Jump to content

The Community Organizer in Chief and the BSA Report to the Nation


Recommended Posts

< Cynic mode >

 

So the Community Organizer in Chief conveniently forgets that Scouting is part of the fabric of many communities and panders to his liberal blogosphere base: He closes the White House to reporting (per Eagle92's earlier post) when the group of Scouts come to pay their annual office call on their Honorary President.

 

I guess keeping the Community Organizer in Chief's liberal base happy (what they don't see, they cannot blog upon) is better than showing a group of young Americans that the values impared to them by Scouting matter.

 

My 0.01 (the other cent got caught in ARRA)

 

< / Cynic mode >

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"....and obey the Scout Law, to jump to conclusions at all times, to be..." The meeting was closed to journalists but you have no way of knowing why or whose decision that was. Perhaps they did not want to press peppering the scouts with questions about membership controversies.

 

A better sign of where the President stands will be if he accepts the position of Honorary President. I think he will but we'll all have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough crowd.

He shuts out the drive-by liberal media and he's labeled ashamed to be seen with us.

Had he allowed them in, he'd be labeled a panderer and hypocrite by us.

 

We have met the enemy and he is us.

 

J in KC, aren't you retired military? I thought the military had higher regard for the commander in chief than to call him names?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Trev on that. Get a grip, BadenP.

 

But I would just add that we should remember the flap last summer when then-candidate Obama was trashed by some parts of the media for "refusing to meet with" and/or "refusing to allow media coverage of his meetings with" soldiers in a military hospital in Germany. Turned out the story wasn't accurate at all, and anyway, he would have been equally criticized had there been a full-blown media circus surrounding his visit to the troops. I don't know the details of the BSA meeting, but I can't help but wonder if this isn't another example of certain media types blowing half a story out of all proportion.

 

(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Community Organizer in Chief? Is this supposed to be some kind of put-down?

 

Some notable Community Organizers we should be familiar with:

 

Lord Robert Baden Powell

William D. Boyce

Daniel Seaton

E. Urner Goodman

Carroll A. Edson

William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt

Juliet Lowe

 

Every Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Advisor, Den Leader, Assistant Scoutmaster, Commissioner, District Chairman, Council President, District Executive, Scout Executive, Chief Scout Executive (and every other type of volunteer and professional BSA leader) there ever was - past to present.

 

Is there something wrong with being a Community Organizer? I sure hope not - because I've been one - as has pretty much every adult that has ever volunteered in the BSA.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why the meeting was closed to the press. Maybe for polical reasons, maybe to protect the youth involved in the meeting from wingnuts on the left or some reason I can't imagine.

 

Either way I find personally disturbing that on the eve of scouting's 100th anniversary in this country a meeting of scouts with the President of the US, no matter who he or she is, has become so controversial.

 

SA

Link to post
Share on other sites

SA has my point.

 

A meeting with half a dozen 8-20 year olds is so controversial the President of the United States cannot be seen with them? Hello? What's going on here?

 

As to those who ask my status, yes, I am retired from the Armed Forces. My oath, however, never was to the President: "...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States...". My full free speech rights were restored to me (many members of the military understand their position has a voluntary, somewhat written, somewhat unwritten abridgement of their 1st Amendment speech rights), and I will say about this man what I choose.

 

From my POV, his domestic policy is direct and willful attack against the values imparted by the Aims and Methods of Scouting, starting with the Citizenship Aim, the Values Method, and Thrifty in the Scout Law.

 

And yes, Mr Bush gets to stand right next to him on breaking thrifty to a fare-thee-well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's going on here?"

 

A good question John. I'll take a stab at answering. In my opinion, the BSA has aligned itself with intolerance by establishing membership criteria that discriminate against otherwise fine people who just happen to be homosexual or who don't believe in supernatural religions. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, such religious and sexual intolerance was considered to be a virtue. These days however, such intolerance is widely seen as an embarassing and archaic character flaw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These days however, such intolerance is widely seen as an embarassing and archaic character flaw.

 

And there's the rub, Trev. From my POV, those positions are neither archaic nor character flaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if it's considered a character flaw or a sign of character.

 

The BSA has chosen to allign itself with one end of the political spectrum on one or two specific issues. It is no longer percieved by the general public to be politically neutral.

 

 

 

SA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if some day society will look back and say look at those people who lived in the latter half or so of the 20th Century, they prized individuality, they wanted people to actually be responsible for themselves, they thought rewarding people for their independent actions were all actually good ideas.

 

Not that discrimination against gays and atheists is right, it is not, but just because societal values change, does not mean that the change is correct

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...