Who would have thought, a mere thirty years ago, if that, that great American institutions such as the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts would be victimized by the same left wing political agendas as everything else that comes under attack by the barely disguised, yet somehow unacknowledged by so many people, forces of communism that by now have become entrenched within, and under the umbrella of, the Democratic Party?

Over such an issue as not allowing homosexuals to assume the role of scout leader!

What parent, short of a left winger in need of a little American moral deterioration or a gay male/female who maintains custody of some poor child and wants to bring that child up in the same image, so to speak, wants his or her own child of impressionable age to be given into the “role model” influence of an adult, a “leader”, whose sexual preferences are, at best, an aberration to them?

Don’t get me wrong, here, I’ll say again that I, and the guys here at Hard Astarboard as well, have nothing against two consenting adults of the same gender “making whoopie”, as Seth so tactfully (not!) puts it, as long as they keep it behind closed doors and/or among those of their own “community” and don’t force what are essentially their perversions on the rest of us.

That applies to having them assert their influence on such conservative and character building organizations as the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts, to both of which our (Wolf and I) sons belonged when they were growing up.

Why do these people feel such a need, anyway, to become scout leaders, or is this just another case of the political left sticking their filthy fingers into yet another institution in hopes of still further decaying our American sense of values?

From FOX News

Public School Boots Cub Scouts

A federal civil rights complaint has been filed against the Salt Lake City School Board after a principal booted a Cub Scout pack from an elementary school.

About 30 eight to 11 year-olds were told they could no longer meet at Mountain View Elementary School because the Boy Scout’s ban on gay members in leaders conflicted with the school district’s anti-bias policy.

The ban drew the ire of Michael Clara, a school board member and lifetime Boy Scout. Clara filed the federal complaint on behalf of two Latino parents.

“I believe it is an assault on the founding principles of our country for school officials to attempt to exclude a voice no less legitimate than its own from public school participation,” Clara told Fox News. “A marketplace of ideas devoid of competitive viewpoints engenders an insidious society of conformity, contrary to the fundamental precepts of our Constitution.”

He claims the school district is violating the Boy Scout Act – a law that requires schools to allow access to the Boy Scouts if they allow access to outside groups.

SNIP!

On March 16 two Latino parents contacted Clara after the principal informed them the Cub Scout pack would no longer be allowed to meet at the school.

Three days later the school board member received a telephone call from the principal confirming that directive.

“(He) confirmed that the Cub Scouts were prohibited from meeting in the building because they will not allow gay scout leaders,” he said.

Clara, who describes himself as a Christian conservative Republican who supports gay rights, said he was very concerned by the ban.

“Why on Earth would we want to remove something positive from the school,” he asked. “Where does this end? It’s a form of discrimination in the name of intolerance.”

The Cub Scouts had been meeting at the school for three years – but since their eviction – meetings have ceased.

What is happening to this great country? How are such people as this principal even promoted to such positions in a country that was founded on sensible morality, and Judeo-Christian principles?

This sleazeball certainly illustrates the fact that there are two different meanings between principal and principle!

Back in June, 2005, Seth did a post about Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbuck’s. The post was quite favorable, as Schultz, a supporter of Israel, put his money where his mouth was in that support via monetary largesse.

For some reason I can’t get the link to stick, so I’ll have to do some work on that when I have more time. The post was pretty in depth as are the majority of Seth’s older posts (and once he’s back, hopefully that won’t change), so to move along for now…

It was quite disappointing to read that Schultz is a vociferous supporter of same sex marriage, something we at Hard Astarboard are totally opposed to.

We have absolutely nothing against a couple of consenting adults of the same gender doing whatever it is they want to do behind closed doors, nor of their living together if that’s what makes them happy, but…

…when it comes to making a mockery of traditional marriage by making it legal for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be married, well, that’s a problem for us, as is allowing a same sex couple to adopt a child.

There is, after all, a limit to the amount of tolerance we, and like minded persons, can come up with.

Howard Schultz, it seems, also has issues with tolerance, in fact, he has zero tolerance for people who support traditional marriage.

From Examiner.com

At the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday, CEO Howard Schultz sent a clear message to anyone who supports traditional marriage over gay marriage: we don’t want your business. After saying Starbucks wants to “embrace diversity of all kinds,” he told a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in some other company.

