual and society. In just over 40 years, the homosexual rights movement throughout Western civilization has almost nullified this teaching.
RULE 12 - The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
RULE 13 - Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
This is what we are seeing in the U.S. right now with the (1) Republican Party – John Boehner/George W. Bush/ Mitt Romney/ Newt Gingrich/ Michele Bachmann/ Dick Cheney, (2) SCOTUS – Clarence Thomas/ Antonin Scalia, (3) Christian churches which adhere to orthodox teaching on all sexual sins – the Pope/ Bill Donohue/ Franklin Graham, (4) FOX News Channel – Bill O’Reilly/Sean Hannity/ Roger Ailes/ Rupert Murdoch, (5) conservative media – Glenn Beck/ Rush Limbaugh/ Michael Savage/Michele Malkin/ Matt Drudge/ Ann Coulter, (6) BSA – Wayne Brock, (7) National Rifle Association (NRA) – Wayne LaPierre, (8) the TEA Party movement – Sara Palin, and (9) the Family Research Council – James Dobson.
The 2 most effective examples of this rule used by progressives are the use of the words (1) “racist” and (2) “hater”. Calling political opponents these labels is extremely intimidating and difficult to counter.
From Wikipedia:
“Early discussion of Baden-Powell’s sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren.[48]:217–218[49]:48 Tim Jeal’s later biography discusses the relationship and finds that there is no evidence that this friendship was physical.[7]:82 Jeal then examines Baden-Powell’s views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships, and his marriage, concluding that Baden-Powell might have been a repressed homosexual.[7]:103 Jeal’s conclusion is shared by some biographers and disputed by others, but is not yet examined in any detail by other scholars.[50]”
Maybe. Might be. IOW, no evidence but smearing by suggestion. Tools of the Left.
Whatever may have been the truth, he sure as heck built a lot of good men and developed character in generations of men that made the West tower above the rest of the world.
Where did this happen?
Others with longer memories will be able to help on this topic. My 1st experience with the UW "fair share" and "dircted giving" was 1990-1995. The homosexual issue in BSA was bubbling, but had not reached a hard boil by that time.
1980 - Tim Curran, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout, applied to be an assistant scoutmaster in a local CA troop. Members of the BSA, however, had recently learned that Curran was homosexual after reading an Oakland Tribune article on homosexual youth which featured an interview with Curran. Based on his sexual orientation, the BSA refused to allow Curran to hold a leadership position. Curran sued in 1981, alleging that the BSA's membership requirements amounted to unlawful discrimination under CA's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which required "Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments". The case was ultimately decided in 1998, when the CA Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BSA in Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The court held that because the BSA was not considered a “business establishment” under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, it could not be required to change its membership policies so as to include homosexuals.
JUL 1990 – Rutgers University student, James Dale, attended a seminar on the health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers where he was interviewed. Dale was co-president of the campus’s Lesbian/Gay student alliance. An account of the interview was published in a local newspaper. Dale was quoted as stating he was gay. BSA officials read the interview and expelled Dale from his position as assistant scoutmaster of a NJ troop. Dale, an Eagle Scout, filed suit in the NJ Superior Court, alleging, among other things, that the BSA had violated the state statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The NJ Supreme Court ruled against the BSA, saying that they violated the State's public accommodations law by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. Among other rulings, the court …
1. held that application of that law did not violate the BSA’s' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' ability to carry out their purposes.
2. determined that NJ has a compelling interest in eliminating the destructive consequences of discrimination from society, and that its public accommodations law abridges no more speech than is necessary to accomplish its purpose; and
3. held that Dale's reinstatement did not compel the BSA to express any message.
The BSA appealed to the SCOTUS, which granted certiorari (a type of writ seeking judicial review - meaning an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review) to determine whether the application of NJ's public accommodations law violated the First Amendment. The SCOTUS case, Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Dale, was decided in JUN 2000.
6/28/2000 – The SCOTUS decided in Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), in a 5-4 vote, that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed a private organization like the BSA to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affected in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The SCOTUS ruled that opposition to homosexuality was part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. It reversed a decision of the NJ Supreme Court that had determined that NJ’s public accommodations law required the BSA to readmit assistant scoutmaster (and Eagle Scout) James Dale, who had made his homosexuality public and whom the BSA had expelled from the organization in 1990.
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.