Saturday, February 23, 2013

The Nerdiness of Terrorism

by David Lawrence

Terrorism has become the Moslem method of war. Not every Moslem is a terrorist.  But most terrorists are Moslems.  And there are a whole lot of Moslems in the world.
They have over a billion people and could fight real wars but their nature is to sneak around and blow people up.  It is a cowardly tactic.  Only a nerd who is self-involved and wants to uglify the world would blow up strangers and himself.  He is not cool.  He is a dork. 
Terrorists think that they are trendy with their guns and their suicide vests.  They don’t look so cool when their corpses are covered in the detached hands of children and the blood of grandmothers.
I suppose terrorism is necessary for Moslems because they are not very civilizationally advanced and have not really invented real weapons for war even though they have borrowed some from the west. And the United States, in its global bribery, gifts them some.
What happened to the gladiatorial games when men would fight men to the death?  What happened to the English military walking in lockstep without even bothering to duck the bullets of the American guerrilla forces?  How was bravery replaced by stealth?
Why do terrorists skulk around in the alleys of our lives?  Why do they take the fight out of fight and sponsor assassinations and executions?
Obama (originally born a Moslem) has moved terrorism to the sky.  He has fielded an army of drones to surprise his enemies.  He kills with no exposure.  He has enhanced robotic murder.
A street fight is ugly.  It usually involves a sucker punch or maybe knifings. It does not have the organizational structure of war. 
I am not a terrorist.
I am not a street fighter. 
I am a boxer.  I fight under the rules of the ring. Not even, I am retired.
I obeyed a referee when I fought. I was like an English soldier, marching to brain damage, fighting with dignity, allowing my opponents to share the rules of the ring, finding my lord in the old rules of the Marquees of Queensberry.
I haven’t been a street fight since I am eighteen.  I think they are low class.  They never end up fair. I detest thugs fighting without rules.  It is like terrorism and drone fighting.  It is mankind at his worst.  It is suicidal, brain-washed Moslems and President Obama trying to prove their manhood by extreme acts of ugliness and inconsideration.
Of course, Obama is better than his Moslem, nerd brothers.  They kill helter-skelter.  He targets his targets and kills neatly. 
Terrorism is the nerdiness of unimaginative killers.  They can’t blame themselves because they are without souls and conscience. They don’t exist except in their blasts.  Their destruction is their reverse corporality. Its time our civilization returned to the dignity of structured battle between soldiers and away from nerds honing their skills on video games and blowing themselves and others around them up.

Federal Gun Control, Lawful?

by E.A. Timm

 Is Federal gun control lawful? Truth reveals what is false.
The historical record from our Founders’ writings explain the form, and function of lawful Constitutional governance. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, Resolved 1, explains, “That the several States...delegated to that [Federal] government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State...that the [Federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers....”
Resolved 3, “‘...the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people’...are withheld from the cognizance of the federal tribunals.” Therefore, since the Second Amendment is not an expressly delegated power to the Federal Government, the power should remain exclusively with the State. Even when the Incorporation theory is applied to the Second Amendment, the words stay the same; that is, “...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” keep their original defined meaning, and purpose. Besides, there is no legislative, nor executive power delegated through the words “due process” in the Fourteenth Amendment, from which the Incorporation theory is said to come. For the Federal Government to regulate and control guns, or any non-delegated power, is unconstitutional, and an infringement.
Resolved 8: “...where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a NULLIFICATION of the act is the rightful remedy...” for the State.
Even though the States, and cities already have gun control, it should be to support and defend the individual’s Right to keep and bear arms, since it is an unalienable Right to protect life. That is why the Second Amendment forbids infringement.
There is no such thing as shared powers with the Federal Government. Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (1790-1799) stressed the people’s retained sovereignty, and that: “no power can be exercised, but what is expressly given.” “The Father of the Constitution” James Madison, in his Virginia Resolution, calls it “criminal degeneracy” for the Federal Government to exercise control over the States’ and people’s “Bill of Rights.” Therefore, Federal Gun Control is unlawful. 

