Thursday, October 31, 2013

Snowden May Testify on Merkel Spying



#snowden #NSA #merkel #wiretapping #obama #germany

So it looks like Edward Snowden, the 30 year old ex-analyst with the NSA who reveled NSA domestic and foreign spying may testify at a hearing concerning the Angela Merkel phone surveillance situation. I have to say, I think this is awesome.

If this actually happens Snowden will have to travel from Moscow, Russia to Berlin, Germany to be interrogated by German authorities, which could be a diplomatic hurdle all on its own.  

If brought to Germany German officials have stated that they will not cave into any pressures from the US to extradite the former NSA employee and whistle blower if he steps on German soil.

This whole wire tapping thing has caused all sorts of problems for the Obama Administration. According to the documents and other sources, it seems Obama was in fact aware that Angela Merkel was being spied on by the NSA. Of course the WH is firmly denying this allegation, saying that the president was never briefed by the NSA about Merkel phone surveillance.

However, it would seem as though the documents released by Snowden tell a different story. A story of how the US pushed ahead and wire tapped phone conversations in Germany. Not just German leaders were wire tapped mind you, but the German citizens as well.

The documents also tell a tale of how the NSA has been spying on Google and Yahoo overseas, which has led German officials to urge journalists to stop using Google and Yahoo search engines for the time being. The Germans also want the US to sign a “no spying” deal to ensure that espionage between allies is not occurring.

So to be honest, I can’t wait to see what happens. I would love to see Snowden go to Germany and testify. This all needs to be brought out into the light. Is America a great country? I would like to think so. But with all of these revelations how can we trust what our president is saying? It doesn’t matter if the president is a Democrat or not. How can we ever trust another president again when we know this stuff is happening?

SOURCES:

"Coach" ave Daubenmire Responds to My Email



#bullying #homosexualbullying #christians #davedaubenmire #davidpakmanshow #bible  

I seriously didn’t think it would happen, but it did. “Coach” Dave Daubenmire actually replied to the email I sent him which asked him to recount the things he said about bullying.

I posted this blog last night about a guy named Dave Daubenmire who has his own internet talk show. Yesterday I found a clip from the David Pakman Show where David talks about this “Coach” and how he thinks that not bullying homosexuals is actually anti-Christian bullying.

FROM THE VIDEO:

In fact, when someone says something that their conscience tells them to say and everyone rises up against him, then we see the majority begin to bully the minority once again. And you know what’s rapidly happening in America? We’re beginning to see Christians and Christian ideas and Christian values become the most bullied things in all of this nation.”

I wrote the blog about this man and what he said and then I went straight to Twitter, where I asked some of my followers to tell Dave Daubenmire what they all think of his ridicules statements. I myself sent a message to Mr. Daubenmire:

Dear "Coach" Dave
A clip from your show was recently brought to my attention, where you claim that the most bullied of all things in this country is Christianity. For shame, Mr. Daubenmire.

As a Christian you have churches dedicated to your beliefs all across the country. You have politicians on your side that rally congress to make law based on the god of bible. There are Christian clubs in nearly every school across the country.
Your whole idea of "the discrimination of discrimination is discrimination" is nonsense.
I'm sure you're a relatively intelligent man (I hope at least) who has a strong faith in god and walks side by side with Jesus down the beach like in that "Footsteps" poem. But what you said on your show is not what Jesus would have wanted. You claim that not allowing Christians to bully homosexual people is discrimination against Christians. But what did the bible say about bullying?

Leviticus 19:18 ESV / 1,060 helpful votes

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

2 Timothy 1:7 ESV / 598 helpful votes

For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

1 John 3:15 ESV / 411 helpful votes

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

What’s even better is this verse:

Matthew 5:11 ESV / 257 helpful votes

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

The bible even says that homosexuals are blessed when you bully them. Sure, you can play the semantics game all you want Mr. Daubenmire, and claim that you yourself are blessed because people revile your revile. But if you keep that up you're not making any strides toward any sort of progress what-so-ever and you go against god's wishes.

Anyone can play the semantics game, sir. The sad part about that is that it keeps this ridicules circle jerk going for years. 

