Monday Brief

The Boy Scouts and Timeless Values

Jun. 3, 2013

The Foundation

“[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” –George Washington

Faith and Family

Timeless values or PC values?

“The recent decision by the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America to allow ‘openly gay’ youth to become members of the Boy Scouts was nothing short of a betrayal – a betrayal not only of the values scouting has represented for decades but also of the families whose support for the Scouts has spanned generations. … It’s worth noting that the law does NOT require the change in Scouts' policy: the ban on homosexual members was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts to remain true to their mission and decide, on a principled basis, who may become a member of their group. How ironic: After years of successful battles to maintain timeless principles, the BSA has fallen by their own hand. … [A]ll parents should use this sad moment to explain to young people, in particular, that the freedoms we hold dear will not survive if the moral fabric of our country continues to crumble. As those of us who have left scouting and now mourn the death of the BSA, let’s bind up our broken hearts and resolve to continue to honor the many leaders, families and churches who worked so hard over the years to build the character of young men through scouting. And to all former scouts – especially the Eagles – I urge you to write down your own treasured scouting memories so that you can share with your own kids one day what it was like when the Boy Scouts of America stood for principle and truth. RIP, BSA.” –columnist Rebecca Hagelin


“Score another triumph for modern American culture – the sexual assault scandal now racking the military. … The idea of pretending male and female personnel are the same in military terms and deserve the same status is the loopiest idea of our loopiest century, the 20th. … Sexual assault is what happens when you mix men and women in the same pot, then season it … with the cultural nonsense of the past 50 years; all the rubbish spoken by men and women alike, and approved by our intellectual/activist caste, about the necessity of ditching moral guidelines and guardrails, letting people operate pretty much the way they want to. Ideas have consequences, ladies and gentlemen of the political establishment. Pour into the intellectual pipeline a lot of nonsense about the oppressiveness of moral codes, and what comes out at the end of the pipeline is – ta-da! – 26,000 sexual assaults in the military, made easier, made more logical, by the complaisance of our post-1965 culture in the demise of standards and restraints of all kinds. What you sow, you reap.” –columnist William Murchison


“In August 2009, HHS and the White House Office of Health Reform called on their ground troops to report on fellow citizens who dared to criticize their federal health care takeover. Team Obama issued an all-points bulletin on the taxpayer-funded White House website soliciting informant emails. Remember? ‘If you get an email or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to,’ the Obamacare overlords urged. … Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn protested at the time that ‘these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program.’ The flagging operation was shut down, but a plethora of federal disclosure exemptions protect the Obama administration from revealing what was collected, who was targeted and what was done with the database information. White House lapdogs dismissed the concerns of conservatives as paranoid delusions. Now, fast-forward three years. In light of the draconian IRS witch hunt against tea party groups and the Justice Department’s plundering of journalists' phone records and email accounts, every tax-subsidized Obama ‘outreach’ initiative warrants heightened scrutiny.” –columnist Michelle Malkin

Political Futures

“I think when one adds up Benghazi, the AP mess, the IRS scandal, the politically correct laxity about domestic terrorism and radical Islam, the deliberate leaking of classified documents to preapproved in-house reporters, and what Kathleen Sebelius is trying to do, the impression given is Nixonian to the core: scores of ‘blindly’ ambitious underlings, competing with each other to outdo the next, in order to gain attention or brownie points from the man at the top, who lets it trickle back down that he is in a virtual push-back war with certain Americans (e.g., the Tea Party, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the NRA, the post-2010 Republican House, and assorted conservative groups). … Everything Nixon did was suspect, often with good cause, and seen through the prism of his excesses; in the case of Obama, from Fast and Furious to Solyndra to the EPA and NLRB freelancing to the selective enforcement of the law, the press has more often been an enabler, working to explain why a scandal or an excess is really some sort of right-wing obsession, emanating from suspect or even racist motives. Something very scary started in 2009-10 – and that this new way of doing business was supposedly done for the proverbial ‘people’ to ensure ‘fairness’ has made it even more insidious and far more difficult to come to terms with.” –historian Victor Davis Hanson

