BS-87

NJCubScouter - It was intended to be a joke... By the strictest definition in the Law of Nations at the time of the drafting, it was understood that to be a natural-born citizen you must be born of two citizens of the nation you're born in. Rubio's parents were Cuban-nationals in exile.

Should have rephrased that. It can be construed as sexual harassment based on how the question is asked. If you're blunt and straightforward, it's usually not a problem if the question is relevant and applied equally. However, if you make it known there's rumors and you beat around the bush (these leaders have a history of in-fighting and lack of tact) it becomes a hostile environment. The person may even feel slighted, abused, and a creative lawyer could probably find something to seek damages for.

Since you haven't gotten a good answer yet, I'll give you one. From Page 2 of the Adult Application "The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law." When you couple that with the BSA position "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." But how are you supposed to know? It's just an assumed thing we're all supposed to know, so this is a great thread to bring around. One of the units I commission had a question along these lines. A gal wanted to know if she could be a leader in the Pack, but the leaders knew there were rumors of her being a homosexual. They asked me and I told them not to ask, as that's sexual harassment. They did not, but she asked first if it was ok that she was. They let her know she'd make a great ScoutParent instead of leader... she was actually very pleased with this compromise.

I recognize that we're ultimately trying to do good in the world. What we don't realize as much are the unintended consequences of our do-gooding. Until we're all willing to admit that our mere presence around the world causes some folks to misinterpret our intentions. This creates resentment, and ultimately radicalism. I'm not saying that terrorist attacks against America is "America's chickens coming home to roost". What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be surprised that our worldly presence and bombings causes resentment and helps fuel extremism because they don't recognize our good intentions. Their evil acts deserve swift punishment, but we should also learn from their point of view which incited them to violence. How helpless must you feel in changing the world that becoming the human equivalent of a firecracker sounds like the most purpose your life could ever amount to? I'm becoming longwinded again, but humans appreciate governance and influence. The more centralized (like when one world power controls the majority of world opinion) the influence and opinions seem to be, the more helpless and radicalized the individual becomes. The more decentralized to states, regions, cities, communities, and households that power of opinion becomes, the more empowered and happy the individual becomes. This is because all men are desperately hungry for Liberty.

This question is far too important to be in the Issues and Politics section... Definitely a Program Discussion question... Anyway. The boy definitely could use counsel on the subject, and it'd be wrong to advance him without he and his family having that discussion. Notice I say he and his family. Let it be known to the parents that you couldn't pass him through a Scoutmaster Conference at this time because he needs to learn more about the 12th point and decide whether he really is an atheist or not. You can offer to help, and point out that believing in any higher power which serves as that purpose for which we all aim to do "good" will suffice. He doesn't need to be Creationist, he doesn't need to be on his knees praying, and he doesn't need to have a personal relationship with that higher power. All he needs is to have an understanding of some higher purpose that makes live valuable instead of purely chemical and futile. Really though, this is a conversation the family needs to have. If he truly rejects all notions of "reverence", then he really cannot get the full message of Scouting and inasmuch will not advance. Being young and impressionable yet though, I'd keep him around in hopes that he could learn something...

Rubio's not even a natural-born citizen. He, like Obama, is a domestic-born citizen, but not a natural-born citizen as was common law as per Law of Nations at the time of our Constitution's drafting. Now we can argue about Law of Nations being used for the definition of the term, but if it's good enough to define American maritime law, why wouldn't it be the primary source for questions like citizenship?

"Ron Paul has some good ideas, and he has a few which are really too extreme, particularly on foreign policy. Isolationism as a policy simply won't sell amongst the moderate independents." It gets frustrating hearing the same talking points repeated by people who are obviously very intelligent. It makes one feel like the media is winning in programming folks to their liking... Anyways. Ron Paul is not isolationist. From Wikipedia: Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts BOTH of the following: 1. Non-interventionism Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). 2. Protectionism There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. Ron Paul's foreign policy is defined only as Non-interventionism. This is because he is strongly opposed to Protectionism. To be considered Isolationist, one must accept both precepts. This goes back to Jefferson's view of foreign policy, "Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." There is a significant threat to our southern sovereign borders today. Why are our troops overseas concerned with borders between foreign nations like Korea and Pakistan/Afghanistan instead of working to secure the American borders? Even Rick Perry has come out for securing our own borders with servicemen. This is because that is where the real and appropriate need for their service lies!