Monday, February 11, 2013

Despising The Old Rugged Cross

In one classic science fiction plot, antagonists attempt to gain control of the future by attempting to alter the past. Though it might not be as exciting as a Dalorian speeding at 88 miles per hour, maniacal forces in our own reality are attempting to accomplish nearly the same thing by drastically reconceptualizing our understanding of history.

Part of the way history is publicly remembered and allowed to exert an influence over the cultural milieu is through the erection of assorted monuments and memorials. This is itself a practice that, in part, traces its origin back through the pages of sacred scripture.
In Joshua 4:5-7, the representatives of the tribes of Israel are instructed as to the following: “Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant...These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever.”
This is not the only incident in Scripture where the believer is admonished to respect assorted physical historical commemorations. In Proverbs 22:28, the child of God is admonished to remove not the ancient landmark.
No doubt one of the reasons thorough going secularists and even their sissified allies among certain branches of the clergy leaning to the left fanatically lobby for the removal of religious symbols and emblems commemorating solemn events in the life of the nation is to no doubt alter our perception of history in the attempt to shift the country's underlying values and focus. By so doing, it is hoped that Americans will go from the most part being an independently inclined group of individuals who will protect their precious heritage to the point of laying down one's life should circumstances require it to one where the state is looked to as the first as the source of goodness and truth which it is free to redefine as changing circumstances warrant.

One such perspective lent a voice calling for the removal of Peace Cross (also just as correctly referred to as Victory Cross) in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association is orchestrating the campaign because the monument is erected on public land. In the mind of this agitprop front group, this violates the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

However, one area minister in the 9/27/2012 Gazette newspaper of suburban Maryland provided what he considered a number of Christian reasons as to why the memorial cross should be taken down. Rev. Brian Adams of the Mount Rainier Christian Church is aligning himself with the outcome advocated by the American Humanist Association because he does not want the Cross associated with militarism and patriotism as a "general symbol of sacrifice."

In making his argument, Rev. Adams enunciated a number of questionable assumptions. He insists that the memorial is blaspheming the Cross by honoring violent people with weapons defending a country while they try to kill people from other countries.
No one in their right mind said war was a picnic. But how else will at least a small sliver of goodness otherwise survive in a fallen world? Does Rev. Adams honestly believe that once things have degenerated to the point of physical hostilities that appeals to reason, compassion, and the brotherhood of man alone will be enough to dissuade those bent on utter desolation?
If the way Rev. Adams categorizes the Crucifixion and a number of Biblical imperatives is a true summation of his doctrinal perspective, as a denomination the Disciples of Christ is in serious trouble.

Though it along with the Resurrection is one of the building blocks of the Christian religion and an offence or stumbling block to those hoping to make it to Heaven under the power of their own good works which are as filthy rags, the death of Christ upon that accursed tree was anything but, to use Rev. Adams' words, "the symbol of the son of God dying peacefully." History and medical science concur that it was in fact one of the most tortuous forms of execution ever devised.

Because the believer so appreciates the price paid by Jesus at the hill of Golgotha, over the centuries artists and craftsmen inspired by the moving beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of all sinners have transformed this implement of abject fear and terror visually into a beacon of hope and adoration. However, in the context of what happened that original Good Friday afternoon, the bejeweled sculptures and golden masterpieces are about as accurate as depicting a ride in Old Sparky the electric chair as if it was an overstuffed Lazy Boy recliner wrapped in a plush snuggy.

By referencing a work as readily available as "The Case For Christ" by Lee Stroebel (so much so that many ministries give away free paperback editions), both disciple and skeptic alike approximately 2000 years after this hinge point of history get a better idea of just how peaceful the passing of this Nazarene carpenter and rabbi was from this world. Stroebel in a chapter on the medical evidence lays out these horrors.