The Gipper

“Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline.” –Ronald Reagan

Essential Liberty

“The oil business is fiercely competitive. If one company charges a penny too much, other companies steal its business. Apple’s profit margin is about 24 percent. McDonald’s makes 20 percent. Oil companies make half that. Per gallon, ExxonMobil makes about 7 cents. Governments, by contrast, grab about 27 cents per gallon. That’s the average gas tax. If anyone takes too much, it’s government. … Almost no one seems to speak up for a true free market in energy, with competition, innovation and unfettered consumer choice. People say regulation is needed to counter industry ‘greed.’ But if anyone’s greedy here, it’s government – and unlike oil companies, government doesn’t have to work hard and compete to give you good service at the lowest possible price. Government just sits there, telling companies to charge less, telling car companies to make smaller and more dangerous cars, mandating and subsidizing alternative fuels like ethanol – and then telling us that we benefit from the politicians' efforts. The truth: We rarely benefit.” –columnist John Stossel


“We are taxed in our bread and our wine, in our incomes and our investments, on our land and on our property not only for base creatures who do not deserve the name of men, but for foreign nations, complaisant nations who will bow to us and accept our largesse and promise us to assist in the keeping of the peace – these mendicant nations who will destroy us when we show a moment of weakness or our treasury is bare, and surely it is becoming bare! … When a government becomes powerful it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is an usurer which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance, for votes with which to perpetuate itself.” –Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Re: The Left

“Liberals are waving around a new Congressional Budget Office analysis that shows higher earners benefit most from tax breaks in the federal code. ‘The 10 major tax expenditures considered here are distributed unevenly across the income scale,’ reports CBO. ‘In calendar year 2013, more than half of the combined benefits of those tax expenditures will accrue to households with income in the highest quintile (or one-fifth) of the population.’ Predictably, Democratic leaders in Congress are drawing the wrong conclusions. ‘This shows that we could achieve a significant amount of deficit reduction by limiting the preferences to the highest income earners,’ said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, according to Reuters. Actually, what the report shows is that when you have in place a system where the top 20% of earners pays nearly 70% of federal income taxes – and the top 1% pays 37% – it follows that tax breaks will disproportionately benefit higher earners. Nearly half of American households pays no federal income tax at all.” –Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley

For the Record

“In a speech on May 23, Obama insisted that we can’t continue prosecuting a ‘boundless global war’ against terror, and that we must attempt to dismantle specific extremist networks. Once again, he reiterated the idea that the war on terror is winding down. Yet he remains remarkably obtuse. ‘Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth,’ he insisted. ‘But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11.’ Shifted and evolved? Note the key word the president has yet again willfully omitted: we are threatened overwhelmingly by Muslim terrorists. Furthermore, it is utterly specious logic that posits the threat has shifted and evolved from that which occurred on 9/11, simply because the Islamists have failed to perpetrate another attack of that magnitude – or worse. Do anyone other than progressives seriously believe they’ve ‘evolved’ beyond wanting and trying to do so?” –columnist Arnold Ahlert

Opinion in Brief

“There was another reason Obama labeled the war on terror transformed: It allows him to claim that Benghazi was a black swan attack, different in kind from attacks that preceded it, and therefore unpreventable. He termed Benghazi a ‘localized threat.’ He said it was not directed by al-Qaida (actually, it was directed by Ansar al Shariah, an al-Qaida ally in Libya). He compared it to the Boston Marathon bombings repeatedly, trying to turn it into a random case of Islamists acting alone. Perhaps this is a mere attempt at diversion from the president. Perhaps he doesn’t mean what he says. Or perhaps he’s dooming America to a future of increased terrorism, state-sponsored, organized or disorganized, all to avoid scandal now.” –columnist Ben Shapiro

Reader Comments

“Mark Alexander’s essay, Political Agendas and Half-Staff Flags, was an excellent, cogent, and well-thought-out piece. God bless your Dad, Mark, for his service. You are spot-on in pointing out the obvious political agenda at work in the ‘half-staff or not’ debate. Keep up the good work!” –Rob in Eugene, Oregon

“Excellent essay on the flag! I have been screaming about this ever since Obama started politicizing when it’s lowered. He does nothing lest it be for his political agenda (and that of his handlers). Thanks for bringing these points to the fore.” –Killer63 in California

“I enjoyed reading about your trip with your Father to the National Cemetery in Chattanooga. I was out there also with my brother ( both of us former Marines) to place flowers on our Father’s grave, Navy WWII. It is always with the utmost reverence for both of us when we go. As a Vietnam vet I also take time to to reflect on those Marines that I served with who gave their last full measure of devotion in the defense of Freedom. I concur with your reasoning for lowering the flag on those day you mentioned. Keep up the good work. Thank you for all you do.” –James in Georgia