evil, We will have to agree to disagree. This is because our views of human nature are not even comparable. It's disheartening to hear folks pump up the ego of the United States as if we're the only capable force for good in the world. Being capable of intervening to prevent human tragedy doesn't always mean we are obligated to prevent human tragedy, as any acts of intervention will always have unintended consequences that are almost always a larger long term problem than the immediate tragedy. Also, being spread so thin, we're forced now to pick and choose which human tragedies to intervene in and which we cannot, which in cases like Syria make us appear hypocritical. Imagine during the Civil War if England and France decided that based on our constitution and by the rights of the seceding states, that the Confederate States should be legally recognized as a nation of the world, and that the United States government in the North was acting oppressively and against the best interests of the world, as the Confederacy would likely trade more favorably with the friends who helped them secede. Therefore, to prevent human tragedies like the razing of Georgia in a march to the sea, these foreign powers decide to intervene in our civil war to protect the rights of the Confederate States and shun the evil Abraham Lincoln for trying to kill the insurgent rebels for merely wanting to pursue life, liberty, and happiness outside the Union. All that might have happened if Lincoln hadn't emancipated the slaves and made siding with the Confederacy synonomous with condoning slavery. It's not a bad comparison. In fact, it's highly accurate when you start thinking about everything the US is and has been intervening in to protect Democracy and our own interests. This has turned into a longer spiel than I intended... but if you think a Wilsonian foreign policy is acceptable that's fine. However, every great empire falls when their militarism expands further than they can afford. Right now, that superb worldly force you described is too expensive, and we need to accept that we can no longer afford to be Democracy's worldly defender. Back in the 18th Century, America was the global force for good in being a shining beacon of democracy. For some reason today we think we send the message better by busting down someone's door and screaming at them YOU SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER THE VALUE OF DEMOCRACY TO YOUR SOCIETY! Democracy happens because the people want it. People want it because it allows for liberty. Liberty will always prevail over tyranny. Look at the Arab Spring. They're ready to do it by themselves. Democracy will win because, in the words of Ron Paul, "Freedom is popular." Anyway, we'll have to disagree, because I cannot relate to ethnocentrism. I can believe in American exceptionalism, but I will not buy into its precept of foreign policy based heavily in ethnocentrism.

"I like Paul as far as fiscal responsibility is concerned, but I consider his foreign policy approach as reckless." You consider Ron Paul's foreign policy approach reckless? What I consider reckless is this following approach to foreign policy; I really do not like to be stung by wasps. I notice that there is nest where these wasps live. I do not like where they are living, as it's a threat to my friend who is allergic to them. I therefore choose to throw rocks at the wasps nest to discourage the wasps from stinging my friend. However, not only does this cause the wasps to attack my friend, it causes them to fly all the way over to me and sting ME! I am so infuriated by this that I go right up to the nest and start stomping it and throwing rocks at it and telling the bees to stop hating me and my friend for being humans instead of wasps. For some reason, the wasps respond to my aggression with more aggression! It's like they have no sense! No matter how long I try to stamp out and stone the nest, more and more wasps keep flying out and stinging us. The obvious answer is that we must continue to aggravate the wasps, because leaving the nest alone for awhile and not disturbing them would never result in the angry hive settling down. No, it would most certainly mean that the wasps would decide to kill both my friend and I.

The media likes to focus on the Tea-o-cons because they are roughly 1,000 to 1,000,000 times more likely to scream something racist or insane in the presence of cameras. That and because the media doesn't give much creedence to libertarians ever anyway. It's easy to paint a negative picture of a group you don't agree with when you focus your attention on the most disagreeable faction of that group. However, while the Tea-o-cons are entitled to their beliefs, it's important that we've managed to open their minds a little to Liberty when it comes to economic issues. Now we just need to convince them that it's great they have values and beliefs, but that just because someone believes differently doesn't make that stranger with strange ways wrong. I think it's great to be a social conservative and have a strong faith. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it makes someone a much better person (Duty to God anyone?). However, it's not appropriate for our federal government to legislate morality in instances that infringe upon our liberties. That is the role of the Church, and organizations like Scouting, to help people find faith and find morality. As an example: Drugs cause terrible damage to individuals, families, and communities. It would prove to be virtually impossible and terribly expensive for the Federal Government to eradicate drugs. However, people of faith and people with strong morality in every community are responsible for helping their friends and neighbors and families overcome the temptation, addiction, and destruction. This not only creates a much better support system for drug abuse, it brings communities closer instead of allowing them to drift apart and call the cops on their neighbor for the music being too loud. Humans really are compassionate and long for strong community bonds like this. It is not unattainable. Anyone who pushes for a stronger police state and stronger laws is horribly pessimistic of the people that surround them, and doesn't have faith and belief in programs like Scouting to affect the greater good.

Doesn't resonate with me... If you want to find a book most Tea Partiers would agree with (if they didn't know the author's name) pick up "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues Affecting our Freedom" by Ron Paul. Tea Partiers today are largely following two presidential candidates, and it's a house divided as you can imagine. At the Iowa Straw Poll (most significant recent political gathering) there were two factions, Libertarian Tea Partiers and Social Conservative Tea Partiers (or Tea-o-cons). They were represented in pretty equal numbers. There were some interested in Rick Perry, but not in large numbers.