First, Jesus would have been secured to the cross by driving 5 inch nails through a portion of the wrist containing a nerve nearly as sensitive as the one in the area of the so-called funny bone. Once secured in this position, the cross would have been hoisted upright with the feet being secured in position in a manner similar to and as painful as that used upon the wrists. Yet, the suffering had only just begun.
The gravity pulling Jesus downward as the cross was thrust upward would have stretched at his arms, causing his shoulders to dislocate. With gravity pulling the individual downward, whatever waning strength remains in the individual is mustered to thrust the body upward in a reflex to merely continue the otherwise simple process of breathing so few of us even give a second thought to. In so doing, splinters would be driven deeper and deeper into the flesh of the back as it slid against a roughly hued pole not crafted with comfort in mind. This struggle would eventually result in suffocation as the victim in agony would grow too exhausted to continue.

Death upon the cross was of such a terrifying overwhelming agony that a new word had to be coined in order to accurately describe its unique variety of suffering. That word was none other than "excruciating".
So fundamentally wrong about this fundamental of the true Christian faith, it is no wonder Rev. Adams is so profoundly mistaken in regards to other interpretative matters as well. Rev. Adams writes that the cross is the symbol of Jesus “telling his followers to put down their weapons, and dying for the sake of hope, for the forgiveness and salvation of even those who put him to death.” What Rev. Adams has done here has been to take a course of action applied in a particular incident and elevated it to the status of a categorical universal imperative.

Rev. Adams is correct in the sense that in John 10:18 Jesus instructs that no man takes His life but that He gives it willingly. This was demonstrated in Luke 4 when a mob angered at words Christ delivered in the synagogue conspired to hurl Jesus over a cliff. Amidst such homicidal frenzy, Jesus miraculously perambulated on through unnoticed and unscathed.

Yet, later on, the Savior was not as eager to elude His captors. When Peter attempted to rescue Jesus resulting in the severing of the ear of the high priest's servant, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:53-54, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way (NIV)?" Christ chastised a foremost disciple because His unjust arrest was to unfold so that the greater purpose of His being slain from the foundation of the world might be fulfilled so that all calling upon the name of the Lord might be saved.

Though each of us are valued having been made in the image of God, the way we proceed into Glory will not cause the very cosmos to unhinge if it does not transpire in a precise manner as foretold as a part the public record of religious history. Therefore, though honor is to be bestowed upon those that lose their lives for the sake of the Gospel, one won't likely be given additional brownie points or a crown in Heaven should one not do everything moral within one's own power to preserve one's own life.

In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructs his disciples to turn the other cheek. Often, the application of this passage has encouraged an undue pacifism on the part of certain quietist sects and overly pious theologians. However, what is being addressed here is more akin to individual insults and certainly not the basis around which to build a foreign or defense policy.

The Gospels should not be construed as denying the individual the right of self defense should the individual feel the necessity to protect their life and that of their family. In Luke 22:36, Christ instructs, "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Scripture admonishes the believer to be as wise as a serpent but as harmless as a dove. While the Christian is not to go around stirring up undue trouble, neither is the Christian to enter unequipped into situations that will result in overwhelming bodily harm or unnecessary physical death.

Just how literally do those raising the turning of the other cheek to something on the level of the Prime Directive from Star Trek want to take the remainder of the passage? In Matthew 5:41, the text reads, "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." So will those insisting upon the turning of the other cheek as an unmodifiable absolute now teach their child that, instead of refusing to get into a car with a stranger, that you as a parent will punish them severely if they don't comply with every Sanduskite that slithers out of its sewer pile.
In his concluding paragraph, Rev. Adams declares that using the cross to symbolize the military or to praise the military amounts to a blasphemy equivalent to taking the Lord's name in vain. It seems that clergy within the Disciples of Christ would only be interested in adhering to the strictures of the divine scriptures when they think these teachings can be used to tear down the pillars upon which this great country rests.