“The flags were not lowered in honor of former SEAL Chris Kyle either. What a patriot! His death was not even acknowledged by the coward in chief. I had the privilege to attend Kyle’s funeral. How many lives he saved we will never know. May God continue to bless his wife and kids.” –Vanessa in Arlington, Texas

The Last Word

“[A]lthough the commissioner of the IRS, Douglas Shulman, visited Obama’s White House no fewer than 157 times, which is 156 times more than his predecessor Mark Everson ever visited the White House, we know that this was for legitimate Easter-egg rolls, as he testified to Congress, and meetings to discuss Obamacare. The Easter Bunny, one should note, visits the White House two to four times as often as the average IRS commissioner did before Mr. Shulman came along. But you can’t make a health-care omelet without breaking Easter eggs: It is one of the many distinctive features of Obama-style ‘health’ ‘care’ ‘reform’ that, while it has not led to the hiring of a single additional doctor, nurse, or hospital janitor, it did require the biggest expansion of the IRS since the Second World War. So, when he wasn’t rolling Easter eggs and advising the moppets on whether they needed to declare the luxury Belgian white chocolate balls with praline filling, he was participating in vital meetings on how many extra SWAT teams he was going to need to enforce the new colonoscopy non-compliance penalty.” –columnist Mark Steyn

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

View all comments


wjm in Colorado said:

Hurray for Mark Steyn! Bringing laughter to what should have us all crying.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Chip Murray in Warwick said:

I could not be in more kindred spirit with Rebecca on Faith & Family

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Jim in Urbandale, IA said:

IMO the Boy Scouts must reverse their decision to allow homosexuals to become Scouts. Homosexuality is immoral behavior and is contrary to the Scout oath. Simple. Doesn't any one in America have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for our traditions, morals and families? Tragic.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Bud in The Divided States of America replied:

Even more Jim - those who voted for the decision to allow 'pathologically challenged' individuals into BSA must be removed from the BSA. They have declared their 'dis-ease' with fundamental integrity, self-respect, and good moral character.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Hamilton in IL replied:

Regarding this entire discussion about homosexual Boy Scouts ...

The point of Columnist Rebecca Hagelin's piece is predicated on the notion that in all cases, homosexuality is the result of a malevolent character - a character that seeks to do harm to others, that seeks to spread a pestilence. I say Ms Hagelin is on thin ice. I say that she, and everyone else who assigns an inherent depravity to homosexuality must PROVE it or else it is their assertions that are depraved, and contemptible.

Scientific research has shown a visible, measurable difference in a portion of the brain between a straight person and a homosexual one. This is not depravity. This is genetics or prenatal maladies for which the child is not to blame.

It is common knowledge that homosexuality among women is often caused by psychological problems relating to men. Does that make it depraved behavior?

The Boy Scouts is a very old organization. It is possible and likely that their "morally straight" oath, as it might apply to sexuality, was included at a time when they didn't know better, when they thought this odd behavior was the Devil's doing. It is also important to note that "morally straight" applies to all sorts of behaviors - probably the least of which is sexuality, since boys at this age aren't generally "there" yet.

As a straight man, married for 22 years and with 3 children, and a former assistant scoutmaster, I see plenty of potential problems associated with the Boy Scouts' recent decision. But I don't see the organization joining hands with the Devil and going to hell.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Cheryl in Ohio replied:

Sexual behavior is whatever form is a CHOICE. It is a behavior and we choose our behavior. Behavior is never immunitable (unchangeable). We can all control our choices regardless of our inclinations. Then there is the right and wrong aspect. Sex outside of marriage, outside of one man and one woman is wrong. Period. Immoral. Period.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Geoff in New Era, MI replied:

