Boy Scouts of America
A Test of True Leadership
When Bonny (King) Hazarabedian took the unprecedented initiative to approve the Eagle status of a scout who had been openly declaring his gay preferences, she knew that her action was brazenly provocative. The Boy Scouts have been one of the few organizations on earth to articulate their ban on gay individuals and leaders in black and white. There are logical and wise reasons for this exclusion, but more on that later.
"In your face…" as she so aptly describes. Believing that the momentum of 450,000 signatures on a petition would be enough to intimidate the National Council, the recommendation was accepted at local and regional level. However, support and resistance for this significant change, has divided America, and the world.
In the first wave of resistance, veteran Eagle Scouts returned their awards, stating in no uncertain terms that leadership within the movement does not support this action. Looking more closely at those who do, we find a plethora of individuals and organizations from LGBT activists to celebrities and politicians and of course, the media. Represented not least of which, by the gay press. The comments and criticisms have flown thick and fast, fueled by the grease of lightning-quick digital media and the ire of all human rights advocates. The majority of these are not members, or parents of Scouts, and so will not be affected by the final outcome. Barack Obama was not a Scout, and nor are any members of his family.
It demands great bravery to stand against such a tide, and it is to the credit of the BSA that they have done so, giving credence to the notion of character an fortitude in a world of liberalist compromise. Even traditionally conservative groupings, such as Jewish leaders have come out in support of change, despite the fact that the Torah strictly and explicitly forbids the homosexual act. Homosexuals are acceptable in the Jewish faith only if they refrain from acting upon their tendencies. It is therefor, alien to Jewish culture to support such a notion, based on their own teachings.
Active homosexuals have no place in an organization constituted for minors, and chartered with a specific mission to protect and educate children.
This is not the least of the controversy, which has involved even the highest officer of the Presidency, Barack Obama himself. Resulting in a stand-off, where he has agreed to disagree with the leaders of the Scouts, and continues to support change. Thus far, he has not attended any Scouting events, despite invitations to do so, and many have taken this as a snub. The President is traditionally the Chief Officer of the movement, but it is interesting to note that his authority does not automatically hold sway in this organization. This alignment has a hugely political component, though, and it pays to remember that alterations to legislation on Gay Marriage were instrumental in swelling his re-election coffers earlier in 2012. His allegiances may be too widely divided.
Remarkably, the comments emanating from the Gay community have been filled with enmity, and leave us to ponder what, in fact, their true motivations might be. Their response has shown little respect or consideration for the fine heritage that Scouts have established over more than 100 years, leaving the footprints of 11 Scouts on Moon, as but one indelible achievement among many. 26 out of the first 29 astronauts were Scouts. Are they simply seeking to change what they perceive to be an out-dated, traditional organization in the interests of human rights, or might there be other issues at play? We must take a closer look at some of the players in this drama.
Firstly, there is the Andresens. Ryan, who has been described as "openly gay" for some years, although only 18, has completed all the requirements for his Eagle Award, including a "Tolerance Wall", apparently "loved" by his troop leader. You will notice that this project was designed to directly influence his own opportunities and the perceptions of detractors. He is the primary benefactor of this work, and as such, draws further questions regarding the moral focus of his efforts.
Eric Andresen, his father, actually signed on with his son's troop, in order to protect Ryan from being bullied, and progressed quickly into a management role. His company is involved in the Real Estate business, Building, Contracting and Maintenance. Bruce King, the brother of Bonnie Hazarabedian, was employed by the local authority, also in the field of Construction and Maintenance, before his untimely death at the hands of a homeless man.
Edward Hazarabedian is a legal mind, employed in the field of Employment Law. Connected via the family tree to heavyweights in the State of California, who are specialists in Eminent Domain. We perceive the outlines of Real Estate Management, Construction and Maintenance, Property Rights and Employment Legislation. Public Service and Federal Rights to land access.
Interesting too, is the fact that Bonnie appears to be a well-known and outspoken critic in local affairs, having notably been involved in a spat regarding season ticket seat allocations at Stanford Stadium, familiar to the 49ers. Eric Andresen's company is called Viking Services. In your face enough? Bonnie has no qualms about exposing her children in the press, and her daughter Cally, has been quoted regarding both the death of Uncle Bruce, and the Stanford incident. However, despite her high profile, it is puzzling that no images of Bonnie are to be found, despite much reportage of her activities and her position in public life, as a Regional Chairperson for The Boy Scouts. The same can be said for her husband. Their home in Moraga is typically unexceptional, and the entire impression is without any outstanding profile markers. Much like an undercover operation. The only public records visible, are those for property ownership.
But what might the operation be, and why The Boy Scouts? Focal to this issue is the question why so many trend-wise and cool purveyors of human rights should have become so incensed by what has always been considered more geeky than a camp full of nerds. Why would the Gay Establishment be remotely interested in influencing and controlling an organization which they so obviously despise, based on their own responses in the media? Perhaps the connections with Law, Local Government, and Real Estate, Construction and Maintenance are worth exploring.
One issue which has been extensively covered is the funding of Boy Scouts by America's top corporations. The loss of several sponsors are well covered in the press, and more are expected. Not so well covered, are the access rights and property concessions held by The Scouts in legally binding agreements with Federal Government, Local Authorities and Private Owners. It is speclation wether a ruling on LGBT rights will affect the basis of these agreements in any way, but opening the doors to gay participation will increase their influence on the decision-making processes in respect of management initiatives. With urban populations growing, have lands of a pristine nature, such as these held in trust for many years by The Scouts, become a monumental carrot to the potential developer? It is worth noting that gay designers are already promising a makeover for the Scout's uniform as soon as they accept gay members, even though they were never asked. Could it be that the gay establishment is planning a global makeover for an organization that has resisted their overtures for more than a century, in the hopes of disguising their true motivations?
Is a shadowy consortium of legislators, developers and public service employees conspiring with the new gay leadership within The Scouts, to gain control of these most valuable concessions. Would it be wise for those with the resources at hand, to investigate this possibility, before diving into a cesspool?
At this point it is very important to note that although Girl Scouts have embraced LGBT the rights issue, it has not led to a financially secure outcome. There are several reports of Girl Scout Troops closing, and ceasing to exist altogether, due to "rationalization and redistribution" of financial resources.
This land is then vacated by the movement, and falls open for "other uses". It is a telling consequence, therefore, that the Girl Scouts is in fact, shrinking under the influence of the gay establishment and this pattern is likely to accelerate in The Boy Scouts, once it has been fully infiltrated by the gay minority. ( This is confirmed by the Canadian experience | http://goo.gl/bap2r |)
Negative publicity and word-of-mouth are the obvious consequence of disagreeing with the gay establishment, and this trend has been visibly active for the last decade, at least. It is also worth noting that while the average citizen lives on a shrinking income, the gay community appears to be largely, flush with cash, and apparently, overly influential on the financial and political management of America, and the world.
With regard to the current status of cases against the Boy Scouts we must understand clearly that every case reported involves abuse of a homosexual nature. Currently the liability for these events lies more with the individual perpetrator than the movement as an organization, due to their unique position in respect of volunteer leadership. Without question, The Boy Scouts should come clean on both the aspects of protecting victims as well as protecting perpetrators. Their position is understandably difficult, but under the current pressures, it would be wiser to expose abusers, both past and present. This is an important step on the road to confirming the basis for the decision in the first place.
The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, supports the ban, and believes it should remain, for the reason that "sexual tensions" will be generated in an environment where they are out of place and potentially damaging.
This is wise and correct, given that this is the very reason why Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were separated in the first place.
You would not, as a parent, be willing to accept that your teenage son would be alone in isolated settings, sharing a tent with a nubile, inquisitive, young Girl Scout, would you? By the same token, a young gay and inquisitive male would more than likely produce a similar result, given the formative state of teenage sexuality. If this was to take place under the guidance of a gay troop leader, it becomes all the more acceptable. Apply the same rules as you would at home, and you will realize the folly of this option.
Would parents and corporations have supported the activities and excursions of such an organization if it had been co-ed from the start? Methinks not. It is both short sighted and unwise for corporate America to enforce such a travesty.
Will they be supplied with condoms, as required by health regulations?
The Boy Scouts is furthermore a frontier institution in the formative education of young minds, and while they most certainly should be informed and educated on the basis of tolerance for all strata of humanity, it would be overstating the case to expose them unnecessarily to the overwhelming influence of a minority known to espouse an "anything goes" attitude.
If the management of The Boy Scouts decide to accept gay leaders and membership, they will automatically be exposing themselves to direct and punitive damages for every case of abuse reported thereafter. A gay tactic which has thus far failed due to the unique nature of the volunteer system and directly due to the ban having been in place. By approving gay membership, the B.S.A. will implicate themselves in complicity.
The Supreme Court has made a judgement confirming the correctness of the ban, and the United Nations do not recognize special considerations for gender identity as a valid human right. The decision was not the subject of any appeal, and the Supreme Court has since confirmed it's position in the Balboa case, finding against the ACLU.
Gay activists and organizations, as well as Barack Obama, are therefore in direct contempt of the Supreme Court in applying pressure on corporations to withdraw funding, and should be held directly accountable for such actions.
The Boy Scouts of America have a global responsibility to the youth of every generation, past and present and they should continue on the same road they have travelled for more than a century, without changing course.
The global implications are profound, as it must be remembered that The Boy Scouts have a high profile and presence in many countries besides the U.S.A., where homosexuality is entirely unacceptable. It would expose these members to severe ostracism and make them targets of their own cultures.
Any Eagle Scout who claims to be gay, must be stripped of his award, as he has by his own admission, failed the test of honesty, and can no longer be held in honor by his peers. Such duplicity will destroy not only the fine heritage of The Boy Scouts, but the fabric of society itself. This infiltration is the height of political incorrectness, and extremely hypocritical. Why would you join an organization you despise for it's regulations, if not specifically to destroy it?