Boy Scouts President Just Made Stunning Move Regarding Gay Scout Leaders

Boy Scouts of America President Robert Gates ruffled more than a few feathers this week with a recommendation he made at the organization’s annual national meeting. The BSA’s longstanding ban on homosexual scout leaders, he said, is a policy in need of revision.

Citing a cultural shift in how gays are viewed in America – along with legal challenges against the right of Christians to speak out against homosexuality – Gates explained that it is only a matter of time before the Boy Scouts are taken to court because of its perceived discrimination against gays.

“If we wait for the courts to act,” he cautioned, “we could end up with a broad ruling that could forbid any kind of membership standard.”

Instead, Gates recommended a proactive policy allowing individual troops to set their own policies.

“Such an approach,” he explained, “would allow all churches, which sponsor some 70 percent of our Scout units, to establish leadership standards consistent with their faith. We must, at all costs, preserve the religious freedom of our church partners to do this.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sponsors more Boy Scout troops than any other faith, has already responded to the new proposal. In a statement released this week, the church did not lay out any concrete plans, instead stating that if Gates is correct in his assurance that local groups may establish their own standards, “then the church is not likely to be affected.”

Gates’ recommendation was not the first controversial stance the BSA has taken regarding homosexuality. As Western Journalism reported in 2013, the organization lost support among some churches following its decision to allow homosexuals to become scouts.

Will allowing gay scout leaders further alienate the Boy Scouts from its faith-based supporters? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

STUNNING: See What US Service Members Just Said About The Popularity Of Their Commander-In-Chief

Military

Earlier this year, shortly after President Obama announced his plan to gut military forces to pre-World War II levels, the Washington Post released the results of a poll of military veterans.

The poll showed that Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans did not view Obama favorably and expressed a much high approval for their former Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush.

Via townhall.com:

Screen shot 2014-12-22 at 10.02.35 AM

Now, according to a new poll by Military Times, President Obama’s popularity among active-duty military personnel has taken a sharp downward turn, plummeting to a new low.

According to a Military Times survey of almost 2,300 active-duty service members, Obama’s popularity — never high to begin with — has crumbled, falling from 35 percent in 2009 to just 15 percent this year, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent from 40 percent over that time.

Among the reasons cited for Obama’s plunging popularity in the ranks of the U.S. military is the fact that he has been forcing “profound change,” from repealing “don’t ask, dont’ tell” to lifting the ban on women in combat.

As we learn from the analysis at militarytimes.com:

Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform.

…to his critics, his moves amount to heavy-handed social engineering that erode deep-seated traditions and potentially undermine good order and discipline.

To some Obama critics, the president’s declining popularity in the ranks of current and former military members is part of Obama’s plan to “fundamentally change” America and, thus, is not a real concern to the White House.

Even Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, describes in his book “Duty” the huge chasm that existed between the Pentagon and Obama’s White House.

As reported on patriotupdate.com :

The chasm was worsened by the fact that none of the president’s key advisors in the White House had ever served in the military or even run a major organization of any type.

Consequently, they had no understanding of what could reasonably be expected of the military, the logistical difficulties of complying with the president’s directives….

It was Gates’ belief, as expressed in his book, that the Obama administration all too often made military decisions on the basis of politics rather than smart military strategy.

…a perception that causes top military leaders to mistrust the president and his advisors who, in turn, mistrust them.

 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Golfing While the Constitution Burns

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

When Barack Obama and John Boehner played golf this weekend, they played on the same team. How appropriate.

Barack Obama has violated the Constitution’s war-making power – reserved by Article I, Section 8, to Congress – from the moment he sent American troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. He has been violating the War Powers Resolution since at least the 60th day of that campaign. And he has violated the most liberal reading of that act – the one Boehner has adopted as his own – since this weekend. Yet despite the letter Boehner authored last week, which the media presented as an “ultimatum,” Obama has neither obtained Congressional authorization nor removed our troops. Boehner’s letter weakly supplicated “I sincerely hope the Administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution,” but at least it seemed to set this weekend as a definitive cut-off point.

The “deadline” has come and gone, and Obama has not answered the most burning questions of the mission’s legality to anyone’s satisfaction. Instead, the president has thumbed his nose at Congress in general, Boehner in particular, and the American people at large, and the Speaker-cum-caddy has made no meaningful response whatsoever.

Obama insists the American role in Libya is too diminutive to constitute “hostilities,” so his action is perfectly legal. White House spokesman Jay Carney repeated his boss’s party line at Monday’s press conference, stating, “the War Powers Resolution does not need to be involved because the ‘hostilities’ clause of that resolution is not met.” However, soldiers in Libya are receiving an additional $25 a month in “imminent danger pay.” American drones still rain missiles down upon military targets. NATO is alternately bombing Muammar Qaddafi’s home and killing the innocent Libyan civilians they are purportedly protecting. (We had to kill the civilians in order to save them?) NATO admitted (at least) one of its bombs went off target on Sunday, killing nine civilians in Tripoli, while allied bombs allegedly killed 15 civilians in Sorman on Monday.

Not to worry, though; Defense Secretary Robert Gates said over the weekend, in a confidence-builder worthy of Churchill, “I think this is going to end OK.” Gates, who once opposed the Libyan adventure, has pulled a 180 on the matter.

Even Obama’s short-term fellow Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, agrees Libya more than rises to the level of hostilities.

So, too, we have learned, do the best legal minds of Obama’s administration (not a coveted nor much-contested title, I assure you). In overruling his own lawyers, Obama rejected the considered conclusions of Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Caroline Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The New York Times reported it is “extraordinarily rare” for any president to overrule the OLC. “Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.”

But then, nothing in the Obama administration transpires under “normal circumstances.”

Two former OLC lawyers outlined precisely how unusual the dismissal was….

Read more.

Obama Wants to Cut Troop Pay

Move America Forward

In the latest and most outrageous move, the Obama administration wants to cut pay and/or benefits for our troops and their families, even those deployed overseas fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, in order to reign in budgetary spending.

It’s the classic game that the liberals play whenever they are in power – they are always quick to claim they support the troops, but the military is always first on the chopping block. Yesterday Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed that the Obama Administration was considering cutting military paychecks when he said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

“The defense secretary said the strategic review could require politicians to look at other uncomfortable choices, including pay levels for service members, new approaches for retirement and pensions, or higher healthcare costs for working-age retirees.” – David Alexander, Reuters 24 MAY 2011

Thanks to the Obama Administration, the gilded age where America supported it’s troops in times of war may be coming to an end, and this commander-in-chief may be asking our troops to fight two wars while at the same time GIVING UP pay, and benefits both for themselves, their spouses and their children!

Read more.

Libya: Operation Unconstitutional Idiocy

Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com


What’s even more absurd and futile than going to war to spread democracy and advance human rights? Intervention to stop regimes from “killing their own people.”

This is the sole rationale offered for Obama’s Libya excursion (Operation Odyssey Dawn even sounds like a Carnival Cruise ship) – to keep a tyrant from killing his own people.

British Prime Minister David Cameron declares: “Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen. We can not allow the slaughter of civilians to continue.”

While criticizing the way the mission was undertaken (and telling the president he “must do a better job of communicating to the American people”), House Speaker John Boehner – de facto chairman of the Obama Reelection Campaign – nevertheless insists….

Read more.