Obama doesn't sign Eagle Scout letters?

[Matt Collins]

According to this article, Obama isn't signing letters to Boy Scouts who have earned the rank of Eagle:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=169993

[MelissaWV]

This... could absolutely be the thing that's all the way down at the very super duper bottom of my list of things to get mad about.

[Matt Collins]

This... could absolutely be the thing that's all the way down at the very super duper bottom of my list of things to get mad about.
I agree, but it's just a tacky thing to do. The Boy Scouts isn't a political organization.

[Vessol]

I agree, but it's just a tacky thing to do. The Boy Scouts isn't a political organization.

Why do they receive Pentagon money then?

[Matt Collins]

Why do they receive Pentagon money then?
Huh??? :confused:

[NewFederalist]

If I were an Eagle Scout the last thing I would want is a sleazy politician (at least the last four presidents) signing my award.

[Vessol]

The Pentagon freaking loves the Boy Scouts.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=27607

The ACLU was able to stop a lot of the directly chartered or sponsorship in 2004, but the Pentagon still pays millions of dollars a year for their jamboree.

They are also trying to cheat the system by using their own groups to sponsor the Boy Scouts instead of them sponsoring them directly.

So yeah, the Industrial Military complex loves the Boy Scouts as it churns tons of recruits for them.

[Matt Collins]

The Pentagon freaking loves the Boy Scouts.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=27607 (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=27607)

The ACLU was able to stop a lot of the directly chartered or sponsorship in 2004, but the Pentagon still pays millions of dollars a year for their jamboree.

They are also trying to cheat the system by using their own groups to sponsor the Boy Scouts instead of them sponsoring them directly.

So yeah, the Industrial Military complex loves the Boy Scouts as it churns tons of recruits for them.
You don't quite understand what "sponsorship" means. Essentially all it means is that it allows the BSA to use their facilities. In most cases sponsors are churches.

[Zippyjuan]

Even when signed letters were issued, the president never personally signed them. They were usually just printed off. I have one. Our troop was sponsored by the local Catholic church.

[Vessol]

You don't quite understand what "sponsorship" means. Essentially all it means is that it allows the BSA to use their facilities. In most cases sponsors are churches.

They are still using Federal tax-payer money though in that case.

If I want my tax-dollars to go to the Boy Scouts, I'll give my money to the boy scouts. I don't want my money being taken from me, then given to the DoD so that they can sponsor a get-together for the Boy Scouts.

There should be no relationship between the Pentagon and the Boy Scouts.

[Matt Collins]

They are still using Federal tax-payer money though in that case.I don't think the BSA using the facilities is costing the tax payers money.




If I want my tax-dollars to go to the Boy Scouts, I'll give my money to the boy scouts. I don't want my money being taken from me, then given to the DoD so that they can sponsor a get-together for the Boy Scouts.

There should be no relationship between the Pentagon and the Boy Scouts.I agree. But if the local city hall happens to have a room the local Boy Scouts can use without any cost to the taxpayers would you be opposed to it if it was done in the spare time?

[Vessol]

Principles wise, yes I would oppose it, but practicality if it was a local government I wouldn't care much.

And did you read the article I posted?

The DoD spent 2 million dollars for the Boy Scouts Jamboree.

"Richard emphasized the Pentagon does not agree with the ACLU's assessment that its support of the Scouts is unconstitutional and points out that the department still contributes $2 million to the quadrenniel national jamboree, which takes place this year at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia – an issue still subject to litigation in the case. "

[Matt Collins]

Principles wise, yes I would oppose it, but practicality if it was a local government I wouldn't care much.
What's the difference?

People have paid taxes, these facilities exist, and it doesn't cost the taxpayers more money for them to be able to use them. What's the problem?


And did you read the article I posted?

The DoD spent 2 million dollars for the Boy Scouts Jamboree.

"Richard emphasized the Pentagon does not agree with the ACLU's assessment that its support of the Scouts is unconstitutional and points out that the department still contributes $2 million to the quadrenniel national jamboree, which takes place this year at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia – an issue still subject to litigation in the case. "Spent on what? How was that $2 million calculated? What were the expenses? I smell some accounting tricks here.