Cheryl, that is so easy to say when your heart is comfortable with the choices available to you. But if every fiber in your being is telling you that you are attracted to someone of the same sex, and that someone is attracted to you, and furthermore, neither of you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex, then who is to say what is "wrong" or "immoral"? And don't start quoting scripture, which is rife with practices and judgments that in today's world are almost universally considered barbaric. Times change, and freedom of choice (this is the Voice of Liberty, is it not?), especially when it comes to something as benign and as personal as who we choose to love and care for, should be something we all can stand behind. Fortunately for our millions of gay fellow Americans, the tide is finally turning in their favor.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 6:38 PM

rippedchef in sc replied:

the funny thing with liberals-they all want life to be easy.poor homosexual,tortured by his thoughts,victim of his own freely made we all must feel sorry for the poor soul,he really has no options-to overcome these yearnings is just too difficult and nobody should have such challenges in their life.don't we realize here at the PP that life shouldn't be so difficult-shouldn't we all just accept weakness,victimhood,moral relativism and the like?How dare we take a stand for our beliefs,trampling the "feelings" of our emotional liberal countrymen.How dare we have an opinion that actually entails discipline?Pre-marital sex-too hard to abstain,divorce-too hard to work it out,obese-impossible to put down the twinkie,drug addict-terrible enviornment to grow up in,too hard to put down the pipe,pregnant at 14-we understand,too poor to know any different,unemployed for 2 years-that's OK-we know you couldn't possibly work 2 jobs or work for less than you think you deserve until something better opens up.Don't worry about anything,the liberals will be there to make sure your life isn't too difficult,you don't face any challenges and you certainly won't be expected to take responsibility for your own freely made choices.Just relax liberals,patriots will defend your freedom,conservatives will pay for your laziness and men far better than you will stand firm,with honor and integrity,morality and the rule of law-knowing they can ill afford the luxury of being ruled by their emotions

Sunday, June 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Hamilton in IL replied:


If sexual behavior is a choice, then why is it that homosexuals who know they're homosexual, and are comfortable in their skins, always "choose" to be attracted to their same sex? Why don't they just choose differently some day, especially on a day when you are looking? Could it have something to do with a natural proclivity? Now, are natural proclivities immoral or depraved? Now, if you don't like homosexuals' choices, are you prepared to institute 'choice control'? Sounds like a Liberal paradigm. What are you prepared to do? Lock them all up? Shoot them?

Immorality, in the religious sense, indicates sin. Sin is a relative term, dependent upon the religion. Are you prepared to impose your standard of immorality upon the rest of America? Should we, in a like manner, allow the Islamists to set the morality standard in America? But that is exactly what the Islamists want to do. If you go that route it would looks like you and the Islamists employ similar methods.

Like I said above, if you're going to maintain that homosexuals are immoral, then you are obligated to prove it. Prove that they're choosing to do harm to others, that they intend to spread a pestilence. Either that, or please recant, because you haven't made your case; you've only spread your animosity and prejudice.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 11:57 PM

Doug in Pocomoke, MD replied:

Depravity and immorality is a function of action and intent - not brain scans. The brain scans of molesters, serial murderers and the like are also very different from a "normal" person's. Do we excuse their actions and accept their errant way as you have rationalized ? Think about what homosexuality is by what actions and thoughts it entails - not by the other measures that media and modern culture push onto you. I don't hate homosexuals. They are God's children too - but accepting their errant way is to live a lie and promote immorality.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Bud in The Divided States of America said:

The Power of Choice, is an inalienable right blessed upon all mankind by God. Our founding fathers, mothers, sons & daughters - Chose to be Free. Today, that freedom is attacked on multiple fronts, and shows many signs stress, and wavering. BUT - we will always have The Power of Choice available to us. We can 'choose' to re-commit to enduring freedom. We can also 'choose' bondage, slavery, and tyranny. In this case the choice is binary and cannot be any simpler. Binary 1 - Freedom? Binary 0 - Not Freedom? That choice belongs to each of us, as surely as the total result applies to all of us.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Zac Frampton in Payson, Utah said:

I guess they will need to make changes to both the scout law and oath. The box they have opened means that "Clean" and "morally straight" are no longer requirements.
The most irritating part of this for me is that the decision is obvious kow-towing to the homosexual establishment. They will stop at nothing until they destroy everything that we call holy or clean.
I was an Eagle scout as was my son. I have been a scout leader for many years, and to me if they were sexually active at all, much less with other guys, I would consider them not adhereing to the scout law and oath.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

So your standard for "clean" and "morally straight" means not being sexually active? Interestingly, that's exactly the standard the BSA is holding to, regardless of sexual orientation. Since you and the BSA are in agreement on that point how, exactly, does opening membership to more boys violate that standard?

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

To pronounce oneself "openly gay" means one is not "morally straight." They are mutually exclusive terms.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Brian and Paul:

You claim that being homosexual is immoral. What about being born homosexual is immoral? Morality implies a choice. Homosexuality isn't one.

Would you also have different standards of behavior for left-handed people? They used to be called sinister, after all.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Homosexuality IS a choice, unless you are some cluesless idiot spouting more mindless leftist propoganda. There has NEVER been any proof of a GAY GENE. Fool.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:42 PM

VoR in Ohio replied:

So, exactly when did you choose?

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

WJM: You're pretty slow on this point. There is no current credible evidence of a "gay gene". But there's a difference between congenital and genetic. Look it up.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 1:59 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

You are slow on every point genious, a legend in your own mind!

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:


Here, let me help:

You're welcome.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

You do err, Craig. You are confusing the individual and the action. Is the child bad for purposely spilling his milk, or is the child's behavior bad? I am not saying being homosexual is immoral, but his homosexual behavior is.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a person is "born homosexual." That same person, with his/her free will, can choose NOT to act on those tendencies. If you say that the person does not have a choice, then you are denying his/her free will.

What about a kleptomaniac? Should they not be punished when the act on that tendency (steal something)? They could argue they were born that way.

Bottom line: there is a difference between the sinner and the sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Your religion is free to define "sin" any way it chooses. All kinds of random things get called sin, like saying the wrong words, working on the wrong day of the week, or eating bacon. (I say it's a sin NOT to eat bacon!) It's not a relevant concept in this discussion. I'm not arguing against free will or personal responsibility. Nothing I've said could be construed so.

What you keep missing is that people are born with sexual attractions which manifest usually in puberty. For most of us it is to the opposite sex. For some of us it isn't. A few are even born without a specific sex. That's what I mean when I say it isn't a choice. It isn't a choice any more than being left-handed is. (That's another trait that is congenital but probably not genetic.)

So, yes, if you were born heterosexual you could use your free will to not act on that tendency. And someone else's religion, just as arbitrarily as yours, could call you a sinner if you do.

People clinging to the outmoded superstitions of desert nomads would do well to ask themselves: "Why do I care?" Why does it matter to you what two adults do in private? How are you harmed? What difference does it actually make? Whose pocket is picked or leg is broken?

Please spare us all the "God said so" answers. That's called the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. Besides, I don't really need your answers to the above questions. Everybody needs to ask themselves.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM

rippedchef in sc replied:

for as smart as you appear to be,please look up the word "choice"-by definition,a man born with a penis,designed for use with a woman,who uses it for a different purpose,makes a "choice".Just because a person "feels" he/she has no choice doesn't make it so.The child molester "can't control himself" or feels he "has no choice" but he does,the drug addict feels he "has no choice" but he does,the obese person who "feels he has no choice" but eat the entire pizza does have a choice,get the picture?The idea that the homosexual who claims an attraction to the same sex has no choice is ludicrous.weak and pathetic.

Sunday, June 9, 2013 at 1:52 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

2 WJM and others, there is evidence one genes can have an impact on many things to include sexual preference. I said impact. One thing I love about those who wave faith (Which is a good thing), there church, those who say the Bible is literal always and I do mean always end up on the wrong side of the facts.
Morality? Hitler got the idea of the final solution from the U.S.A. who was doing force sterilization of mentally challenged people and a genocide of native Americans.
Is this in the same class? For some of you yes.Before we start screaming morality, where was the church when we were giving Hitler his ideas?
You are worried about homosexuals so was Hitler.. I've read the Homeland security act, its called the Juden laws. You scream about freedom yet we allowed our freedoms to be taken away. Are we so myopic that we no longer care? As long as we are concerned and are complaining about other things more rights are being taken away.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Pilgrim in Oregon replied:

Born homosexual? We are all born sinners, yet every time we sin it is our choice to do so. Whether or not we are born with a predisposition to one sin or another is irrelevant. The problem with homosexuality is that those that practice that sin tend to believe it is not a sin. Just as it would be ridiculous for the Boy Scouts to affirm one's right to be a kleptomaniac it is ridiculous for them to affirm one's right to practice sodomy.

I don't buy into the whole "born a homosexual" gene, but the fact is whether or not one is born that way just doesn't matter. Now, if someone who has homosexual tendencies, but is honestly trying to mature from that sin then sure let them into scouts (just never alone).

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 4:54 PM

MAJ USA Ret in Saint Louis replied:

Hey, we were all "born-that-way" with proclivities to behave in ways contrary to our best interests as designed by our Creator.
Being "born-that-way" is no excuse for following your base lusts.
Learn to control your conduct.
We all have to do the same.
Of course, we could claim we are just animals and have no control over our behavior.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Cheryl in Ohio replied:

Sex is a behavior. Homosexuality is defined by how people behave sexually. Therefore it is a choice. Behavior is always a choice.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Behavior is a choice. Attraction isn't.

Or could you describe the moment you decided to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM



Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM



Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Eileen in Niagara Falls replied:

Why do the Scouts need to change the oath? Obama and his minions swore to uphold the Constitution. They have been picking at the Constitution at a rapid pace. People need to withdraw their sons from the Boy Scouts and start their own moral and decent group. How many parents and kids will be left to support a once decent organization.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Geoff in New Era, MI replied:

Just because an adolescent is gay does not mean that he will be sexually active with "other guys." If the scout law precludes sexual activity, how does admitting gay scouts change this? If a person's sexual orientation automatically makes them "unclean," then perhaps we had better redefine the term. And what is meant by "morally straight" is purely a value judgment. I am sure that millions of gay Americans consider themselves "morally straight," in that they live honestly, are kind to others, give to charity, are true to their partners; in other words, are living up to the ideals they learned from their parents and role models as youths. The Boy Scouts made the right, "morally straight" choice by no longer arbitrarily discriminating against gay members.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

"Just because an adolescent is gay does not mean that he will be sexually active with "other guys." If the scout law precludes sexual activity, how does admitting gay scouts change this?"

Careful, Geoff. A few folks here don't care much for logic problems.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Melissa in Perry, GA said:

Our church home has told us that we will have to leave by the end of the year. My 14 year old plans to get his Eagle before the end of the year, then he wants to quit before this happens. So many of our boys in the Troop have said the same thing; our Troop has probably gotten more Eagles than any other troop it's size, and it will probably disband. How SAD is that, because of the PC world gone crazy!!

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Nukeman in Ill Annoy replied:

You should form your own organization of like-minded parents and children. But stay far far away from government involvement.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 7:08 AM

don J. Whittaker in virginia beach, Virginia said:

The leaders of the Boy Scouts are to blame for the surrender to the PC crowd. They never should have surrendered.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM

sgtken in pittsburgh pa said:

And now these sick people want the leaders to be gay also. Give an inch then they want a mile. Good-by Boy Scouts, now you are sick also.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Murray Bass in California said:

This Mmorning in response to a request for funding by the Mt/ Diablo Council, I had to reply in this way
"You lost me. I just can't find it in my heart to support an organization whose lieadership is unwiling to follow its oath or its law.You are not doing your duty to God. And being morally straight is the backbone of scouting. . Openly "gay" boys are active homosexuals and are looking for partners. You have given them the opportunity to find them in scouting. You have poisoned the well. Sick, sick, sick.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Craig in Emeryville said:

Lots of pearl-clutching from Rebecca Hagelin about "betrayed values". In the excerpted text, though, she neglects to actually name the value she thinks the BSA has betrayed. What value or values might they be?

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Bud in The Divided States of America replied:

None that you could grasp or would interest you at all even if you could. Are you happy now that you got your dose of being loathed you rabid ass? There is only one cure for your ilk, and I wish you a speedy encounter with it.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM

HorseTeethSam in Michigan replied:

I second that. Homosexuality comes from a sick, twisted and depraved mind. Homosexuals are psychologically unfit, they are not well, they are mentally ill. They must repent of their sin and give up their perversion.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Bud and Horse:

Thank you for elevating the level of discourse. Please provide your evidence for homosexuality being a choice. Note that current science finds none.

What Bud wrote could, without much of a stretch, be interpreted as a threat of, or desire for, violence. If that doesn't trigger an appropriate response from the Patriot Post then the comments on this site are officially out of control.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Bud in The Divided States of America replied:

Not a threat you moron. I would make good on summarily dispatching you if you ever came at me with physical violent hatred. But I have the good sense of restraint, provided you do not. It would be your choice. Until then, your pathetic thoughts and words are not appreciated here. As for that you make effort to stretch and interpret into violent terms, fire away cupcake! I am happy to hear you whine about your sense of injustice.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Bud, you wrote "There is only one cure for your ilk, and I wish you a speedy encounter with it."