For example, a number within the Disciples of Christ are also pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage. So where is this denomination's outrage over violation of the commandments prohibiting carnal relations between anyone other than a married man and woman?

This tendency to view the Bible and the traditional teachings that are extrapolated from it as optional flow from the Disciples of Christ positioning itself as a creedless church. Such a formalized belief is, of course, a creed itself.

According to Wikipedia, there are those within the Disciples of Christ that deny the Incarnation, the Trinity, and even the Atonement. So what's the point of even bothering with any of the religious racket if Christ as the only Begotten of the Father did not come to die for our sins?
The cross in Bladensburg is not a representation of what the military accomplished through force of arms. Instead, the cross commemorates those from Prince George's County Maryland that died in the First World War.

John 15:13 reads, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (KJV)." Given the disdain he has expressed for both those that take up arms in defense of the American republic and traditional formulation of Christian doctrine, perhaps Rev. Adams does not view the last full measure of devotion worthy of remembrance and appreciation on the part of the COMMUNITY. It seems those like Rev. Adams only extol this particular concept of social organization when it can be invoked as justification to further curtail those areas of existence remaining under personal purview or to confiscate additional percentages of your property.

Yes, a cross is a distinctively Christian symbol. But this particular cross under consideration goes beyond the implement upon which the Savior suffered and died.

At the base of each side of the memorial cross in Bladensburg is embossed a virtue such as endurance, courage, devotion, and valor. As well as representing those that died in Prince George's County during this particular conflict, these virtues on each base of the cross remind that it is not man that ranks these character traits among the desirable nobilities to strive for but rather that these have been decreed to be so by God Himself.

To most in the West in general and the United States in particular during the time of the First World War, deity or “the higher power” to categorize the ultimate in a way the fewest possible could object to was understood using Christian or Biblical formulations. So would those such as Rev. Adams and his allies among the cultured despisers of the Almighty have us remove all other historically accurate symbolizations of godhood as well?

Along with the words “In God we trust.” on the back of our currency, does Rev. Adams also intend to agitate to have the eye of Ra remove from particular tenders as well? Does he also want to knock over the blindfolded goddess of justice standing outside many of America’s courthouses? For does she not also represent, in a less than ideally Christian manner we’ll grant you, the idea that justice originates in a metaphysical realm above and distinct from the state no matter what that social organization’s swords or bullets might insist?

The memorial cross in Bladensburg is dedicated to a finite number of individuals, namely those from Prince George's County that died in World War I. Therefore, historians employed by the county could do something useful for a change, rather than continually stirring the pot about the short end of the stick Blacks have gotten in the past but have more than made up for now, by researching if there are any county records extant as to the religious affiliations of these honored veterans. If it turns out they were all Christian, nothing should be done to the memorial cross; should it turn out that a number were Jewish, instead of abolishing the park altogether, perhaps a plaque could be erected acknowledging the contribution of the patriots of that particular faith. The county certainly doesn’t seem to mind rubbing it in the public’s nose regarding the accomplishments of other minorities.

Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The Founding Fathers were correct to warn of the danger of a state so given over to the interests of religion that whether or not one was to enjoy the basic entitlements and privileges of citizenship would be predicated upon formalized membership in an established ecclesiastical organization. However, that said, these thinkers also realized that any human undertaking would be doomed to failure if such an enterprise went out of its way to slap aside the outstretched hand of a beneficent deity.

by Frederick Meekins

Why So Many Police Chiefs Favor Gun Control When Most Sheriffs Don't

by Shults Media Relations

This contains some concepts that many folks haven't considered. We are not siding with or against the police or advancing excuses for them and we hope it does not appear we are picking on them either; we aren't.  

For this work, we interviewed 17 chiefs and sheriffs from around the country. From those conversations (emails and phone) we have some quotes in this work. We were asked not to source the particular quotes and that is fair since this was not an on the record news interview, we just wanted their thoughts and opinions. So, as Joe Friday said, "just the facts ma'am."

When it comes to various politicians and others speaking against gun ownership (the 2nd Amendment and Constitution by definition) politicians will many times cite city and state police chiefs who allegedly may support the anti-gun movement. These politicians may have police chiefs and their officers appear with them as props or spokesmen in news conferences. So the logical question to ask is why are these top cops so seemingly against firearm ownership?

Chiefs are at the beck and call of their political bosses, mayors and city councils. "We chiefs get our opinion on firearm ownership when it is issued to us."--A recent quote by a chief.  

A sheriff told us "There is an active debate between sheriffs and chiefs that is affected by the big city chief culture because chiefs tend to emulate each other."

For our purpose here let's just deal with city police, not state/national officials. If city politicians are against gun ownership (Chicago, Washington D.C, San Francisco, and New York for example) and the chief doesn't agree he can (and probably will) be fired or demoted by the mayor or possibly by a simple majority of the City Council. In most towns over 50,000 population chiefs generally get paid between $70,000 and $140,000 a year plus benefits and retirement. Large city chiefs get well over $200,000 plus benefits, retirement and every once in a while you run into a chief earning well over $300,000.00 plus benefits. They want to hang onto that "chief" position, title and income.

This is why you see chiefs and their officers in the background when privileged officials posture against citizen firearm ownership and the Constitution by definition. Sure some chiefs may believe in citizen gun control and may be willing as a backdrop for self-serving politicians--especially if they were appointed by those in power at the time. So whenever a mayor, senator, representative or president wants a show of "top cops" showing support, a message is delivered to the particular city where the top officials are anti-2nd Amendment requesting top cops as props. The chiefs and officers are obediently delivered for props or advised to get their resume updated.

Sheriffs are by and large a different breed. They are elected by the people with a larger proportional number of citizens than city officials. The sheriff does not have to please a few city council members, a goofy mayor (or a governor). Sheriffs represent the beliefs and values of the majority of the area of his or her citizens who directly voted them into office. Yes, there will be sheriffs who do not want guns in the hands of citizens, but nothing like the number of police chiefs who have a near immediate career ending gun held to their heads by anti-Constitution politicians or the chief culture.  

And most sheriffs take their Oath supporting the Constitution very seriously. And while they currently follow and enforce Constitutional applicable federal, state and county laws they reserve the power invested in their oath and position as elected officers of their county to resist or not to enforce Constitutional infringing law if or when that might come. If that were to occur, the state police and/or federal government may be ordered to step into that particular sheriff's county to enforce those particular unconstitutional laws. The ramifications of those legal incursions might be very interesting to watch, especially, we were told, if that particular sheriff is actively supported by the citizens of that county.    

The bottom line is city, state and even federal chiefs will almost always bend to the will of their political masters--He who has the gold makes the rules."  Then this might be something to bring up in various press conferences with officers in the background. 
Feel free to use this as you wish--it is yours copy right free as a service of

Shults Media Relations, LLC
A PR firm that seriously supports the outdoor and firearms industry and our Constitution

Sunday, February 10, 2013

In Praise of Drones Not Obama

by David Lawrence

Maybe Obama wasn’t a good swimmer as a kid.  Somehow he has always had a knee-jerk irrational hatred of waterboarding despite its effectiveness in getting information from Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
I guess it’s too messy.  It’s like boxing instead of darts.  He’d rather keep his distance and kill people from up high through the preemptive use of drones. Preemptive?  That’s right.  He hated that about Bush’s foreign policy.  
Don’t give Obama or Holder any of that enhanced interrogation. They had to go against it to denounce Bush.  It was a political ploy.  But who would have thought that they would have left their butts hanging in the breeze by killing our own citizens from the sky rather than inducing them to speak through a glass of water without loss of limb or death. 
Obama loves to kill by drone.  It’s so neat; so clean; so non-confrontational.  Zap! It’s like killing a bug.  Obama has gone as far as to say “Americans and others can be targeted if they are believed to be ‘senior operational leaders’ of al-Qaida or ‘an associated force,’ even if there is no evidence that they are engaged in an active plot to attack American interests.”
The Justice Department does its usual razzle-dazzle twisting of language, “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination.”
As a patriotic person I can’t argue with Obama’s use of drones to kill our enemies and our traitors.  Contrary to Greek philosophy, I would rather kill one hundred innocent Americans than to see Awlaki set free to hook up with a nuclear weapon and kill millions.
Drone on Obama.  But I think that you should be impeached for lying like Clinton. He was not impeached for his errant erection in the Oval Office.  It was his lies.  Like your presentations of yourself as an anti-torture humane human being when you are actually a cowardly warmonger who kills people from robotic weapons in the sky. 
Like your pretending it was a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi rather than an attack by al-Qaeda.
Hurrah for your Obama’s drone attacks but please resign from office. We can’t afford another minute of you nor another trillion dollars.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

The Most Interesting Career: Housewife

by Selwyn Duke

On the heels of my recent article on women in combat, in which I defend traditionalism, it’s perhaps a good time to also take up the cudgels for that bugaboo of women’s studies classes: the housewife. Thus do I provide you with the quotation below from G.K. Chesterton’s book What’s Wrong with the World. He wrote:
Women were not kept at home in order to keep them narrow; on the contrary, they were kept at home in order to keep them broad. The world outside the home was one mass of narrowness, a maze of cramped paths, a madhouse of monomaniacs. It was only by partly limiting and protecting the woman that she was enabled to play at five or six professions and so come almost as near to God as the child when he plays at a hundred trades.
[…]When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give [the word] up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.
As usual, Chesterton cut to the heart of the matter with peerless profundity. I’ll thus add nothing to it save to say that “housewife” isn’t actually a career but something far greater: a calling. A career is the most narrow of things, which is why careerism is a fault of the narrow-minded. It is the altar at which worship people who look up and see only their own egos.  

Against Gay Boy Scout Leaders

by David Lawrence

Once again bullying politics is turning common sense refutation into acceptance of a suspect cause.  The Boy Scouts is considering amending its policy against homosexual participation of both members and leaders.
The bullying of liberal political correctness is again sacrificing reason for convenience.  Dare I say this?  I don’t know.  Whenever I point out that the heterosexual sex drive is as powerful as hunger and as essential to the species, the liberals hold their ears and accuse me of being bigoted and Neanderthal. 
Heavens, I don’t know what makes liberals so smart.  Most of my critics are less educated and sensitive than I am.  Most of them don’t have Ph.D.’s and have not been CEO’s.  They have errant mouths; lisps of inaccuracy. 
The liberals just have the mob on their side. They have the echo of their own pro-gay prejudice. They have faux-modernity behind their simplistic viewpoints.
Gov. Rick Perry has spoken out against gay membership in the Boy Scouts.  I am not against gay membership.  Just against gay leaders which provides a risk to the scouts through their seniority and their authority.  The homosexual sex drive is as strong as the heterosexual sex drive and leaving gay leaders in charge of little boys is as stupid as leaving a perverted sheep farmer alone with a sheep, lipstick and panties or a stalker in a school for disabled girls.
Gays want to redefine the language.  They don’t want to be accepted as perverted.  I don’t know why.  Be what you are, not what you pretend to be. I am manic depressive and a felon.  Big deal.  I don’t want to be considered normal—it’s dull.
Gays shouldn’t redefine English so that deviant sex is suddenly beautiful.  Maybe it is beautiful to gays but not to heterosexuals.  I’m sure heterosexual sex isn’t so beautiful to gays.  Take the seashells off of their eyes.  See truth and it will set you free from hate and jealousy. We hate each other because we lie.  We don’t accept the truth because we are afraid of it.  We celebrate acceptance when it is really only tolerance.
Gay troop leaders should quit trying to be scout leaders when they know in their hearts and their loins that they present a risk.