[specsaregood]

People have paid taxes, these facilities exist, and it doesn't cost the taxpayers more money for them to be able to use them.
It might be negligible in the scheme of things, but no doubt it does cost a bit more to allow them to use them. electricity, staff to have on hand, security, insurance, etc.

[Vessol]

I'm aware that many here love the Boy Scouts, but why can't the Boy Scouts go on without the Military supporting them either officially or unofficially. There already is plenty of private organizations that seem happy to support them, why defend the Military's support?

Why does the military want to support the Boy Scouts anyways?

[Matt Collins]

I'm aware that many here love the Boy Scouts, but why can't the Boy Scouts go on without the Military supporting them either officially or unofficially. There already is plenty of private organizations that seem happy to support them, why defend the Military's support?

Why does the military want to support the Boy Scouts anyways?The word "support" is not used in the way that you are contextually using it.

[Vessol]

The word "support" is not used in the way that you are contextually using it.

Let's not argue semantics.

The U.S Military unofficially supports the boy scouts through tax payer money. They may not do so directly, but tax payer money is indirectly used to support them.

Why should they be able to even do this?

Why does the U.S Military have such a keen interest in the boy scouts to begin with?

Why can't I start a private organization and ask for the government to pay for my annual country meeting? Or to allow me on their military bases?

[Matt Collins]

Why can't I start a private organization...[and] allow me on their military bases?A lot of times YOU CAN! Imagine that. Many civic and local organizations get to use facilities on military bases for their meetings :rolleyes:

Also you don't know that the feds "fund" the annual meeting of the BSA. That article alleges that $2million is spent. But there are no details there.

So come back when you have some details, and then we can discuss whether or not the US military "funds" the Boy Scouts annual meeting? :rolleyes:

[Vessol]

They did fund the Boy Scouts annual meeting though.

There was even a lawsuit over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld

They lost.

"In 2005, a U.S. District Court ruled that the DOD's spending on national Scout jamborees violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The decision was subsequently reversed by the US Court of Appeals on April 4, 2007 in Winkler vs Gates (renamed due to a new Secretary of Defense), which ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing as taxpayers to bring the suit in the first place. Therefore, the 2010 Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill and future support by DOD of Jamborees will continue as before"

There is nothing at all there dismissing the idea that the DOD funds the Boy Scouts. It's a clear fact that they do openly.

This is the statement that BSA released

"Boy Scouts of America is pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Department of Defense for supporting the National Scout Jamboree. Boy Scouts of America is grateful also for the efforts of the Department of Justice in achieving this successful outcome.

For more than 25 years, Boy Scouts have held the National Scout Jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill near Fredericksburg, Virginia. Scouts from all over the country camp together for ten days and participate in activities emphasizing physical fitness, appreciation of the outdoors, and patriotism. Seven Presidents have attended the Jamboree since President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. The Jamboree grounds at Fort A.P. Hill are open to the public, and an estimated 300,000 visitors attended in 2005 along with 43,000 Scouts and their leaders. The 2010 Jamboree will celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Boy Scouts of America.

The United States Congress has found that the military’s logistical support for the National Scout Jamboree is an incomparable training opportunity for our armed forces. The Jamboree requires the construction, maintenance, and disassembly of a “tent city” capable of supporting tens of thousands of people for a week or longer.

We are pleased that today’s ruling preserves the training opportunity for the military that Congress wanted it to have."

Do you think that having those soldiers gain "excellent logical training" cost absolutely nothing?

They even stated themselves that they continue to support the Boy Scouts financially.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/16/20041116-115229-4427r/

Look. I have no problem with the Boy Scouts, but the fact is that the U.S Military spends money to support them because they provide good recruitment fodder.

[tremendoustie]

If I were an Eagle Scout the last thing I would want is a sleazy politician (at least the last four presidents) signing my award.

Ditto.

[jmdrake]

I'm aware that many here love the Boy Scouts, but why can't the Boy Scouts go on without the Military supporting them either officially or unofficially. There already is plenty of private organizations that seem happy to support them, why defend the Military's support?

Why does the military want to support the Boy Scouts anyways?

Because the Pentagon wants to use the Boy Scouts as a reserve force to attack returning veterans who they worry may finally get fed up with this country being raped the political elites. And I'm only half joking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html
IMPERIAL, Calif. — Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor.

In a training exercise run by Border Patrol agents, Explorer scouts from Visalia, Calif., prepare to storm a “hijacked” bus. More Photos »
The New York Times

Imperial County relies on the local criminal justice system. More Photos >
Readers' Comments

The responding officers — eight teenage boys and girls, the youngest 14 — face tripwire, a thin cloud of poisonous gas and loud shots — BAM! BAM! — fired from behind a flimsy wall. They move quickly, pellet guns drawn and masks affixed.

“United States Border Patrol! Put your hands up!” screams one in a voice cracking with adolescent determination as the suspect is subdued.

It is all quite a step up from the square knot.

The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.

“This is about being a true-blooded American guy and girl,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy here in Imperial County, whose life clock, he says, is set around the Explorers events he helps run. “It fits right in with the honor and bravery of the Boy Scouts.”

The training, which leaders say is not intended to be applied outside the simulated Explorer setting, can involve chasing down illegal border crossers as well as more dangerous situations that include facing down terrorists and taking out “active shooters,” like those who bring gunfire and death to college campuses. In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.

“Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”

One participant, Felix Arce, 16, said he liked “the discipline of the program,” which was something he said his life was lacking. “I want to be a lawyer, and this teaches you about how crimes are committed,” he said.

Cathy Noriega, also 16, said she was attracted by the guns. The group uses compressed-air guns — known as airsoft guns, which fire tiny plastic pellets — in the training exercises, and sometimes they shoot real guns on a closed range.

“I like shooting them,” Cathy said. “I like the sound they make. It gets me excited.”

If there are critics of the content or purpose of the law enforcement training, they have not made themselves known to the Explorers’ national organization in Irving, Tex., or to the volunteers here on the ground, national officials and local leaders said. That said, the Explorers have faced problems over the years. There have been numerous cases over the last three decades in which police officers supervising Explorers have been charged, in civil and criminal cases, with sexually abusing them.

Several years ago, two University of Nebraska criminal justice professors published a study that found at least a dozen cases of sexual abuse involving police officers over the last decade. Adult Explorer leaders are now required to take an online training program on sexual misconduct.

Many law enforcement officials, particularly those who work for the rapidly growing Border Patrol, part of the Homeland Security Department, have helped shape the program’s focus and see it as preparing the Explorers as potential employees. The Explorer posts are attached to various agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police and fire departments, that sponsor them much the way churches sponsor Boy Scout troops.

“Our end goal is to create more agents,” said April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent and mentor at the session here.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/14/us/14explorers2-600a.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/13/us/14explorers-190.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/14/us/14explorers_span.jpg

Now ask yourself. Why is the border patrol training a group of Latino kids to kill disgruntled Iraq vets along the border with Mexico? Exactly what kind of scenario does the U.S. government have in mind?

That said, it's surprising Obama didn't sign the letters.

[Jeremy]

There are other organizations like the Boy Scouts that get far less recognition.

[fisharmor]

There are other organizations like the Boy Scouts that get far less recognition.

...and they are?

The ones I can find all seem to be more into religion than BSA.
Believe it or not, the very first bullet point on my list of grievances against BSA is the fact that a quasi-religious organization erodes whatever pure teaching a child might get in venues that are actually suited to it. Being less quasi-religious is like voting for the lesser of two evils.

If there was an organization that left all the faux-religion fraternity rituals out (especially the ones involving Old Glory), my kids and I would be in like Flynn.

[jmdrake]

...and they are?

The ones I can find all seem to be more into religion than BSA.
Believe it or not, the very first bullet point on my list of grievances against BSA is the fact that a quasi-religious organization erodes whatever pure teaching a child might get in venues that are actually suited to it. Being less quasi-religious is like voting for the lesser of two evils.

If there was an organization that left all the faux-religion fraternity rituals out (especially the ones involving Old Glory), my kids and I would be in like Flynn.

While I have nothing against the "quasi-religious" nature of the BSA, and I think there is far too much religion bashing on a board dedicated to a candidate that is open about his own Christian beliefs, if you want a secular version of the BSA you should just start one.

[fisharmor]

While I have nothing against the "quasi-religious" nature of the BSA, and I think there is far too much religion bashing on a board dedicated to a candidate that is open about his own Christian beliefs, if you want a secular version of the BSA you should just start one.

I think you misunderstand.
The problem with BSA is not its religious elements.
It's the fact that they teach apostasy to boys, and at the same time force them to adhere to the state religion. It's A-OK to pray to the god of Islam, but you WILL recite the pledge, or you won't advance.
I do not bash religion and I support Christianity - the narrow definition of it. I wholeheartedly bash quarter-assed, Christless Christianity, and I chafe at organizations that push it for no reason other than to indoctrinate youth in the one religion that I regularly bash openly, which is the worship of the state.

[Matt Collins]

There is nothing at all there dismissing the idea that the DOD funds the Boy Scouts. It's a clear fact that they do openly.


This is the statement that BSA released

"Boy Scouts of America is pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Department of Defense for supporting the National Scout Jamboree. Boy Scouts of America is grateful also for the efforts of the Department of Justice in achieving this successful outcome.

For more than 25 years, Boy Scouts have held the National Scout Jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill near Fredericksburg, Virginia. Scouts from all over the country camp together for ten days and participate in activities emphasizing physical fitness, appreciation of the outdoors, and patriotism. Seven Presidents have attended the Jamboree since President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. The Jamboree grounds at Fort A.P. Hill are open to the public, and an estimated 300,000 visitors attended in 2005 along with 43,000 Scouts and their leaders. The 2010 Jamboree will celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Boy Scouts of America.

The United States Congress has found that the military’s logistical support for the National Scout Jamboree is an incomparable training opportunity for our armed forces. The Jamboree requires the construction, maintenance, and disassembly of a “tent city” capable of supporting tens of thousands of people for a week or longer.

We are pleased that today’s ruling preserves the training opportunity for the military that Congress wanted it to have."

Do you think that having those soldiers gain "excellent logical training" cost absolutely nothing?

They even stated themselves that they continue to support the Boy Scouts financially.

Again... where is that $2 million being spent? How is it accounted? What are the expenses? I do not think the BSA is receiving a $2 million check from the DoD.

And would the military be doing that training even if the BSA wasn't camping out there?

I think you are buying into the ACLU's brand of FUD :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Because the Pentagon wants to use the Boy Scouts as a reserve force to attack returning veterans who they worry may finally get fed up with this country being raped the political elites. And I'm only half joking.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html)
IMPERIAL, Calif. — Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor.

In a training exercise run by Border Patrol agents, Explorer scouts from Visalia, Calif., prepare to storm a “hijacked” bus.



It is all quite a step up from the square knot.

The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.


“Our end goal is to create more agents,” said April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent and mentor at the session here.


Now ask yourself. Why is the border patrol training a group of Latino kids to kill disgruntled Iraq vets along the border with Mexico? Exactly what kind of scenario does the U.S. government have in mind?

That said, it's surprising Obama didn't sign the letters.
Alright... let's not confuse the Explorer Scouts with the Boy Scouts. They are under the same umbrella, but they are not the same thing.

The Explorer Scouts are a tiny vocational segment of the BSA that has youth go and "intern" in fields that they are interested in. There are Explorer units in law enforcement, fire fighting, EMT, law, government, aviation, science, business, and others.

Learn more about Explorer programs here: http://www.learningforlife.org/exploring/about/index.html

Again, don't buy into the left-wing media hype. :)

[james1906]

I remember in scouts camping at military bases. It's recruitment. We camped for free, ate subsidized meals, and got to go in tanks and fighter jets.

There was also a condom machine in the bowling alley's bathroom. So being the 14 year old that I was, bought a few and blew them up.

[Matt Collins]

I remember in scouts camping at military bases. It's recruitment. We camped for free, ate subsidized meals, and got to go in tanks and fighter jets.It's not recruitment :rolleyes:

[silus]

Boy Scouts have nothing to do with politics, and its just diluting their purpose and meaning by even making this an issue.

[libertarian4321]

Also you don't know that the feds "fund" the annual meeting of the BSA. That article alleges that $2million is spent. But there are no details there.

So come back when you have some details, and then we can discuss whether or not the US military "funds" the Boy Scouts annual meeting? :rolleyes:

When I was an active duty Army officer, I was sent on Temporary Duty to Ft. AP Hill for a couple of days to support the jamboree (around 1992). The taxpayer's paid to have me travel from Ft. Meade, MD to VA- meals, expenses, lodging, etc, plus the cost of my labor.

While there were not a ton of military/DoD people supporting the event, there were some, and it does cost the taxpayer's money.

[Xenophage]

According to this article, Obama isn't signing letters to Boy Scouts who have earned the rank of Eagle:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=169993

It's the smoking gun we need to impeach him!!!! EVERYONE CALL CONGRESS!

[Matt Collins]

When I was an active duty Army officer, I was sent on Temporary Duty to Ft. AP Hill for a couple of days to support the jamboree (around 1992). The taxpayer's paid to have me travel from Ft. Meade, MD to VA- meals, expenses, lodging, etc, plus the cost of my labor.
Ok...we'll run with this...


Did they send you there solely for the event?

Where did you stay?

What do you mean "cost of my labor"? :confused:

[yokna7]

I no longer give merit to anything whose reasoning is "tradition". Where has "tradition" gotten us? Good for the president, I'm sure he has other things to sign.......like 8x10 glossies.

[libertarian4321]

Ok...we'll run with this...


Did they send you there solely for the event?

Where did you stay?

What do you mean "cost of my labor"? :confused:

Yup, I was sent there just for that event.

I stayed at the BOQ- mostly because there weren't a lot of hotels nearby and the few that were nearby were full because of the event.

By "cost of labor" I mean that I was pulled away from my normal duties and spent my time supporting the Scouts. I also had to write a report after the event (more time that could have been spent on other duties). I could have been doing other work, and since I was not, that work was probably done by contractors (at significant expense to the government).

[Matt Collins]

Yup, I was sent there just for that event.

I stayed at the BOQ- mostly because there weren't a lot of hotels nearby and the few that were nearby were full because of the event.

By "cost of labor" I mean that I was pulled away from my normal duties and spent my time supporting the Scouts. I also had to write a report after the event (more time that could have been spent on other duties). I could have been doing other work, and since I was not, that work was probably done by contractors (at significant expense to the government).
Ok so this sort of confirms my original premise. The DoD didn't actually write a check to the Boy Scouts for anything. And if they were out any cash at all it was minimal if not negligible. The $2 million amount was mostly for internal accounting, not actual "cash out of hand".

So it comes back to the DoD didn't "give support to the BSA" as much as they "allowed the BSA to use their facilities" as I suspected. The ACLU is blowing this out of proportion, and some of yall are buying into it :rolleyes:

[libertarian4321]

Ok so this sort of confirms my original premise. The DoD didn't actually write a check to the Boy Scouts for anything. And if they were out any cash at all it was minimal if not negligible. The $2 million amount was mostly for internal accounting, not actual "cash out of hand".

So it comes back to the DoD didn't "give support to the BSA" as much as they "allowed the BSA to use their facilities" as I suspected. The ACLU is blowing this out of proportion, and some of yall are buying into it :rolleyes:

I suppose it depends on what you call negligible. The military paid for a rental car, meals (we got paid full meal per diem rate whether we spent it or not), all other expenses (gas, tolls, etc). That had to be hundreds of dollars. I guess the BOQ cost was just a money shifting exercise, but I could have stayed in a hotel, which could have cost hundreds more= I'm sure that other's did just that. I don't know what it cost back then, but if I did the same today, the cost could have been several hundred dollars depending on how long I stayed.

You've got to figure it cost them at least that much to hire a contractor to do the work I could have done had I not been spending my time at the jamboree.

The total expense to have an officer do what I did in 2010 could easily run to $1,000 or more.

And I was just one guy involved for a short period of time. I don't know how many people are actually involved in supporting the thing. I'm sure a lot of time is spent on planning- they don't just throw open the gates of the installation and let the scouts pour onto the post.

Plus costs= water, electric, clean up costs, signage, security, etc.

This event could have easily cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Matt Collins]

Plus costs= water, electric, clean up costs, signage, security, etc.

This event could have easily cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.Very possible. And I agree that the BSA should be the ones writing a check to ensure that the tax payers are not burdened with this.