"Also, I originally proposed a fair tax." The most realistic way to approach abolishing and replacing the current income tax code probably. Either that or we should focus on a flat tax with no deductions, rebates, or incentives.

I'm only a humble Tea-Partier, but I'd reckon to say we're united by a shared vision of fiscal conservatism and a reduction in the size of government. Where you'll see differentiation from club to club and Tea-Partier to Tea-Partier is foreign policy issues and social issues. There are definitely some Tea Party members who want more "Christian Legislation" (though I dare say that may be an oxymoron) and there are some ignorant Tea Party members who want nothing more than to nuke all the sand people. However, those are not the messages that are embraced at gatherings of Tea Party members. The issues that matter most are federalism, reducing deficit/debt, and improving the economic atmosphere. There's too much dissent within the Tea Party itself about foreign policy and social regulations between Tea-o-cons and Libertarians for there to be a voice of solidarity on those subjects regarding race or religion. That is just my experience and opinion though.

Tampa, if it truly is a wash, think about the difference in how the money is being spent. Money is being spent creating jobs surrounding a product and service instead of incentivizing drug abuse. Sounds like a much wiser investment, and helps ensure that the State only helps those who help themselves.

I did read it, and found the whole article smacking of the writer's own personal bias. I'd be interested in finding out how the writer defines "having a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president" and "a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics". When you have open ended definitions, you can interpret any poll whatever way you'd like to. That's also assuming their "random" poll is truly representative of Americans or if it's representative of how they feel Americans are. Really it's an opinion piece for a reason, because it doesn't hold enough water to be real news.

Who'd have thunk the New York Slimes would make desperate attempts to tie Tea Partiers to racism?

Don't worry about it AJR, anonymity should be valued when online. This makes nonsensical usernames a wiser choice than your initials, crew number, and camp

I just realized I know you AJR. But anyway, been to Gardner Dam and I don't think there's another camp I can recommend for anyone looking for a Patrol Cooking Camp.

Haha, definitely saw it. "Since when is Ron Paul the 13th floor of a hotel?"

I trust you have sources Beavah, too many numbers to be tossing around without citations. Overall it may be accurate, but a tad too dramatic. We're Scouters, and understand better than most the obligation of each and every person to help their neighbors and communities in times of need. If the federal government got entirely out of the business of warmaking and entitlements and got into the business of defense and empowering communities, would there be a deficit at all? I'm not saying cut the entitlements tomorrow, I'm saying set the gears in motion to faze out the programs in the near future (within 10 years) and instead of spending on individual entitlement checks, provide a much smaller "Goodwill" grants program which allows non-profit and faith-based organizations some matching funds ($1 Grant for every $3 donated to the cause or something similar and probably more lenient for communities of tremendous need) for their own outreach programs for people that would have otherwise been completely dependent on the entitlement programs. Let people help people. What should be cut tomorrow is the American warmachine. Bringing the troops home immediately, especially from bases we've been sitting in from wars that happened decades ago like Germany and Korea, would cut our deficit dramatically. There's enough action for our troops to maintain order here in America on the border and in the larger cities. Also, this allows our troops to spend their DoD paycheck here in America instead of in the foreign nation their base is located. Those countries love our bases because it's like we're showering them with money and a permanent economic boost. Think we can make up for a $1 Trillion+ deficit by tackling these two big elephants in the room first?

Ron Paul. They don't come any cleaner. You may not agree with him, but at least you know exactly how he'd govern and where he stands because his record has been impressively consistent for 30 years and based on principles versus party lines. Of course this means he's often the 1 in a vote that went through 434-1... No Patriot Act, No Obamacare, No Undeclared Wars. Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

No. This suggestion is horribly innappropriate. Rick Perry does not need the endorsement of Eagle Scouts. Rick Perry also deserves no alignment with the TEA Party, as he is a big government goon and former Democrat. Were you aware he was a Campaign Chairman for Al Gore's 1988 Presidential Campaign? I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, I'm just pointing out that he is being misrepresented by being put in the light he's being put in. It's popular now to be small government, but Perry isn't small government and so is pretending to be. If you want to vote for four more years of the Bush and 3rd Term Bush (Obama) status quo, then back Perry.

TAHAWK - The general welfare clause does not provide for general welfare programs. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-general-welfare-clause-and-stoned-teenagers/ A good analogy about the general welfare clause conflicting with the actual enumerated articles of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson explained, Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

I think that Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to denounce government programs which provide for the "general welfare". This is because Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to help other people at all times. They do not put this responsibility onto anyone else but themselves, and so commit to personal actions which provide aid to others whenever that Scout or Scouter is reasonably able. It would be irresponsible of a Scout or Scouter to shirk their obligation by promoting indirect "general welfare" programs.

If he's not motivated by advancement, do Venturing.