I thought it was a great message. I was trying to be as diplomatic and friendly as possible. I thought I made a pretty good point. Here is the full message Mr. Daubenmire sent back to me from his iPhone:
I m not sure the Bible says anything about bullying but it says a lot about how we treat one another.  I never said it was ok for anyone to bully anybody....I merely tried to point out that bullying gets worse the older we get and that we would do well to teach our children that truism so that they might be better prepared for life
But unfortunately that is not what Mr. Daubenmire was saying on his program. Mr. Daubenmire is trying to hide from the fact that he said not allowing Christians to bully gays is anti-Christian bullying. Mr. Daubenmire says that bullying gets worse as you get older. I have to disagree to a certain extent, but that’s just my opinion. But either way, he is trying to say that telling a Christian not to persecute a homosexual is actually persecution against the Christian. He was begging the question, “Aren’t Christians being persecuted by the homosexuals?”

I have a final thought to this. Mr. Daubenmire just isn’t a very good talk show host. Like all conservative pundits and pundit wanna-be’s he just makes crazy statements that he can’t even follow, and then gives an explanation in the attempt to distance himself from the words he actually used. “Oh no I didn’t say that Christians are bullied because tolerance for homosexuality was growing. I was saying that bullying gets worse no matter who you are and we need to prepare ourselves for it.”

The whole “discrimination of discrimination is discrimination” idea that Mr. Daubenmire talked about in the video is just a semantics game that anyone can play. And the sad thing is that these people are willing to play semantics and use cognitive dissonance to make their absurd points, and when people do that it allows this ridicules circle jerk to continue forever with seeming no end in sight.

Tell Mr. Daubenmire what you think of his statement:


Phone: (740) 323-0871

Address: “Coach” Dave Daubenmire
P.O. Box 744
Hebron, OH, 43025, USA

Predatorswatch.com UPDATE!



#Scams #predatorswatch.com  

So remember earlier this year? I didn’t either until I saw my calendar this morning. God damn time files by!  

Anyway I was going through some old files, doing some organization to get the blog up and running again and I noticed my blogs from earlier this year about predatorswatch.com.

For those who don’t know, predatorswatch.com was a scam site that would create fake personal ads on websites like craigslist.com and would take responding male’s information and post it online. The victim who was unfortunate enough to reply to these fake sex ads would receive an email explaining to them that they are on a website that lists known sexual predators and exhibits the information publicly.

In order to get the information taken off this bogus site, you had to pay the guy $99.95. The reason the owners felt this payment was necessary was listed in the FAQ section of the website. It explained that it was needed to pay the developers for their time and service to remove the information.

They were tricky bastards, because also in their FAQ they mention US law which protected them. You see, in no way can you link the people who post the fake ads to the owners of the bogus website. And the owners of the website don’t post this information themselves, they allow any Joe Shmo to post information about anyone they please, just as long as they don’t use any copyrighted photos. The US law which protects them basically says that the owner of a website cannot be held responsible for the content their users post. And since the owners posted this on their site, and everyone else but them is posting this bogus information, they cannot be held liable.

Example: I use Blogger.com to host this blog. Blogger.com is not held responsible if you are offended at the stuff I say on my blog. If I am breaking the TOS then Blogger.com can delete my profile. But other than that they can not be held liable for the crazy shit I talk about in this blog.

For extra protections, the owners even used a service called “domain privacy”. That’s where you pay a third party to pretend to be the owner of the site, when in fact they really have no affiliation with the site other than providing you with privacy. So yeah, these guys had their asses covered.

Well I checked out the website and it is gone! In fact Wiki-Warnings.com is also down! This was done because of several entities from what I hear, but I’m still not clear on who or what was behind the closing of these two sites. But who cares right?

But hey folks, watch your back out there. I’m sure this set back isn’t going to stop the owners of these sites, or any other scum bag who wants to do the same thing from doing it again.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Not Bullying Gays is Anti-Christian Bullying



So I was checking out the articles and videos on the net as I usually do, when I suddenly came across this piece. It was from a David Pakman show I found on Youtube which was posted today. It was all about a guy named “Coach” Dave Daubenmire, who said on one of his internet show that not allowing Christians to bully homosexuals for their lifestyle is actually bullying against Christians

So I watched the video and found that yes, this man did actually say that Christians are being bullied because they are told they can’t bully homosexuals. For some insane reason (which I will chalk to religion), this man believes that Christians have a right to bully gays because their lifestyle goes against the will of god. Telling them they can’t or shouldn’t bully people for being homosexual is an attack against their religion, and therefore they are the ones who are really being bullied.

I can’t even begin go into how stupid/hateful/ignorant this is, because the idea of it is just so ridicules. It’s just another case of religious folk who claim to be bullied and tormented because people refuse to agree with their insane doctrines.

FROM THE VIDEO:

Dave Daubenmire: “But only in the last five, fifteen years has bullying become such a big issue, and folks the whole bullying idea is built around the homosexual agenda. To try to get people to (not) criticize, or make fun of, or poke fun at homosexuals, that is the whole genesis of the “no bullying”. That’s where it all came from. What is hate speech legislation? See? They say hate speech prevents bullying but it’s not, it’s just the opposite. Hate speech increases bullying! In fact, when someone says something that their conscience tells them to say, and everyone rises up against him, then we see the majority begin to bully the minority once again. And you know what’s rapidly happening in America? We’re beginning to see Christians and Christian ideas and Christian values become the most bullied things in all of this nation.”

David made a great point in his video. He said that the “Coach” is actually sympathizing with gay people in a way because he is basically saying that Christians being bullied is bad because bullying is bad, essentially saying that if it’s bad for the goose it’s bad for the gander.

I’m very sure the “Coach” doesn’t see it that way but…wait a second…what is this man a coach of, anyway?

Hey, seriously though, tell “Coach” Dave Daubenmire what you think of his statement.

“Coach” Dave Daubenmire


Phone: Tel: (740) 323-0871

Address: Coach Dave Daubenmire
P.O. Box 744
Hebron, OH, 43025, USA

SOURCES:


Back Again! What Have I Missed?


It’s been a long time, but after another long hiatus I am back!

It’s hard talking politics all day and debating over the net and in person. It can really get to a person after a while and really burn them out. So I took a break, focused on work, and silently watched as America (and the rest of the world) put on this lovely little absurd play. I laughed, I cried, I shouted, then I drank a beer and passed out. So let’s get down to it. What happened since my last post?

Government Shut Down:

Oh joy! Republicans have outdone themselves this time. They actually shut down the government because of their grievances with the Affordable Care Act.

When the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”, was due to be enacted the Republicans went on an all out assault and tried to stop it by shutting down the government. Many Republicans were on the TV at this time talking about how this was all about stopping “Obamacare”, yet others were saying that this was less about “Obamacare” and more about the debt ceiling or both. Debt ceiling debates aside, we all know why they wanted the shut down. It was simply an effort put forth to attempt a halting of funds to, or the down right dismantling of the Affordable Care Act.

Why would Republicans do this? Were the majority of Republicans all for this? Well, no they really weren’t at first, I think. Sure, many Republicans were against the ACA, even after a SCOTUS ruling which deemed the ACA constitutional. But a minority of House Republicans (Tea Party Republicans) were able coaxed the rest of their colleagues to take it one more step off the crazy edge. And thus the government shut down was born.

What is really funny about the whole Republican manufactured shut down is how after the shut down took place the Republicans were quick to respond to critics by saying that they never wanted to shut down the government and that it was the Democrats fault the government was shut down.

But the Republicans spent weeks and months talking about how they will shut down the government unless a law they didn’t like was repealed immediately. How in the world can they turn around and say they never wanted to shut down the government?

It’s like being in a dysfunctional, abusive relationship with someone. You demand that your partner do something that they can’t or otherwise don’t want to. So to get them to comply you threaten them with the ultimatum that they either comply or get injured. When they still don’t comply you start to beat them, all the while saying, “This hurts me more than it hurts you. I never wanted this, nor am I doing it. You’re doing it to yourself and you’re the one who wanted this. If only you just did what I told you to do, you wouldn’t have brought this on.”

What is even more absurd is the Republican attitude toward the shutting down of war memorials and national monuments and parks. They seemed to be more upset that veterans could not go to war memorials than the fact that their shut down was going to cost billions of dollars for the country. I thought this was somewhat interesting though. Republicans tout themselves as being extremely patriotic, and their attitude towards the fighting men and women of our military seems very loving and highly supportive. Republicans constantly talk about supporting the troops and how we wouldn’t have freedom without them.
Memorials Closed Due to Government Shut Down

Yet, when they aren’t fighting wars Republicans don’t seem to care about them. They come home after fighting questionable wars, and all they get is a pat on the back and sent on their way. Many of the troops who come home suffer from mental disorders they received due to the traumas of war. Many of them cannot find jobs, cannot get the healthcare they not only need but deserve due to VA hospital tie ups (another debacle created by Republicans), and many even end up homeless. But Republicans don’t seem to care about the health and status of our veterans at all. They only care about buildings made of stone and mortar that were erected to honor them, not the actual fighting soldiers. If they truly cared, then why would they try to cut funding for VA hospitals?

To drive the idea that this shut down was not their fault the GOP had photos taken of Republican law makers sitting down at one side of a long conference table, the other side was vacant essentially saying, “We’re here to fix this, but Democrats don’t want to.”
GOP "Ready to Compromise"

In the end a compromise was made though, one that would raise the debt ceiling and allow “Obamacare” to continue unhindered as planned. The Republicans lost their silly battle against healthcare, and the cost of the shut down to the country was $24 billion. All because they wanted to cry about something they couldn’t dictate.

Now that they lost that battle a new battle rages on to discredit the Affordable Care Act; the failure of the ACA website. Yes, the ACA website is one hell of a cluster fuck. With all of the problems it is having it really is hard to tell if the site is just being inundated with traffic from Americans who want to sign up for healthcare, or if the site just plain sucks.

Republican attacks against the site are filled with silly talking points that make them look pettier then you could imagine. They are attacking it by criticizing the President for the cost of fixing the ACA website www.healthcare.gov, which is being reported as $634 million.

This is silly, because compared to the shut the ACA website has only cost 2.64% of the government shut down cost (if the numbers are being reported are accurate). Hmm, and they call themselves fiscally responsible when they can’t even tell that 24 billion is more than 634 million? Interesting.


NSA Spying:

Well, the cat’s out of the bag now, Mr. President! Thanks to 30 year old Edward Snowden, an EX analyst for the NSA, the entire world now knows that the United States of America has been spying not only on it’s own people, but the people and governments of other countries. How did this information get leaked? It got leaked because Edward Snowden was privy to this information and had access to sensitive documents, and he released them to The Guardian, exposing the NSA’s domestic and foreign spying efforts.

Currently, Snowden is living in Moscow, Russia after being given amnesty by Russian president, Vladimir Putin. This action by Putin was taken simply to stick a large bug up Obama’s ass, and it worked. Because of these actions Snowden is safe from American reprisal for the time being. And now the entire world knows of America’s spying, and they are not very happy about it to say the least.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is one of many world leaders that are particularly concerned about this spying revelation, especially now since we are discovering that the USA was spying on her cell phone conversations and what’s more sources say Obama knew about it.

Merkel has been in the news a lot recently because she is asking the President if these allegations are true. The White House of course has taken a firm stance on these accusations, and the NSA itself is denying that they ever briefed President Obama on Angela Merkel phone surveillance.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama

First off come on, man. Obama had to have known about it, I’m sure he did allow it, and now I’m sure he is lying about it. I mean, the man renewed NDAA which expanded on indefinite detention and indiscriminate wire tapping. Then he went behind everyone’s back and signed into law the Monsanto Protection Act, knowing damn well that his constituency did not want him to do that. Yet, I’m not seeing very much anger on the Democrat side.

I have to share a story here. A friend of mine once bashed Bush, saying that he was wire tapping the American people and spying on us and detaining people indefinitely and that Bush was a real asshole for all of that.

So, just this summer I asked “What do you think of the NDAA being renewed and all the NSA revelations under this administration?” To which he replied, “Well PEOPLE in the GOVERNMENT have been spying on us for decades now, so it’s no big deal really. And I don’t mind it at all because I’m not doing anything that I shouldn’t be.”

WOW! What a change of heart! A Republican is in office and a Democrat assaults him verbally for establishing laws which make it easier for the government to spy on its own people. Then a Democrat gets into office, does the same exact thing, and it’s totally acceptable.

Remember folks, I’m no Obama-Yes-Man. I did vote for him, yes. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to defend his every action or inaction. This is just how it is.

Quite frankly, I believe that Obama is way more right-winged than anybody is willing to believe, and that this type of behavior is going to continue and many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, are going to allow it.


Syria!!:

So Syria was a big deal for me. When I heard about it I was pissed. “Here is our famous “anti-war president” dragging us into another unnecessary conflict”, I thought. I mean seriously folks, this is the guy who campaigned on Iraq being an unnecessary conflict that we should never repeat again, yet he wants to lob missiles into other countries?

Obama said that “no boots would touch the ground”, and he even had John Kerry try and explain to us that war is only war when troops are not on the ground fighting other soldiers. Since no boots are touching the ground, Kerry tried to explain to us, there is no real war. It’s just some missiles being fired, aimed at strategic points to cripple the other country’s regime and force them to surrender. That’s all, folks. No war here.
Kerry at Senate Hearing Discussing Syrian Intervention

It hurts my brain to think about it, but Mr. Kerry truly is one real son of a bitch for trying to get us to believe this nonsense. He clearly wants us to believe that there are no sailors who are going to be controlling these missiles. Are they not troops or part of our fighting forces during war time? Do they not feel the morality of what they do weighing on their shoulders? I guess not. How about pilots whose missions are to drop bombs or control drones? Are they not troops?

This reminds me of something, an anime called Gundam Wing. In the story there is a type of mobile suit created which does not require a pilot to control it manually from the inside of its cockpit or from a remote location. They are all controlled by computer and are for the most part autonomic. While these machines are out fighting wars in space against real people the citizens of the alliance which built the machines barely feel the true effects of the war and have essentially become separated from it in nearly every way.

That is how I feel when our politicians try to tell us that no boots on the ground means war cannot exist. I feel it is a dirty, underhanded trick that politicians find necessary to use when they want to start another conflict without their followers realizing what it really is.

Luckily though, we have had some seemingly good progress come out of this almost-conflict with Syria. The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad has actually pledged to get rid of their chemical weapon stock piles and has said that he would like Syria to become apart of the Geneva Convention. I have to admit, I did laugh when I heard this. Only because I wasn’t sure if Assad would go through with it, however it seems that he is.

No news has been making it to the major media networks about that region for a while though…interesting.


So that’s about it for this blog, now that I’m back from hiatus stayed tuned for some more to come.

If you want you can follow me on Twitter @Turk_Reno

Or you can find me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/reno.erde


SOURCES:









Friday, February 8, 2013

Why Do Conservatives Fear Gay Scouts?



With the decision to repeal a discriminating exclusion of homosexuals in the Boy Scouts of America coming up a lot of emotions are running in overdrive. Many people who are gay and straight are currently showing either their support or outrage toward lifting this discriminatory membership policy, which excludes homosexuals (and atheists) from being members of the BSA organization.

The BSA is a great organization that I was once a member of. Around my early freshman year of High School I started to realize that I was gay, and it was around the same time I found out that the BSA discriminates against gays. I felt so ashamed at first, like I had done something wrong, so I quit the scouts. But I also felt so ashamed afterward that I never came out. I was very confused about the way society expected me to be and how I was not meeting up to those standards. My self confidence deteriorated significantly, and my social skills became nearly nonexistent. Not to say that I was the most popular or well liked person in school, but there was most definitely a difference between the ‘Boy Scouts me’ and the ‘after Boy Scouts me’. All because some people decided that homosexuals do not fit the criteria of an organization that promotes good vales and teaches great life lessons. What a fucking shame.

My boyfriend was also a member of the Scouts, and his father was too, as well as a Scoutmaster. He knew he was gay and accepted it at an earlier age than I did. He completed everything the Scouts ask of him in order to obtain his Eagle Badge up to completing his Eagle Project. He came so close to being awarded with his Eagle Badge accomplishment when he told the BSA to fuck off, and that he was gay and that he wanted nothing to do with a discriminatory organization. Wish I had done it that way, but instead I gave into the belief that I was unsuitable to be a Boy Scouts because of who I was. Does anyone have a time machine I could borrow?

Seriously, if I had stayed with the Scouts I would have had much more self confidence in my High School years, plus I would have had more great times with my fellow Scouts, learning new ways to be self sufficient and self reliant, while at the same time having awesome and daring adventures across the United States.

I love the Boy Scouts of America, and I think that they teach young men the skills and values that are useful in nearly every aspect of life.

But the question has to be asked. Why would an organization like this discriminate against homosexuals? And why is it that when people try to put an end to this kind of discrimination that conservatives come out and act like it would be the end of the world?

“Oh my God, we could have gays in the Boy Scouts, Martha!”

Newsflash folks, we already have gays in the Boy Scouts! I was a Boy Scout who is gay; my boyfriend was a Boy Scout who is gay. As far as we know any volunteers we that we knew while we were in Scouts could have been gay.

Just like in the military, the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was in affect, like majorly. That was good and all, I guess. But what happens to a soldier or a sailor when his commanding officers found out he was actually gay? He was discharged, end of story. And the same thing is happening to good gay men all across the nation. Men who never brought up their sexuality because it had no place in a Scouting or military atmosphere have been persecuted and discharged upon discovery of what they do in their own private time with the ones they are intimate with.

The BSA and proponents of this anti-gay member policy say that if homosexuals are allowed to be members of the BSA that they will be required to talk about sex with our children and make it policy that homosexuality be brought up during Scout meetings. They fear that once homosexuals are allowed in that we will have to explain to our kids that Scoutmaster Rick is gay and that means he likes other men.

But the Scouts have never been about teaching children about sex. It even says so, right in the Scoutmasters Handbook from 1972:

Rule number 1: You do not undertake to instruct Scouts, in any formalized manner, the subject of sex and family life. The reasons are that it is not construed to be Scoutings proper area, and that you are probably not well qualified to do this.

So with this rule being stated, why is it that the BSA has to exclude homosexual members? Do they believe that because they are homosexual they will undoubtedly indoctrinate children and teach them about sex?

The right-wingers make a great point on this too, and that is that Scouting is not about sex. They’re absolutely right, couldn’t agree with them more on that statement. But if that’s the case then why is it that the BSA is discriminating against a group of people because of their sexual preference? If Scouting is not about sex why do they make it an issue to discriminate against a certain group of people because of who they have sex with? Doesn’t that whole line of thought kind of go along the lines of saying, ‘Scouting has everything to do about sex’?

I guess what I am saying here is that homosexuals who want to be members of the BSA never wanted there to be an issue about sex, or their sexuality. They never wanted it to be brought up, nor did they want to bring it up. And why is that? Again, it’s because Scouting is not about sex (says so in the Scoutmaster’s Handbook of 1972), and it is certainly not about your Scoutmaster giving your kids any type of sexual education.

The people who made this issue about sex are the conservatives, mainly the Mormon Church. They are the ones who claimed that homosexuals would HAVE to be appointed to Scoutmaster positions and that they would HAVE to be allowed to talk about sex and sexual orientation. This can’t be further from the truth.

With the presences of homosexuals already in the ranks of the Boy Scouts, don’t you think this would have happened already? Like I said it’s just like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, as long as no one knows you are gay you are fine, so just keep your mouth shut.

Well many people have done that but it backfired on them, big time, and they are released from duty unwarrantedly. There are many men who have been Scoutmasters, who kept their sexual orientation quiet, and did not talk about sex or their own sex life to their troops. But, once someone they knew saw them with another man, or at a gay bar (which makes me wonder why someone who went to a gay bar would try to blackmail someone else who went to a gay bar….politics…) and they get proof then it’s all over. That Scoutmaster is now fired for having a private life, a private life that had nothing to do with Scouting.

This is what is wrong with this whole thing. Not only does it cause young men who believe they are gay to think that they are wrong and sinful but it also persecutes those who worked hard to earn their position, only to have it stripped away from them because of their private life…which by the way, never came up in Scout meetings.

So what are they so afraid of? I have already shown that homosexuals are no more at risk of abusing children than heterosexuals, and I have already shown that homosexuals don’t want to take over and start teaching sex. So why is it that they have such a bug up their ass on this?

Well it goes back to the Christian God and organized religion in general. The Scouts have been hijacked by the Mormon Church, for all intents and purposes. And we all know the Mormon Church’s track record with gay and civil rights. They believe that homosexuality is wrong and against God. And since one of their laws is to, “Do my duty to God,” they believe that gays do not do their duty to God.

OK, being an ex-Boy Scout I know that the BSA allows people of all faiths.

FROM SCOUTING FOR ALL:

“The BSA, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training.”

Meaning that Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc can join the Boy Scouts of America, but what of the homosexual? And the biggest word there is “nonsectarian”, meaning that they will not relate to specific religious sect or political group. So then why are they trying to say that they can’t exclude homosexuals when they don’t relate to any specific religion? And even then, what if a member is homosexual and a Christian? Is it right to cast him out for his sin?

FROM BRIAN GRIFFEN:

“I thought only ‘he without sin shall cast the first Prius.’”

I have tried really hard to discredit many of the claims made by the religious right-wing on this issue in order to restore some type of sanity or rationality. But one voice doesn’t do enough. You need to speak out against this as well whether or not you’re a new reader, older reader, liberal reader, or conservative reader. You should at least look at the argument I’m trying to make and just for once step away from politics, and step away from that ‘I think along the party-lines’ type of rationale and start thinking for yourself a little bit. I mean, really, are homosexuals that much of a threat to society? We’ve been living with them for thousands upon thousands of years, and they are the ones out to destroy the fabric of society?

I had this discussion with my boyfriend and he said that if there existed a type of radar that could locate homosexuals (a gaydar if you will) than we would find homosexuals within every nook and cranny of our society. They are our neighbors, they are our friends, and they’re our cops, firefighters, nurses, doctors, teachers, and politicians. They make up the fabric of society like everyone else does.

Republicans often make the claim that citizens are paranoid, especially with this new gun control debate, and they like to say that people who are against guns just don’t trust their neighbors enough. And this is true to a degree. But can’t the same be said for them? They are happy to say that trust is a huge issue and that there should be more trust toward your fellow American, yet they discriminate against homosexuals teaching their children because they don’t trust them to not abuse children. Isn’t this the same argument?

SOURCES:


Thursday, February 7, 2013

Boy Scouts of America Delay Decision on Lifting Gay Ban



So after I got all excited about the BSA making a decision on whether or not to lift the ban on homosexuals I found out yesterday that the BSA has decided to delay that decision. This doesn’t come as too much of a shock to me, as people on the right-wing tend to have a difficult time when making coherent and tolerant decisions.

The BSA released a statement today saying, "After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America's National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy."

That basically translates to, “We know it’s the right thing to do, but we have a very large group of religious members who are against the right thing. So, we will delay this decision for a while to see if maybe our religious members will allow this.”

I mean, really? How complex is this issue? Does it take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that discrimination is bad, especially when it’s a public organization that’s discriminating? Let’s not forget to add that they are a public organization when they want those public funds supplied to them from the government then turns around and says it has the right to discriminate because they are actually in fact a private organization.

We already know that the BSA is given a government stipend to fund their activities. We also know that the government itself has acknowledged the BSA as a patriotic organization and that they are allowed to rent public land for little to no expense at all. So if the BSA wants to call themselves a private organization then I guess they can do without the public money and the neat usage of public facilities for free, right?

OBAMA QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE:

"And you know the Scouts are a great institution, that are promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives. And I think nobody should be barred from that."

And you know something; the President is right about this. Why would you bar certain people because of the way they were born from being exposed to great opportunities and experiences that not only will serve them but the rest of the people of this nation? Oh, but the religious right-wingers have some excellent, incoherent defenses for that, of course.

Pat Robertson, the TV evangelist and host of the 700 club said that if the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals to join their organization that it will open the door to pedophiles who will target children.

Robertson said, "The question is, are there predators as boy scouts, pedophiles that would come in as scoutmasters? And if they are, then of course parents wouldn't want their sons being involved in the Boy Scouts, or their daughters in the Girl Scouts."

Well of course no one wants their Scoutmaster to be a fucking pedophile, but how does allowing homosexuals the change to be apart of Scouting going to open the doors to pedophiles?

This whole idea that homosexual men are prone to be child molesters is an old one and one that has been proven to be incorrect. But that doesn’t stop the religious right, oh no. You see they like to think that male-male sexual molestation means that the perpetrator is in fact a homosexual, and that all male-male acts of molestation are committed only by homosexuals.

FROM DOCTOR FRED BERLIN M.D.

“A man who is homosexual is no more at risk of abusing a boy as a man who is heterosexual at risk of abusing a girl.”

Fred Berlin is a professor of psychiatry at the John Hopkins Medical School, and he is one of the nations leading authorities on pedophilia.

“There is in our society still much stigma against people who are homosexual, and part of the stigma is the sense that somehow they must be more at risk to children. There simply isn’t any scientific evidence to support that.”

So what does that mean exactly?

“To put it succinctly there is no credible evidence that a homosexual man is more likely to abuse a child than is a heterosexual man.”

Thanks doc! That comes in handy when talking to this religious nut jobs that are out to discriminate against something they don’t even understand. I’m pretty sure that one of the leading authorities on pedophilia in this country would know more about sexual disorders than a guy who preaches about God and hosts a Christian television show.

And lets look at it from another angle while were on the topic. If that is a major concern of the BSA, to keep children safe from homosexual pedophiles, then what current policies do they have to protect their kids against heterosexual pedophiles? It isn’t just gay men who molest children; it is also heterosexual men and women who molest children. So what procedures do they have in place to identify these heterosexual pedophiles? The short answer is that they don’t have any procedures.

This is where the stigma comes in. Straight Scouts are “normal” and have no sexual disorders because they walk the path that God set for them. Whereas homosexuals do not walk that path according to the Mormons, and because of that they are sick, twisted individuals who are out to touch you’re children’s genitals. Yet they have no solid evidence, they just blindly back up their claim saying that homosexuals are pedophiles because homosexual men are attracted to men and the Boy Scouts is a male organization. So does that mean that males are not allowed to volunteer for the Girl Scouts? I mean, since heterosexual men are attracted to women does that mean they are a threat to young girls in the Girl Scouts? Even further, could you say that no straight man is safe to be alone with his own daughter because he is attracted to females? The logic simply makes no sense.

When I was in High School there was one gay teacher (as I can recall). You really didn’t know he even existed because he taught Advanced Placement Algebra off in some tiny little corner of the school. Aside from him all of the male teachers were straight, and you heard more stories about the straight male teachers having sex with students then the gay teacher.

A friend of mine on the track team admitted to having sex with her assistant coach multiple times until the actual coach caught on and had the two separated (and no, no reports were ever made as it was deemed ‘consensual’ by all parties involved). And one teacher (our favorite teacher because he smoked marijuana and drank all the time) was forced into retirement just a few years ago because an ex-student of his from 20+ years ago accused him of having sex with her while she was a teenager. The teacher did not deny the claims. Rather, he took the forced retirement ultimatum and is now collecting his pension. 

So again, how does allowing straight people to be in any sort of leadership position any safer than allowing a homosexual to be in the same position? The Mormon Chuch is humping the idea that the children in the BSA are completely safe because there are no gay Scoutmasters. But what about the straight Scoutmasters who are at risk to children? How do they even find that stuff out? I mean, I’m sure it has happened before, where a straight Scoutmaster molested one or more of the children in his troop. Did anyone find out about it? If so, what happened to that straight Scoutmaster?

What I’m saying is that there is no way on earth to tell if someone is a child predator or not. These people blend into society very well, and you most likely live next to or close to someone who is straight and has been convicted of a sex crime against the same sex. So why point the finger at one group of minorities and say that they are the cause of all sexual abuse cases? Why not let everyone join, and those who break the law will be dealt with accordingly. That’s the way it should be.

Just like the argument against guns. The right-wingers like to say that you shouldn’t punish the law abiding citizens who own guns because criminals use them for bad things. And they are absolutely correct on that one. But the same logic can be used in this topic of gays in the Boy Scouts. Why would you punish every single homosexual in the nation because there was an instance where one homosexual man molested a young boy?

 To punish all homosexuals and say they cannot join the organization because they are a molestation risk? Have there been any homosexual Scoutmasters who were caught breaking the law by molesting children? And if there have been, why would they persecute all homosexuals because of the devious act of one homosexual? Sure, they are all for it when it comes to guns. Just because one guy goes nuts and shoots up a school with an assault weapon doesn’t mean that all law abiding citizens who have assault weapons are dangerous people. The same thing applies here, and I wish they would use simple logic to realize this.
Pat Robertson had this to say as well, "Our prayers are with them (THE BSA) that they will do what they feel is right for them, not what the political [sic] correct crowd thinks is right for them."

OK, once again I am all for them being a private organization and excluding whomever they want, if they were truly a private organization. You can’t pretend to be a public organization to acquire government money, then turn around and say that you are in fact not a public organization. Pick one! If you don’t want to allow homosexuals into the group then stop accepting public funds.

In closing, I think that the Mormon Church is behind this, big time. Taking a look at some figures we see that the Mormon Church actually represents 15% of 2.7 million Boy Scouts. They represent more Scouts in this nation than any other group, religious or otherwise. And since 1999 (which was around the time I was about to leave the Scouts) the membership of the BSA has dropped significantly, making the organization smaller, but expanding its Mormon influence.

But the Mormon connection doesn’t end there. The Mormons have been vehemently attacking homosexuals and gay rights in general for years. A good example of this would be the millions of dollars they funneled into California’s Proposition 8 campaign, which made gay marriage illegal in California under the guise of protecting marriage and the family unit. This is what the Mormon Church had to say about the BS delaying their decision on lifting the ban against homosexuals, “We believe (the BSA) has acted wisely in delaying a vote on this policy issue until the implications can be can be carefully evaluated…we caution others not to speculate about our position or assume that individual Latter-day Saints inside or outside the Scouting movement speak for the Church. Neither has the Church launched any campaign either to effect or prevent the policy change.”

But we do in fact know that he Church doesn’t support any change to the BSA’s membership policy. Will they ever? That is what we will have to wait and find out.

The Mormons are trying to walk a very fine line here of course, because of their views on homosexuality and their high stakes in the BSA organization. Only time will tell how much influence they really have, and how much pressure they put on the BSA to delay this decision.

People like Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum would have you believe that this is a liberal political issue and that popular culture is trying to find it’s way into this great organization and destroy it for political causes. But this is not a political issue. As Sean Penn who played Harvey Milk in the movie ‘Milk’ said to Josh Brolin who played Dan White, “It's more than an issue. This is our life we're fighting for.”

Stand up with me and fight against this bigotry. Tell the BSA that you think they should lift their policy of discrimination and that if they wish to be a private organization that they need to stop accepting public funds.  Tell the Mormon Church to back off and stop discriminating against our fellow Americans. Together we can put an end to this absurdity and we can have the equality that every American has today.


 SOURCES: