Oliver North defends Boy Scouts against 'the far left'

[John-in-KC 311]

Like Beavah, I register Republican. I tend to vote morally and fiscally conservative.

 

Oliver North is NOT the man Scouting needs.

 

Gerald Ford, otoh...

 

For that matter, Colin Powell.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Ollie was carefully chosen as a factional mouthpiece to distort not to exhort the truth. Many are attracted to his style of sensationalism. The public trust was never a consideration. His style, appearance and personality was his presentation. Mickey Dugan proudly wears his Ollie North tee.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I think the most important point here is not necessarily Oliver North's background, but the type of message he delivers, and you know he is going to deliver that message when you book him. You know he is going to ATTACK the so-called enemies of Scouting, to exaggerate the motives and methods of those who simply think the BSA has no business excluding certain people, and most ridiculously, to call those who question BSA policies members of the "far left." On this forum, and in real life, I have encountered many people who do not think the BSA should exclude gay people, or who at least could live with the BSA changing its policy, and the vast majority of them were not members of the "far left." Some of them are conservatives. The problem with people like Oliver North, or at least the characters they play when you throw some money at them and give them a microphone, is that everyone who disagrees with them is a radical on the far left and is seeking to destroy America. Is that the message we want to be sending the boys, that if you disagree with me, you are the enemy? Because that is the message Oliver North sends. John brings up two good examples of another kind of speaker, Gerald Ford (who is probably not on the circuit anymore these days) and Colin Powell. They are moderate men with moderate messages. But I guess they don't stir up the crowd enough for some people, because they stress the positive, and not making an enemy out of your neighbor. Some councils would rather have the guy who throws red meat to the crowd, I guess.

[Bobanon 10]

Oliver North's past is very important to the story. The BSA doesn't need a person with the sordid background North has speaking up for th organization. North represents everything contrary to the ideals of the BSA. Norht is a liar, and the mouth piece of the nuts cases of the religious right, or rather the religious reich. Of course he fits hand in glove with the current BSA leadership, which doesn't say much. But, for the rank and file Troop, Crew and Pack he should be anathema.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bobanon, I agree with you. By his "background" I was specifically talking about his criminal conviction, later overturned due to an ill-advised grant of immunity by the Senate. My point is that even if a criminal violation were not part of his background, he is not an appropriate speaker for the BSA because of his message.

[John-in-KC 311]

I think we've hit a small epiphany here.

 

The MESSENGER and the MESSAGE must be appropriate. An inappropriate messenger gets in the way of even a good message.

 

As far as issues go, in Ollie North's case, he as the messenger gets in the way of any message.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

GernBlansten writes:

On a technicality. He had been granted immunity by the Senate and his appeal was based that his immunity protected him in criminal court also. The appeal was not based on his guilt or innocence, in fact, it really confirmed his guilt as he basically admitted to the crimes but couldn't be held accountable due to the deal he struck with the Senate.

 

Yep, he was granted immunity (which also forced him to testify), which meant that they couldn't turn around and try to prosecute him later, as that would violate his fifth amendment right not to be compelled to testify against himself. Some notorious right-wing organization filed an amicus brief supporting North's fifth amendment rights - the ACLU.

[Lisabob 13]

John I'd have to say that as far as North goes, both the messenger AND the message are wrong. IMO.

 

But wow, look at all of us who agree on this! Gives me warm fuzzies.

 

Lisa'bob

[OldGreyEagle 5]

use of the term "religious reich" is inflammatory and should not be used again unless the poster has conclusive proof the people being chacterized as such have concentration camps and are systematically murdering millions of people.

[evmori 11]

And thanks to the ACLU, Ollie is earning millions on the lecture circuit instead of earning pennies stamping license plates. Another criminal set free. Thank you ACLU!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

And thanks to the ACLU, the government can't compel you to testify by granting you immunity, then turn around and prosecute you for it, which would render both immunity and the fifth amendment meaningless. And if you don't want the BSA paying thousands to a criminal like Oliver North, that's hardly due to the ACLU; they were only interested in preserving the constitution.

[John-in-KC 311]

Lisa,

 

Since Kum-bay-yah has been claimed by others of a different political bent, mebbe we can go back to the WB forum and sing a round of Gilwell

 

We never DID find a BobWhite for it.

[evmori 11]

ACLU = American Criminal Liberties Union

 

Thanks to those who fought so we could be free.

[Lisabob 13]

Ah, thanks Ed, that's more like the feel of the issues & politics forum. Inflammatory statements and such, even when we all agree on the basic topic!

 

John, I'm off to the WB forum!

 

Lisa'bob

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE says:

 

use of the term "religious reich" is inflammatory and should not be used again unless the poster has conclusive proof the people being chacterized as such have concentration camps and are systematically murdering millions of people.

 

As someone whose grandparents all lost family members -- and in some cases almost their entire family -- in the Holocaust, I agree with OGE. The analogy is thrown around way too much. Some of the situations we discuss on here are bad enough without adding references to something for which there is no comparison. It just distracts from what is being discussed.