According to a report by Forbes, Schultz seemed a bit intolerant of any Starbucks shareholders who embrace opposed gay marriage for moral or religious reasons. During the meeting, shareholder Tom Strobhar (who founded the Corporate Morality Action Center) pointed out that after the company voiced its support for a referendum backing gay marriage in Washington state, a boycott by traditional marriage supporters caused a drop in sales revenue. Schultz told him “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company” if he did not agree with the company’s pro-gay marriage stand.

So, if Mr. Schultz wants to make his belief in gay marriage part of what his business is about, he’s just lost our business as well…

My first post today addressed, in part, the “homosexuals rule!” attitude prevalent in Obama’s America ©.

But there’s more.

From One News Now:

A border-enforcement advocate is blasting President Barack Obama over the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to allow illegal aliens with American same-sex partners to be eligible for consideration of having their deportation orders put on hold.

The announcement was made public late Friday afternoon. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano said a memo to Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices will state that binational same-sex couples in long-term relationships would meet the definition of family that government lawyers can use as grounds for deferring a foreign citizen’s removal from the U.S.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), reacted to the announcement in an interview with OneNewsNow.

“… Here’s the Obama administration again giving legal status - a legal “family” status - to homosexuals as part of an amnesty for illegal immigrants,” he says. “He’s also expanding the unlawful, unconstitutional amnesty measures, which started with the DREAM Act kit.”

According to Gheen, Obama is acting outside the Constitution of the United States in an effort to strengthen his hold on “unlawful” political power.

“He’s creating legislation,” says Gheen. “He is a tyrant, he is a dictator, he is an authoritarian, [and] he is acting outside the law.

“He is contradicting the U.S. Constitution, and [he's] appealing to any group of people that he believes that he can appeal to to be loyal to him politically and possibly further than that. He’s calling on people that he can count on to mobilize for him politically and possibly anything else that he wants.”

Peter LaBarbera with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality concurs with Gheen.

“They’re trying to an end-run around Congress by promoting homosexual relationships,” says LaBarbera. “It’s bad enough if it were to be passed by Congress and then signed into law by the president — but here again, we have Obama going around Congress and just enacting these radical policies.”

Welcome to Obama’s America ©….

These reports really grabbed my attention.

From World Net Daily:

Dozens of people have already been arrested over the weekend for kneeling and praying in front of the White House.

ActsFive29, a group of like-minded, pro-life defenders launched the D.C. prayer rally knowing their members could indeed be arrested, but asserting it’s worth it, because, “The future of religious freedom in America is at risk.”

been arrested… for… praying in front of the White House.

…knowing their members could indeed be arrested…

Is this America, or is it a communist country or, for that matter, a Muslim country, where Christians know they can be arrested for praying?

Or is this Obama’s America?

How does this grab you?

A retired Army chaplain says homosexual sailors have been able to choose their bunkmates on board Navy ships as a consequence of the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military.

Col. Ron Crews (USA-Ret.) served as an Army chaplain for 28 years and now serves as a spokesman for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. When asked by The Washington Times to write an op-ed on the consequences of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he was quick to point out that “toleration does not cut both ways.”

“The Department of Defense is continually bringing forth homosexual soldiers and military personnel to do press conferences and talk about how wonderful it is,” Col. Crews notes. “And then they allow military personnel to march in a gay pride parade in San Diego. But yet those who hold biblical values are silenced.”

The Chaplain Alliance spokesman adds that homosexuals are now demanding and receiving special privileges in the military, including one egregious example aboard Navy ships.

From a Washington Times article linked in the above report:

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.

At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.

The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.

This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.

Yes, friends, welcome to Obama’s America…

Interesting, isn’t it, how anytime a liberal “progressive” agenda is realized to even the slightest degree, its proponents invariably begin the push to see how much they can milk out of it.

For example, the abolishment of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

From One News Now:

BOSTON - A group of married “gay” current and former military personnel has sued the federal government, seeking equal recognition, benefits and the same support as married heterosexual couples.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Boston says the government’s Defense of Marriage Act violates their constitutional rights and asks the military to recognize their marriages. The suit was filed by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Executive director Aubrey Sarvis says homosexual service members deserve the same protections as heterosexual couples because they make the same sacrifices.

It never fails, and before the fact, warnings are never heeded for the simple reason that the lefties behind these agendas employ what amount to first steps
as merely a foot in the door.

Opponents of President Obama’s decision to oveturn “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy warned that such a lawsuit would be coming once that restriction was removed.

Read the article here, and weep.

Earlier in the week, there was this.

The University of Toledo has suspended with pay one of its administrators for writing a newspaper op-ed that questions whether homosexuality is a civil rights issue. The school said the administrator was suspended precisely because her views on homosexuality do not comport with those of the university, a state institution.

Crystal Dixon, associate vice president of human resources at the Ohio-based university, sparked controversy Apr. 18 when she wrote in the Toledo Free Press that she did not agree with comments by the newspaper’s editor that portrayed homosexuals as civil rights victims.

Ms. Dixon rightly opines,

“I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman,” she wrote. “I am genetically and biologically a Black woman, and very pleased to be so, as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and friends of Ex-Gays) and Exodus International, just to name a few.”

However, as we’ve been seeing for some time now, the modern American educational institution has become intolerant of any expressed opinion that does not agree 100% with their own liberal political agendas. This is because they are no longer there to educate and prepare our young to think for themselves, they are there to indoctrinate.

Therefore, Ms. Dixon has to go.

But Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, a conservative organization, said the university appears to be discriminating against Dixon and was almost “inviting” a lawsuit.

“This is classic viewpoint discrimination,” Barber said. “The First Amendment and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act make it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on that individual’s sincerely held religious belief.”

Problem, Mr. Barber: The First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act apply only to atheists, liberals and liberal causes these days. The minute you mention religious beliefs in court (unless they are Islamic), it will become “obvious” that Ms. Dixon is a right wing Christian fanatic, despite her skin color, and some activist judge and well-vetted “progressive” jury will rule in favor of the university.

Greg Quinlan, a former homosexual who serves as president of the Ohio Pro-Family Network, said the University of Toledo, like many other university campuses, has become a “bastion of fascism.”

“Today, if you speak out against homosexuality on a college campus, you are considered a criminal,” Quinlan told Cybercast News Service . “I’ve been out of the homosexual lifestyle for 16 years. And if you speak out as an ex-gay, you are always under attack. I’ve been slapped in the face. I’ve been screamed and yelled at. I’ve been called all kinds of names. When you disagree with someone, that doesn’t mean you hate them.”

Quinlan, a former homosexual activist who said he had raised “thousands of dollars” for the Human Rights Campaign Fund in the 1980s, said his own conversion came about slowly.

“The science is clear, absolutely clear: no one is born a homosexual. It is nurture, not nature,” he said. “But if you say that, you are branded a bigot, you’re branded as a monster, you’re branded as a hater. You are branded as intolerant. But you are also, on many campuses, treated as if you have no right to your opinions.”

Well said, Mr. Quinlan. That is how the left “debates the issues”. They attack your charactar in as vicious a manner as possible, brand you ignorant, a bigot, etc, etc. This way, they don’t have to let it be known that they really don’t have any viable or otherwise palatable (to the majority of their fellow Americans) arguments to support their minority agendas.

Yet, despite the fact that these portsiders are in the minority,

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on same-sex “marriage,” paving the way for California to become the second state where homosexual residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision today, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.

Yup, even though the majority of Californians have previously voted against same sex marriage, there are always those activist judges and “justices” out there who feel they know better.

The challenge for homosexual rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court’s decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote.

Spot-on, Justice Baxter.

However, having lived and voted in California, I have seen a proposition (a bill voted on directly by the voters rather than the legislature) or two delivered with loaded wording, and I’ve also seen bills that should have been presented as propositions go straight to the state legislature. Liberals don’t much care either what the majority wants nor what is just, they simply want their agendas to be manifest no matter what it takes, clean, dirty or indifferent.

That said, I wouldn’t hold my breath: It would come as no surprise to me if there was a gay marriage amendment passed in California in the fairly near future, and with two states (the other being Massachusettes) marrying same sex couples, well, look at the legal quandaries other states are encountering when legally married couples from Massachusettes apply for divorce in them. If California gets on the bandwagon, the momentum of the same sex marriage debate will increase that much more, and states just might start toppling like dominoes.

Despite their minority status, liberals sure seem to be having their way with the rest of us…