Please explain exactly and in clear terms what you meant by "ilk", and what the "one cure" is.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

You clueless fool, you have no values if you cannot see. Morrally Straight, not queer. There is no room for sodomites in the Boy Scouts. Do you have any values at all?

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:


I'm not going to waste a lot of time on you. Anybody using the word "sodomite" is relying on the superstitions of ignorant shepherds. It has no meaning outside the context of certain ancient religions.

Of course I have values. One of them is treating people with respect, and not being bigoted against someone for how they were born. I choose to judge people for the choices they make.

What "values" of yours allow you to judge someone for how he is born? Would your religion also let you mistreat them for being born the wrong color? In the wrong tribe? To the wrong family? For using a different hand to write with?

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Provide proof that the aberrant are born that way! You cannot, but you can ask the same of others? Sodomite is an accurate term. My values come from God, who you also ignore at your peril. Anything you attmept to argue with is a waste of time on me and many others who post here, one would think someone who has such a high regard for themselves would eventually get a clue?

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

"Superstitions of ancient shepherds", eh?

Christianity teaches that everyone is born with a propensity towards sin. This does not mean that we must act on this propensity. To do so would deny the saving Grace given to us by our Creator (who, by the way calls himself The Good Shepherd). The fact that you have succumbed to your sodomite leanings and are attempting to rationalize your (and others') actions by claiming you are born this way and morals that have stood for thousands of years are suddenly "superstitions" is laughable. Keep listening to your leader Satan, the Father of Lies, and see where it gets you.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM

WTD in AZ replied:

Easy answer, Craig. A homosexual cannot honor the Boy Scout oath and Law. He cannot "do his duty to God" who condemns homosexuality, and "keep himself morally straight".

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Maggie Newton in Wichita, Kansas said:

It's so very ironic that the same group who says "Physically strong, mentally awake, Morally straight" has now decided that phrase has no meaning. So very very sad.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Doug Bates in AL said:

Do you really think that the Boy Scouts did not have gays in its ranks already? Just like in the military there were gays before don't ask don't tell. We are making a big deal out of nothing. Do people actually think the BSA is going to be taken over by gays? It is not up to us to judge these young men but to provide them with guidance.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

Careful there, Doug. Quite a few people here seem to think that it's somehow immoral to be born a certain way. If you keep applying logic to the situation they're likely to object. Why, the next thing you'll do is claim people should be judged solely for their actions or something!

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Your Born a certain way arguement has no merit. It is a Choice, usually brought on by mollestation or other abuse as a child. Your logic is flawed as usual. Homosexuality is aberrant behavior, not normal in any way.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

There is nothing immoral about being born, but we are all sinners from birth. It is one's actions (despite any genetics or abnormalities) that determine whether one is moral or not. God gave us all a free will. Thus we all have choices to make throughout our lives. Choosing an immoral lifestyle is wrong in God's eyes. Flaunting that lifestyle, insisting that others embrace it as "normal," is just as wrong.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Patrick in Houston replied:

Craig, why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Nukeman in Ill Annoy replied:

Again with the unprovable assertion of being born homosexual?

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 7:16 AM

Dave in long grove, il replied:

Very well said Doug.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM

squinn in Beautiful Downtown Harvey, LA replied:

Of course there were and are gay scouts already - but they didn't advertise it openly. The new "guidelines" apply to boys who want to openly announce their "situation". Previously, I'm sure than any boy who did make such an admission was either quietly drummed out, or subjected to a blanket party - or worse.
All they've got to do is keep their mouths shut regarding their preference. I certainly don't go around telling anyone within earshot that I like women, and I don't feel less-than-complete by not doing so.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM

RichardP in Louisville said:

Oh so very true.
Wonder how their financial statement will look a year from now.
Hope all the Corporate Liberals have deep pockets as they will be needed to
prop up this now failing organization.

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Harry Payne in Pleasant Grove, Utah said:

This is so sad. I have served in scouting for many years and many positions and have loved and supported it's standards. I have donated both time and money for what I believe has been a great way to raise young men to be strong fathers and leaders in society. It is now at a standstill or even fallen behind. I can no longer support the BSA. To be morally strong is a strength that is second to none. I will find other ways to support our young men!

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Scott in Texas said:

I'm almost embarrassed to say that I was a scout. But because I did it in the good old days I can stand tall.. I'm tired of this new change !!! We need to get rid of this distroyer of the United States and return back to the old values that made this country!

Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM