Flag Counter The Political Freakshow • Posts Tagged ‘Dana Loesch’

Loesch baselessly accuses "Coca-Cola of siding with 'cop-killing' far-lefty Van Jones"

justinspoliticalcorner:

Yet another day of Dana Loesch suggesting a boycott of anything that doesn’t cave into the right-wing agenda and whining on twitter about “‘liberals’ bullying businesses.”. In her post at Big Government, she also falsely accused Van Jones of being a “9/11 Truther” and a “supporter of cop-killers.”

Today Coca Cola sided with reported 9-11 truther and cop-killer supporter Van Jones and the group he co-founded, Color of Change. CoC cyber-bullied Coca Cola, Walmart, and other companies for supporting voter integrity via their membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Who’s doing the cyber-bullying now? It certainly is NOT Van Jones or Color of Change, but Loesch and the rest of the RWNJ brigade that’s doing it. And the “Voter ID” laws (really voter suppression laws) are indeed targeted at groups likely to vote Democratic, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, the poor, college students, and the disabled.

h/t: DanaBusted.blogspot.com

Ted Nugent Doubles Down on Incendiary Remarks on President Obama: He Claims He Is Being Attacked With the "Saul Alinsky Playbook"

National Rifle Association board member and Washington Times columnist Ted Nugent refused to back down from his recent inflammatory comments about the Obama administration in a radio interview with CNN contributor Dana Loesch on The Dana Show. Nugent told Loesch that “I will stand by my speech” and said that he was being attacked with the “Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals playbook.”

Speaking at the NRA’s annual meeting Nugent accused President Obama of having a “vile, evil America-hating administration” that is “wiping its ass with the Constitution.” He went on to tell a crowd that “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November” and said that “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” The Secret Service is reportedly reviewing Nugent’s comments.

Nugent insisted to Loesch that his message had been “100 percent positive,” and Loesch agreed that he was being used as a “scapegoat” by the Obama administration.

Later in the interview, Nugent added more derogatory comments about Democrats. He described Democratic chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as a “brain-dead, soulless, heartless idiot,” and said House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi was a “sub-human scoundrel.”

Asked about a request from the Democrats that Mitt Romney (who sought and received Nugent’s endorsement) distance himself from Nugent’s comments, Nugent claimed that “Mitt Romney knows what I’m saying is true. He puts it into words for him, I put it into words for me.”

These aren’t the first inflammatory remarks from Nugent.

  • Nugent said Obama was “a piece of shit” who should “suck on my machine gun.”
  • Nugent said the Muslim community is “rude and stupid.”
  • Nugent described Hillary Clinton as a “toxic cunt” and a “two-bit whore for Fidel Castro.”
  • Nugent said anyone who says “gun control” should be put in jail.
  • Nugent described the Democratic Party as a “modern-day slave master” to the poor and unemployed.

Islamophobic hatemonger Dana Loesch continues to smear Muslims

justinspoliticalcorner:

On Tuesday’s edition of KFTK 97.1’s The Dana Show, notorious Islamophobe Dana Loesch revived the false and widely debunked smear (that her current employer CNN debunked) that “President Barack Obama attended a ‘madrassa’ in Indonesia.”

In her September 2010 column on her radio show’s page on WordPress, Loesch baselessly accused “all Muslims as violent terrorists.”


Who burned the Koran that resulted in the murder of ten Christian missionaries last month? 
Or the murder of CIA agents earlier this year?
Or the USS Cole?
Or the countless airplane hijackings, discotheque bombings, etc., etc., etc. 
Obama says that “As Americans, we will not or ever be at war with Islam.” 
How many thousands of people must be murdered by Islam before he stops saying such?
Where did this nation’s balls go?


No, Ms. Loesch, almost all the Muslims are peaceful and non-violent, and it’s only the radical fundamentalist Islam types such as the Wahhabis and Al-Qaeda that do the terrorist activities, which are disavowed by the mainstream Islamic community.

h/t: DanaBusted.blogspot.com

So you think God is hateful then? Because traditional marriage you can disagree with it all you want to, but if you think it’s hateful, you are literally calling Christ hateful … Why are you calling certain aspects of Christianity hate? … I know you hate Christ.

Dana Loesch’s response to a conservative, Christian caller who said “I don’t like hate of any kind directed at any group of people” (referring to Chick-Fil-A’s anti-gay advocacy)

Dana Loesch is a hateful fear-mongerer who doesn’t grasp that she herself is being hateful to the conservative Christian caller who called in to her radio show.

I listened to the five-minute clip myself, and it literally infuriated me to the point I was throwing things. Dana purposefully put words in the caller’s mouth, then made the controversial comment that you read above.

As a Christian, I don’t hate anyone or anything. However, I can understand where the caller is coming from. Many Christians hide under the veil of condemning and judging others on their stances, their clothing, their favorite music, their favorite foods, and so on. Some do it to the point of hatred and being hateful. That was the type of people that the caller was referencing.

The caller was correct. Scripture doesn’t openly reference homosexuality. The “clobber passages,” as they are so called, actually reference homosexual acts in a pagan temple, referring to doing those things in a setting that is opposite of Judaism, which is what the Old Testament refers to.

Dana, much like other so-called Christians, need to actually read their Bibles before they attempt to beat others over the head with it. All of Scripture has a certain audience that the verses were directed towards. There are different historical contexts and precepts that the verses of the Old Testament references.

A committed relationship between two consenting adults, specifically of the same gender, is not condemned in the Bible.

What is condemned is judging others, as you witnessed Dana Loesch doing above.

It’s people like Dana that had me considering to leave church before. They are oblivious to the errors in their own lives that they attempt to hide their wrongdoing by condemning others. It’s pathetic and petty.

(via mediamattersforamerica)

CNN's Loesch Does Not Want Akin To Appear On CNN After "Legitimate Rape" Comments | Blog | Media Matters for America

justinspoliticalcorner:

CNN contributor Dana Loesch had a meltdown on Twitter after learning that Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) was scheduled to be a guest on CNN to discuss the controversy surrounding his claim that it is “really rare” for victims of “legitimate rape” to become pregnant from the assault, despite this being one of the top news stories of the day.

CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight had announced that Monday’s program would be hosting Akin — “the biggest name of the day” and “the man everyone is talking about” — following the Missouri Senate candidate’s inflammatory comments. Upon hearing that news, Loesch took to Twitter to criticize Rep. Akin’s decision to appear on her own network:

Despite Loesch’s complaint at the possibility that Akin might appear on CNN, he also appeared on Mike Huckabee’s and Sean Hannity’s radio programs.

Akin didn’t appear on Piers Morgan Tonight.

h/t: MMFA

Dana Loesch vs. Piers Morgan, Round Two: Piers Morgan, Dana Loesch Burst Into Shoutfest Over Gun Control: ‘How Many Deaths Are Okay To You?’


Piers Morgan‘s show got heated on Thursday night when he invited Dana Loesch, Grover Norquist, and Van Jones to debate gun control. At one point in the segment, Loesch and Morgan grew especially frustrated as Loesch pressed the CNN host on where he draws the line on the number of gun deaths that are okay.

Morgan went off the “outrageous” and “insensitive” NRA leadership, going on to cite statistics about gun-related deaths in the country, compared to those in other countries with stronger gun laws. Often making this comparison on the show in the past, Morgan stressed that those countries have “negligible” gun-related deaths. How, he asked, can that be explained in “any rational way”?

Norquist advocated comparing “apples and apples” and looked to countries like Brazil, which has significant gun crime as well as significant gun laws. It’s not a panacea, he argued. And there began the crosstalk and disagreement as Jones disputed some of the figures Norquist presented, deeming them plain old wrong.

Jones went on to focus on how the issue is about assault weapons specifically, which Loesch immediately called a “false premise.” Seeking to correct his perspective, she argued, “Military-style assault weapons are not out on the street. We are talking about semiautomatic weapons…let’s stop conflating.”

“There is a deliberate effort to conflate the types of firearms,” Loesch insisted, noting that just because a gun “looks scary” doesn’t mean it can be categorized that way. She and Morgan later clashed over what qualifies as an assault weapon, with Loesch quipping that even a spoon could be labeled one.

She further dismissed the argument about magazine capacity and criticized those who she felt are simply seeking to disarm people. Jones jumped in again to fire back at logic that doesn’t “make any sense” — like spoons. We’re talking about “funeral after funeral after funeral.”

“How many deaths are okay to you?” Loesch asked Morgan. “Answer that question.”

As he sought to argue how a seven-round magazine is different from a 30-round magazine, she interjected, “So seven is okay with you then.”

“Seven is better than 30, isn’t it?” he retorted.

Loesch repeated the same, asking, “Where do you draw the line at preventing the death of children, Piers?”

“I would love to draw the line at zero.”

Loesch Lunacy: Right-Winger Dana Loesch Admits On Piers Morgan Live That She Is In Favor Of Unlimited Child Deaths, And By Doing So, She Reveals Her Own Lack of Logic In Her Argument Piers Morgan Tonight host Piers Morgan clearly has not had enough, nor can he get enough of, conservative commentator Dana Loesch. Maybe that will change after the latest episode of the Piers and Dana Show™, in which Loesch triumphantly declared that Morgan “admitted” the “truth” that he is in favor of completely disarming American citizens. In the umpteenth pointless cable news segment devoted to absurd gun nut talking points, though, Loesch appears to have “admitted” that she, in turn, is in favor of unlimited numbers of children being killed with guns. The “sizzle” in this clip is the steady stream of absurdities that come out of Dana Loesch’s mouth, but the steak is Van Jones‘ absolute nailing of the point I’ve been trying to make about these cable news gun-nut “debates,” a point that Piers Morgan would do well to heed. From Piers Morgan Tonight: Dana Loesch would probably object to being called a “gun nut,” and point to the term as evidence that liberals are dismissive of those who disagree with them, but she earned the label in a previous PMT segment when she argued that Americans have the right to bear arms equivalent to those of our global enemies. That’s what makes you a gun nut, not a valid concern for the right of self-protection. Loesch burnished that credential repeatedly in this segment, blithely arguing, for example, that “Anything can be qualified as an assault weapon. If you stab someone with a spoon, it can be qualified as an assault weapon.” This is a reference to the popular gun-nut talking point that assault weapons classifications are mysterious, arbitrary distinctions based solely on the weapons’ appearance, when, in fact, there are specific functional criteria involved. The “confusing” variations arise only out of legislators’ attempts to make assault weapons bans less restrictive, a generosity that has obviously outlived its usefulness. Loesch also casually dismisses the utility of high-capacity magazines by asking “Do you realize how easy it is to reload? Piers, you can take a speed loader and reload a revolver, 150 rounds. That means he had to reload four times.” I’m not exactly sure what point she was trying to make here, but it sounds like she is saying that if the Newtown shooter hadn’t been able to use an AR-15 with 30-round magazines, he could have done the same thing with a revolver and a speedloader. It is absurd, but since she brought it up, this is what she’s talking about. She’s talking about the Newtown shooter doing this 30 times in five minutes: That also means he would have had to carry 30 speedloaders, instead of four 30-round magazines. That’s 30 opportunities for children to run, for teachers to fight back, for police to arrive in time to save some of the 20 children and 6 adults who were killed. Is Dana Loesch insane, or stupid? Put a pin in that for a second. Then, there’s the exchange that Dana Loesch is so proud of, in which she gets the answer she wanted. “What’s the difference between 30 rounds and what’s the difference between seven rounds?” she asks. “The difference between 30 and seven is 23,” Morgan replies. “So it could save 23 lives if there was a federal ban on these magazines.” From this, Loesch concludes “Seven lives lost are OK with you, then? Seven lives lost are OK?” “You know what, Dana, seven is better than 30, yes,” Morgan replies. “I’m just trying to establish where you draw the line,” Loesch smartly retorts. “Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?” “I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America,” Morgan says. “So you do believe in disarmament, then,” Dana concludes. Like a pro wrestling announcer who isn’t in on the con, Morgan is hurt and miffed by this screwdriver to the neck, but he completely misses the implications of Loesch’s “logic trap.” Under her construction, that “seven lives lost are OK,” Loesch’s opposition to any limit on magazine size amounts to an endorsement of unlimited lives lost. The reason it never occurs to Morgan to turn the tables on Loesch is that his mission is not the same as hers. As Van Jones pointed out, it is the job of gun nuts like Dana Loesch to say anything, anything at all, to prevent a meaningful conversation about gun violence, in hopes that public urgency toward the issue will wane, and the status quo will prevail. I don’t presume to know what Dana Loesch thinks, but I’m fairly certain she doesn’t really believe that Americans should have the right to possess chemical warheads. She’s not stupid or insane, she can’t possibly believe that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have turned out the same if the shooter had been forced to reload 30 times. These are just things that she says to derail the debate. Most liberals would watch this clip and conclude that Dana Loesch is the villain. The unkindest way to interpret her actions is that she’s cynically trying to exploit this issue to gain fame and exposure for herself, and the kindest is that she sees herself as a bulwark against tyranny, willing to protect the rights she thinks she has, by any means necessary. Evil or misguided, though, Dana Loesch isn’t the problem, Piers Morgan is. He’s the one who keeps booking her on his show, knowing that the result will be pointless arguments like this one. That doesn’t mean Dana Loesch has no responsibility in this, it just means viewers should have a clear understanding of what that responsibility is. Dana Loesch is a human being, and her responsibility is to act like one. Humanity requires a certain level of empathy, which is not to be confused with sympathy. Loesch views the gun debate through the lens of her own experiences, which do not include having her own child killed by a mass-murdering lunatic. If Dana Loesch’s child had been killed by the 13th shot from a 33-round magazine, during a killing spree that ended when the shooter had to reload, it’s entirely possible that she would still oppose limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, or seven rounds. I hope that question is never answered, but I suspect that if she were somehow able to take the full measure of these tragedies, she might not snicker contemptuously through a discussion like this. Similarly, if Piers Morgan (and other cable-newsers) has truly taken the full measure of these tragedies, he will stop this pointlessness, and book serious people to engage on the topic. We deserve better. (h/t Wonkette)
View Separately

Loesch Lunacy: Right-Winger Dana Loesch Admits On Piers Morgan Live That She Is In Favor Of Unlimited Child Deaths, And By Doing So, She Reveals Her Own Lack of Logic In Her Argument


Piers Morgan Tonight host Piers Morgan clearly has not had enough, nor can he get enough of, conservative commentator Dana Loesch. Maybe that will change after the latest episode of the Piers and Dana Show™, in which Loesch triumphantly declared that Morgan “admitted” the “truth” that he is in favor of completely disarming American citizens. In the umpteenth pointless cable news segment devoted to absurd gun nut talking points, though, Loesch appears to have “admitted” that she, in turn, is in favor of unlimited numbers of children being killed with guns.

The “sizzle” in this clip is the steady stream of absurdities that come out of Dana Loesch’s mouth, but the steak is Van Jones‘ absolute nailing of the point I’ve been trying to make about these cable news gun-nut “debates,” a point that Piers Morgan would do well to heed. From Piers Morgan Tonight:

Dana Loesch would probably object to being called a “gun nut,” and point to the term as evidence that liberals are dismissive of those who disagree with them, but she earned the label in a previous PMT segment when she argued that Americans have the right to bear arms equivalent to those of our global enemies. That’s what makes you a gun nut, not a valid concern for the right of self-protection.

Loesch burnished that credential repeatedly in this segment, blithely arguing, for example, that “Anything can be qualified as an assault weapon. If you stab someone with a spoon, it can be qualified as an assault weapon.”

This is a reference to the popular gun-nut talking point that assault weapons classifications are mysterious, arbitrary distinctions based solely on the weapons’ appearance, when, in fact, there are specific functional criteria involved. The “confusing” variations arise only out of legislators’ attempts to make assault weapons bans less restrictive, a generosity that has obviously outlived its usefulness.

Loesch also casually dismisses the utility of high-capacity magazines by asking “Do you realize how easy it is to reload? Piers, you can take a speed loader and reload a revolver, 150 rounds. That means he had to reload four times.”

I’m not exactly sure what point she was trying to make here, but it sounds like she is saying that if the Newtown shooter hadn’t been able to use an AR-15 with 30-round magazines, he could have done the same thing with a revolver and a speedloader. It is absurd, but since she brought it up, this is what she’s talking about. She’s talking about the Newtown shooter doing this 30 times in five minutes:

That also means he would have had to carry 30 speedloaders, instead of four 30-round magazines. That’s 30 opportunities for children to run, for teachers to fight back, for police to arrive in time to save some of the 20 children and 6 adults who were killed. Is Dana Loesch insane, or stupid? Put a pin in that for a second.

Then, there’s the exchange that Dana Loesch is so proud of, in which she gets the answer she wanted. “What’s the difference between 30 rounds and what’s the difference between seven rounds?” she asks.

“The difference between 30 and seven is 23,” Morgan replies. “So it could save 23 lives if there was a federal ban on these magazines.”

From this, Loesch concludes “Seven lives lost are OK with you, then? Seven lives lost are OK?”

“You know what, Dana, seven is better than 30, yes,” Morgan replies.

“I’m just trying to establish where you draw the line,” Loesch smartly retorts. “Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?”

“I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America,” Morgan says.

“So you do believe in disarmament, then,” Dana concludes.

Like a pro wrestling announcer who isn’t in on the con, Morgan is hurt and miffed by this screwdriver to the neck, but he completely misses the implications of Loesch’s “logic trap.” Under her construction, that “seven lives lost are OK,” Loesch’s opposition to any limit on magazine size amounts to an endorsement of unlimited lives lost.

The reason it never occurs to Morgan to turn the tables on Loesch is that his mission is not the same as hers. As Van Jones pointed out, it is the job of gun nuts like Dana Loesch to say anything, anything at all, to prevent a meaningful conversation about gun violence, in hopes that public urgency toward the issue will wane, and the status quo will prevail. I don’t presume to know what Dana Loesch thinks, but I’m fairly certain she doesn’t really believe that Americans should have the right to possess chemical warheads. She’s not stupid or insane, she can’t possibly believe that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have turned out the same if the shooter had been forced to reload 30 times. These are just things that she says to derail the debate.

Most liberals would watch this clip and conclude that Dana Loesch is the villain. The unkindest way to interpret her actions is that she’s cynically trying to exploit this issue to gain fame and exposure for herself, and the kindest is that she sees herself as a bulwark against tyranny, willing to protect the rights she thinks she has, by any means necessary. Evil or misguided, though, Dana Loesch isn’t the problem, Piers Morgan is. He’s the one who keeps booking her on his show, knowing that the result will be pointless arguments like this one.

That doesn’t mean Dana Loesch has no responsibility in this, it just means viewers should have a clear understanding of what that responsibility is. Dana Loesch is a human being, and her responsibility is to act like one. Humanity requires a certain level of empathy, which is not to be confused with sympathy. Loesch views the gun debate through the lens of her own experiences, which do not include having her own child killed by a mass-murdering lunatic. If Dana Loesch’s child had been killed by the 13th shot from a 33-round magazine, during a killing spree that ended when the shooter had to reload, it’s entirely possible that she would still oppose limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, or seven rounds. I hope that question is never answered, but I suspect that if she were somehow able to take the full measure of these tragedies, she might not snicker contemptuously through a discussion like this.

Similarly, if Piers Morgan (and other cable-newsers) has truly taken the full measure of these tragedies, he will stop this pointlessness, and book serious people to engage on the topic. We deserve better.

(h/t Wonkette)

Up In Arms: Right Wingers Freak Out Over Boy Scouts Policy Change

After more than three-fifths of delegates to the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council voted Thursday to lift the organization’s ban on openly gay youth — a move that preserved the ban on LGBT adult leaders and volunteers — groups ranging from GLAAD to the LDS Church embraced the change. But several of the most […]

After more than three-fifths of delegates to the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council voted Thursday to lift the organization’s ban on openly gay youth — a move that preserved the ban on LGBT adult leaders and volunteers — groups ranging from GLAAD to the LDS Church embraced the change. But several of the most anti-LGBT extremists expressed outrage, hate, and vitriol at even this half-measure:

Politicians

Anti-LGBT Activists

The Scout law embraces the values of being “helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind.” It is a shame that those who claim Scouting has abandoned its moral code so blatantly violate its most important provisions.

UPDATE (2:46 PM): Fred Jackson and Dan Celia of the American Family Association have issued a scathing response against the Boy Scouts of America’s move to lift the current ban on openly-gay Scout members. They claim that the Boy Scouts of America is “rebelling against God.”

Watch below:

UPDATE (2:54 PM): Brian Brown, President of the anti-gay hate group National Organization of Marriage, claims that accepting gay youth into the Boy Scouts of America is “the beginning of the end” for the century-old organization.

Brian Brown, president of NOM, theNational Organization For Marriage, today issued a late press release claiming that yesterday’s decision by the Boy Scouts to accept gay youth into the century-old organization is “sexualizing” the Scouts and is “the beginning of the end” for them. The anti-gay organization that supposedly is focused only on “protecting marriage” has increasingly entered battles focused on any LGBT issue.

LOOK: LGBT Organizations — And Opponents — Respond To Boy Scouts Decision To Allow Gay Scouts

Calling it “a sad day for the Boy Scouts of America,” Brown, a professional political activist earning a reported half-million dollars annually, says yesterday’s vote is “a failed attempt to appease gay activists and corporate donors.”

Brown claims the decision means the BSA’s National Council of 1400 voting members “succumbed to political pressure and abandoned their historic roots,” and says the Boy Scout oath “no longer means much.”

“Their decision to admit openly gay scouts will end up sexualizing the organization. I am certain that having changed their policy on homosexuality, it’s only a matter of time before courts order them to admit homosexual scout leaders. Meanwhile, countless thousands of churches will very likely pull their sponsorship rather than endorse homosexuality, and the entire organization will begin to collapse. All of this is happening not because of a true grassroots demand of gay youth to be part of the organization but by an orchestrated political effort by gay activists who want to punish any group or organization that does not embrace homosexuality. It’s the beginning of the end for what once was one of America’s noblest organizations.”

UPDATE (2:56 PM): More anti-LGBT organizations/hate groups are none too pleased with the Boy Scouts of America decision.

Family Research Council

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

“Sadly, the Boy Scouts’ legacy of producing great leaders has become yet another casualty of moral compromise. Unfortunately, Boy Scout delegates capitulated to strong-arm tactics and abandoned the timeless values that have served the organization well for more than 100 years.

“The delegates succumbed to a concerted and manipulative effort by the national BSA leadership despite the BSA’s own survey showing 61 percent of its members in opposition to changing the policy.

“The Boy Scouts has for decades been a force for moral integrity and leadership in the United States. BSA councils, Scouting parents, and leaders of the faith-based organizations that charter over two-thirds of the packs and troops, must now decide how to respond to this moral compromise. Many will separate from the organization so that they can continue to foster character among boys and respect the right of parents to discuss issues of sexuality with their sons.

“It is clear that the current BSA leadership will bend with the winds of popular culture, and the whims of liberal special interest groups. There is little doubt that God will soon be ushered out of scouting. Now is the time for new leadership. In the meantime, we will stand with those BSA Councils who will now act to protect boys from a new policy that only creates moral confusion and disrespects the views of the vast majority of Scouting parents,” concluded Perkins.

Capitol Resource Institute

“The Boy Scouts are an organization that takes in approximately $500 million a year.  The homosexual activists have successfully worked their ground-game of pressuring donors and bullying the board members of this iconic institution,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “The leadership of the Boy Scouts of America has cowered to the financial bullying of homosexual activists.”

“We have all been betrayed by the leadership of the BSA today. Young boys and families, fathers who have looked forward to raising their boys in the Scouts, have been betrayed by a leadership that is more concerned about losing funding than losing the boys it serves.  Historically, Americans knew this organization to build strong leaders, leaders that held true to their oaths, leaders that you were able to trust.  We are witnessing the fall of an iconic institution,” said England.

OnMyHonor.Net

John Stemberger, Founder of OnMyHonor.Net

“It is with great sadness and deep disappointment that we recognize on this day that the most influential youth program in America has turned a tragic corner. The vote today to allow open and avowed homosexuality into Scouting will completely transform it into an unprincipled and risky proposition for parents. It is truly a sad day for Scouting.

“The Boy Scouts of America has a logo that bears the phrase ‘Timeless Values.’   Today, the BSA can no longer use this phrase in good faith.  It has demonstrated by its actions that the organization’s values are not timeless, and instead they are governed by changing tides of polls, politics and public opinion.”

Check back here for updates on anti-gay responses to the Boy Scouts of America’s decision.

Top