Tag Archives: Mark Alexander

Who’s behind the Boy Scouts’ capitulation to homosexuals?

BOHICA

The news came two days ago that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), with 2.7 million members, is considering changing its longstanding policy against allowing openly homosexual members, according to a news release from the organization.

The Christian Post reports that a representative from BSA, who met with Frank Page, president and CEO of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, said that BSA is “wilting under pressure from some of their corporate sponsors.” In 2010, BSA sponsors included Bank of America, Intel, UPS, U.S. Bank, Verizon and Wells Fargo.

Mark M. Alexander, the executive editor and publisher of Patriot Post, is a Troop Scoutmaster. In a letter Alexander wrote to his son (see below) about the BSA’s policy change, he identifies two individuals on the BSA  national board who are most responsible:

Ernst & Young Chairman and Chief Executive Officer James Turley speaks during a session at the World Economic Forum in DavosJames Turley (l); Randall Stephenson (r)

Letter to an Eagle Scout

30 January 2013

(NOTE: This letter is a response from Mark Alexander to his son, a Cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy, concerning the Boy Scouts of America national board proposal to allow homosexual Scout leaders. Alexander is both a Troop Scoutmaster and member of his area Boy Scout Executive Council.)

I received your note about news of an upcoming proposal before the Boy Scouts of America national board, which meets Wednesday, February 6th.

According to the news release regarding that proposal, “The BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation.” You are correct, the removal of this restriction will permit local BSA Councils to accept homosexual members and, moreover, to invite homosexuals to serve in leadership positions at all levels of the organization.

I understand your profound disappointment in this great organization, after all you accomplished to obtain your Eagle rank. I share that disappointment as your former Scoutmaster, and many years in other leadership positions with the BSA.

A decade ago, when you first joined my Cub Scout Pack, I wrote the BSA’s National Executive Board about concerns regarding advertisers in the Cub and Boy Scouting magazines. The great Scouting stories were wrapped in ads for junk food and video games.

I was struck by the fact that on the one hand, we, as leaders, were charged with encouraging our boys to develop healthy habits for life — and on the other hand, the national organization was serving them a monthly dose of junk food and video game advertising.

The BSA responded that without those advertisers, it would be difficult to fund their glossy publications. I rebutted that this was a “Faustian bargain,” that it conveyed the wrong message in every respect. I heard nothing more from the BSA.

Fast forward to the BSA news this week. In light of all the reports and litigation over the abusive predation on boys by homosexual adults in leadership positions with churches and other organizations, the notion that the BSA is considering lifting its ban on homosexuals holding such positions is mind numbing, stupefying — in fact, shocking.

Now, clearly all homosexuals are not molesters of teens and pre-teens, but where same-sex molestation occurs, homosexuals are almost always the perpetrators. So, why would the national BSA board consider a motion to remove its national restriction on homosexual leaders, and invite avowed homosexuals to fill “select leadership” roles?

Well, for much the same reason the BSA advertised junk food and video games in its national Scouting magazines. The national BSA board includes wealthy corporate executives, who are more interested in dictating BSA policy that comports with their corporate bottom line than with the mission of Scouting. They are completely out of touch with rank and file Scouts and leaders across the nation.

Indeed, much of the pressure to put homosexuals in leadership roles is coming from two national board members: James Turley, CEO of Ernst & Young, and Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, who is slated to become president of the BSA national board in 2014.

Despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BSA’s ban on homosexuals in 2000, these BSA board members are endeavoring to force their social agenda on 3.6 million Scouts and adult leaders. They want Scouting to comply with their corporate policies, which have adopted the homosexual agenda under pressure, primarily from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the so-called “Human Rights” Campaign.

While homosexuals account for fewer than 3 percent of the population, they have some very loud advocacy organizations.

The BSA also excludes avowed atheists from leadership positions, but David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said, “If they are considering lifting the ban on gays, that’s a good thing. I would hope they remove the rest of the bigotry and admit atheists as well.”

Last summer, the BSA committee charged with conducting a two-year national study and survey on the restrictions against homosexuals, affirmed by “unanimous consensus,” upholding those restrictions. (Did they really need a two-year study to figure that out?) But now, a few corporate execs are attempting an end run around the local councils and all of us who are Scouting’s foot soldiers, and hope for a quick sweep of the board.

So what will be the consequences if the national board approves of this measure?

The national BSA restriction against homosexual members and leaders has provided a cover policy for the 290 BSA Councils across the nation, and the more than 115,000 religious and civic groups under which BSA Troops are chartered.

Abandoning this restriction will move the cultural battlefront to the front door of every council and troop across the nation — including their sponsors and chartering organizations. In short order, those of us who have devoted so many years to the BSA and other character-building organizations for young people, will be labeled “intolerant bigots” if we do not comport with the “gay agenda.” Fact is, there is nothing “gay” about being homosexual.

The BSA celebrated its centennial in 2010, but if this proposal is approved, Scouting, as we know it today, will be fractured in some areas of the nation, and will cease to exist.

Obviously, a few elitist corporate types on the BSA’s National Executive Board hail from some alternate universe. The mere suggestion of lifting the restrictions against homosexuals, particularly in leadership positions, is an insulting affront to the vast majority of Scouts, Scout leaders and parents, Scout Councils and chartering organizations.

The National Board should provide cover fire for their local affiliates, not spotlight them as targets for infiltration and annihilation. If the BSA Board is more devoted to its corporate sponsors than the organization’s mission, and fears it will collapse without those sponsors, then let it fall with honor rather than decline in disgrace.

Finally, in this era when few of our national leaders abide by their oaths of office, I know you will stand firm in the oath you took upon becoming a Scout, and repeated many times on the road to your Eagle rank: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

And what is the Scout Law? “A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent.”

Hold your ground young man!

Note: Permission granted for this letter to be forwarded to others. If you have an opinion on this matter, please contact the BSA national office at 972-580-240, or leave them a message here (http://www.scouting.org/ContactUs.aspx)

H/t FOTM’s Stephanie O.

Update (Feb. 5, 2013):

BSA’s corporate sponsors are deserting the Scouts: Intel, UPS and Merck declared they have stopping funding the BSA. The homosexual-rights group Scouting for All lists some of the corporations that have refused to fund the BSA’s national organization: IBM, Levi Strauss and Company, J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Portland General Gas and Electric, Hewlett Packard, Textron, Fleet Bank, CVS/Pharmacy Stores and Carrier Corp. (Source: WND)

To sign a petition asking BSA not to abandon its century-old policy of not allowing homosexuals, click here.

Update (May 20, 2015):

Boy Scouts of America (BSA) succumbed and changed its policy to allow OPENLY homosexual boys to join. The policy took effect on January 1, 2014.

Openly homosexual Scout leaders are next. Already, in May 2014, newly elected BSA President, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who led the Obama administration military to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, said that he would have allowed homosexual leaders for Boy Scouts of America. (Source)

~Eowyn

Pathology of the Fatherless

This is how important fathers are.

In America today, the 30% of children who live apart from their fathers will account for:

  • 63% of teen suicides
  • 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions
  • 71% of high-school dropouts
  • 75% of children in chemical-abuse centers
  • 80% of rapists
  • 85% of youths in prison
  • 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders
  • 90% of homeless and runaway children

The following essay was written by Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post.

~Eowyn

The Centennial of Father’s Day

And a case study in the fate of the fatherless Barack Obama

Father’s Day was first celebrated the third Sunday in June in the year 1910.

The original observance was in honor of William Jackson Smart, an Arkansas veteran of the War Between the States, who raised a daughter and five sons on his own, after his wife died giving birth to their sixth child. Smart was devoted to his children, as they were to him, and his daughter, Sonora Smart Dodd, wanted to honor her father for that devotion.

Though Mother’s Day had been observed in one form or another for centuries, Fathers Day was a fitting complement, and within a few years following the first ceremony, it became a national rite.

While this first formal recognition came about just a century ago, it was abundantly clear to our Founding Fathers that families with both mothers and fathers were critical to the well-being of children.

John Adams wrote, “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families…. How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?”

His wife, Abigail, wrote, “What is it that affectionate parents require of their Children; for all their care, anxiety, and toil on their accounts? Only that they would be wise and virtuous, Benevolent and kind.”

The vital role of fathers has been extolled throughout history, in virtually every religion and culture. No less, it is now well understood that the foundation of our nation is “laid in private families,” and that this foundation is critical if the next generation is to be “wise and virtuous, Benevolent and kind.”

Unfortunately, there is an epidemic of negligence among fathers today, and consequently (according to the CDC, DoJ, DHHS and the Bureau of the Census) the 30% of children who live apart from their fathers will account for 63% of teen suicides, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71% of high-school dropouts, 75% of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80% of rapists, 85% of youths in prison, 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders, and 90% of homeless and runaway children.

The causal link between fatherless children and crime “is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime,” notes social researcher Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.

More to the point, a counselor at a juvenile-detention facility in California, which has the nation’s highest juvenile-incarceration rate, protested, “[If] you find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, I’d like to meet him. … I don’t think that kid exists.”

Arguably, the vast majority of social problems confronting our nation today originate in homes without fathers, including those without functioning or effective fathers. (It should be noted here that an increasing number of fatherless homes are the result of mothers who separate from fathers without reasonable grounds for severance.)

“Maturity does not come with age, but with the accepting of responsibility for one’s actions,” writes Dr. Edwin Cole. “The lack of effective, functioning fathers is the root cause of America’s social, economic and spiritual crises.”

Of course, there are young people who were raised by a single parent, or in critically dysfunctional or impoverished homes, but who overcame that impediment. Either they were blessed with a parent who, against all but insurmountable odds, instilled their children with the values and virtues of good citizenship or, somewhere along the way, those children were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God — often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled individual responsibility and character.

As a result, they have been empowered to internalize their locus of responsibility, to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices and behavior.

However, the vast majority of those from homes without fathers externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty of providing basic needs and, ultimately, of arbitrating proper conduct.

The failure of fatherhood is more than just a social problem; it is a menacing national security threat. The collective social pathology of the fatherless has dire consequences for the future of Liberty, free enterprise and the survival of our republican form of government as outlined by our Constitution.

One may rightly conclude that most “liberalism,” the rejection of Essential Liberty and Rule of Law, is rooted in pathology that runs much deeper than topical ideological indoctrination. Indeed, psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview is manifested in such expressions as political affiliation.

In this respect, the pathology of the Left is transparent.

This pathology tends to result in mental rigidity, fear, anger, aggression and insecurity, the result of low self-esteem and arrested emotional development associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which children were not adequately affirmed. Such individuals harbor contempt for those who are self-sufficient for much the same reason. They believe that conforming to a code of non-conformity is a sign of individualism, when it is nothing more than an extreme form of conformism for those who are truly insecure. Though they feign concern for the less fortunate and the primacy of individual liberty, they are ardent statists.

They fear loss because most have suffered significant loss. They often come from socially or economically deprived single-parent homes, though inheritance-welfare trust-babies (see Gore, Kerry, the Kennedys, et al.) manifest similar insecurities about helplessness without external sustenance (their trust funds). They reject individual and social responsibility because such principles were not modeled for them as children — and the generational implications for Liberty are ominous.

Some of the fatherless (or those with ineffectual fathers), seek to compensate for the resulting insecurities through overachievement, which is to say they are case studies of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — the standard reference used for psychiatric evaluation. These deprived children are relentlessly driven by self-interest, narcissism and visions of grandiosity.

The more notorious of narcissists in the last century include Adolf Hitler, Iosif Vissarionouich Djugashvili (Joseph Stalin), Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein.

The more seemingly benign of the fatherless in recent U.S. political history include Bill Clinton, Albert Gore, John Kerry, and the textbook case of Barack Hussein Obama.

On the official White House website, the bio for Obama begins, “His story is the American story — values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family…”

That is certainly the image Obama would like to project, but it is most certainly not accurate.

Like so many Leftists, his roots are shallow and broken, and they are in no way a reflection of “values from the heartland.”

“Barry,” as he was called when a youngster, was born in 1961 to Stanley “Ann” Dunham, an atheist anthropologist, and Barack Obama Sr., a Muslim from the Luo tribe in Kenya. When he was just two, Obama’s parents separated and later divorced. Obama’s mother then married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national. Barack took his stepfather’s name and he and his mother moved with Lolo to Jakarta, where he spent four years in local Islamic schools. Ann and Lolo also divorced, but not before sending Barry to Hawaii to reside with his maternal grandparents and attend the exclusive Punahou School.

In those years, young Obama was greatly influenced by others, most notably an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis, and later a “spiritual mentor,” Jeremiah Wright, who spewed racial hatred.

Often accompanying narcissistic pathology, as in the case of Obama, are strong charismatic abilities, which attract a cult of sycophantic followers, or as Obama put it in the opening pages of his political autobiography, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

It’s no coincidence that Obama’s most loyal constituencies are the product of the social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings, breeding grounds for legions of disenfranchised Leftists, those who are largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance.

When campaigning for president, Obama proclaimed, “What Washington needs is adult supervision.” Unfortunately, young Barry never received enough of it himself that he might provide it to anyone else, much less an entire nation.

To be sure, all good-hearted Americans should possess a measure of compassion for young Barry Obama, whose bizarre formative years were marked by complete familial disintegration.

Unfortunately, misplaced empathy has played a key role in his unchecked rapid rise through the ranks to the most powerful political seat in the world — at great peril to the future of liberty. Actions have consequences, and the grossly negligent act of electing a “community organizer” to the presidency — is producing devastating consequences, as even many leftists are now discovering.

So where to go from here?

In regard to fatherhood, the foundational future of our nation will spring from our homes, as John and Abigail Adams understood.

The fate of the fatherless is, at best, a broken heart. At worst, it is the root cause of the social entropy we observe in contemporary American culture, because the fate of the fatherless is directly linked to the faith of the fatherless, their relationship with God the Father. Broken trust with earthly fathers often results in a lack of trust in the Heavenly Father.

On this 100th Father’s Day, we should pay tribute to the irreplaceable institution of fatherhood — and the importance of a father’s love, discipline, support and protection for his children. Every day, those of us who are fathers should encourage other fathers to be accountable for their marriages and children. (For excellent fathering resources, link to First Things First).

There is much that can be done for the fatherless — mentoring through Boy Scouts, coaching little-league sports, teaching in Sunday school, tutoring and volunteering to work with high-risk kids through an inner-city ministry, to name just a few. We, as American Patriots, must bridge the gap for these kids.

As for this publisher, it is a privilege beyond all others to be a husband to Ann and father of three. Indeed, no reward could be greater than the close relationship with my children, and to see their progress as Patriots-in-training — responsible young citizens committed to carrying forward the flame of liberty.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander

Publisher, The Patriot Post