Trumped up BSA News

Picture from FOX

I'm been seeing a lot of these in my news feed:

Trump subjects Boy Scouts to a political rant that demeans the presidency
Trump critics liken Boy Scouts event to a Hitler Youth rally
There’s No Mistaking Trump for a Boy Scout
Trump is unteachable. His Boy Scouts speech proved it
Trump’s Boy Scouts speech broke with 80 years of presidential tradition
Trump's Boy Scout Jamboree speech calls for health care action, 'more loyalty' in DC
From ‘fake media’ to Clinton, Trump brings political attacks to the Scout Jamboree

and my favorite
The Origin of Trump’s Weird Sex Yacht Anecdote in His Boy Scout Speech

Of course the usual people are making the usual comments... how "Trump needs to go" - how "Trump is destroying the world," how he should be prosecuted, and how the Boy Scouts need to denounce him. Apparently this speech was unacceptable in all ways.

But did any of them take the time to watch the speech, or did they just look at the 10 second sound bites fed to them by the media that they trust and believe? Ironic how many stories blast Trump for saying "fake media" in his speech, in a story which is, itself, "fake media" in its portrayal of his speech.

So, out of curiosity I went and watched the whole speech. It is 38 minutes long, but since youtube will play it back at 2x speed I was able to get through it in 20 minutes. Let me say this:

• It was a "Trump" speech (meaning there was an element of narcissism in it).
• There was no "sex yacht" - well, there was a yacht, but if there were sex it wasn't mentioned. The story was about losing your focus and commitment in life, and it was actually a good point to make to scouts who will be starting their careers soon.
• In brief, the subjects covered were
• Boy Scouts, and scouting in general is great
• America is great
• Those who serve others (military, police, firefighters, etc.) are great
• The scout oath and law are an important part of being a good American
• The Trump administration has the support of the American people
• The Trump administration has accomplished great things
• The Trump administration has undone a lot of bad things done by the previous administration
• It is important to find something you are passionate about and do it well
• Service to others is an important part of life

Other than injecting too much about his administration, there's nothing wrong with the speech - but then again Trump is unable to say "hello" without injecting something about his accomplishments, so that's not "news". Yes, I can take blurbs from the speech and come up with something bad, but the sheer variety of things complained about in various news stories supports the fact that the overall speech was not rally about any of those points.

A couple of points need to be addressed.

How does this speech compare to other BSA Jamboree speeches?

I went back and looked at the previous Jamboree speeches on youtube.

At the 2013 Jamboree President Obama did not show up at all, apparently after initially indicating he would come, since the BSA has made up special patches to commemorate his appearance. Instead, Mike Rowe gave a speech. In it he praised the Boy Scouts, and their service, and pushed the value of hard work, and mentioned his organization, which offers scholarships and financial aid to those learning a trade, and which promotes "dirty" jobs growth. Now, I don't mean to compare Mike Rowe with President Trump in terms of the quality of essence of the speech. Mike is an excellent speaker, and eagle scout, and an apparently selfless and egoless guy. The opposite of President Trump in many ways. But my point is the outline of the points hit by the two speeches is similar, except for the fact that the organization that President Trump is promoting is his administration.

For the 2010 BSA Centennial Jamboree President Obama recorded a 90 second video, which was played at the Jamboree. It was a very "generic" speech which said basically "congrats."

At the 2005 Jamboree, President Bush spoke. In his speech he praised the Boy Scouts, and their service, and pushed the value of hard work, and mentioned his administration's initiative to promote volunteerism.

So in terms of overall points, President Trump's speech did not vary from the "standard." In terms of delivery, neither Mike Rowe nor President Bush used a teleprompter. President Bush had note he referred to, and Mike Rowe spoke without any notes. President Trump used a teleprompter, as I presume President Obama did for his brief 2010 video.


Personally I didn't like President Trump's speech as much as the others, perhaps because I find his style narcissistic and triumphal. However, that is his style, not a substantive issue. I did think all three speakers were sincere in their admiration for scouting and their comments.

Boy Scouts an Politics

I've heard a number of people complain that Trump politicized the Boy Scouts, and that Boy Scouts are forbidden from being political or partisan. This is baloney. First off, here is the BSA official policy on Boy Scouts' participation at political events.

POLICY ON SCOUT PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL EVENTS

Uniformed unit members and leaders may participate in flag ceremonies at political events and may lead the Pledge of Allegiance; however, they should retire after the ceremony and not remain on the speakers’ platform or in a conspicuous location where television viewers could construe their presence as an endorsement or symbol of support. In addition, photos of candidates or Scouts in uniform or BSA marks and logos are not allowed in political campaign materials of any kind.

Volunteers and professionals must be alert to situations that would imply that the BSA favors one candidate over another. Strict observance of our long-standing policy against the active participation of uniformed Scouts and leaders in political events is mandatory.

Note, however, that this was not a political event - it was a Jamboree, a scouting event. There was no "candidate" running for an office. The rules above are clearly a nod to the Johnson Amendment (which as you know I think is an unconstitutional infringement on first amendment rights). But regardless, there is no ban on scout participating in politics. In fact, part of the scout oath is to do one's duty to one's country, which explicitly includes participating in the American political system.

If President Trump appeared to have the support of the scouts present it's because he did, and that is to be expected, because the values that he expresses are in consistent with the scout principles of patriotism, good citizenship, religious belief and moral standards. Likewise, Mike Rowe and President Bush had the support of scouts in their respective speeches.

In short, President Trump was President Trump. The Boy Scouts were Boy Scouts. The media was outraged by everything President Trump says or does, and says he is evil. All things that go without saying. About the only thing newsworthy about the whole event was that the president spoke at a Jamboree, which hasn't happened in 12 years.

Read More

Shame on Them!

I'm reading a lot of opinions about the Peruta case being denied a hearing by the Supreme Court. For those unfamiliar with the case, Edward Peruta wanted to get a permit for carrying a concealed weapon in San Diego California. California has a law that requires a citizen requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" in order to carry a concealed weapon. And since California does not allow any open carry of weapons at all, that means that the "mainstream" of citizens are forbidden to exercise their second amendment rights. The right is granted only as an exception.

Imagine if only a select few who were out of the mainstream were allowed to vote, or to speak freely, or be allowed to have a trial by jury? And yet, the same rules do not apply to the second amendment. The case should have been open-and-shut, and yet Mr. Peruta was denied his permit because he wasn't special enough.

The decision was appealed, and the case went to the 9th circuit Federal Court, where it was ruled (correctly) that California's "good cause" requirement did, in fact, violate Mr. Peruta's second amendment rights. However, that wasn't good enough for California liberals. The case was re-heard en banc and the 9th circuit court reversed its own decision, based on the reasoning that at least some people were granted permits. Can you imagine a court saying "well, some people get to vote, so we can deny you your right to vote."

Well, the case finally made its way to the Supreme Court, which for months put off making any decision on it, but recently decided not to hear the case, which means the lower court decision holds, and Mr. Peruta (and other Californians) are denied their rights.

Oddly enough, people on both sides of the issue are happy. Notably, the pro-gun people are saying "well, at least they didn't set precedent because they didn't hear the case." The logic is that we should wait until we know we have the "votes" on the Supreme Court to get it passed the right way.

Here's the problem with that logic. The job of the Supreme Court is not to "vote" on issues and we should wait until we have appointees who will "vote" the right way. The job of the Supreme Court is to look at a case and see if it violates what the Constitution says. And, to quote the late Anton Scalia, the Constitution says what it says!

If the Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms, then that's the decision you make. If the Constitution says you have to bake a cake then that's the decision you make. The job isn't supposed to be one of "what the justices want" but "what the Constitution says." And if a justice doesn't like what the Constitution says, too bad. That's why we have a legislative branch - to do what the people who elect them want them to do. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on that power, not a pawn to whichever party appointed them. They are unelected and are not supposed to represent themselves or their party or anything - they are supposed to just follow what' on the paper.

Case in point - slavery. It was not the job of the Supreme Court justices to overturn all slavery laws because they decided to reinterpret the Constitution in favor of abolition - it took Congress to pass an amendment. Likewise Prohibition, and the repeal of Prohibition, and women's votes, and income tax... you get the picture?

If you want to do something that's outside what the Constitution says, you make a law. If the law is deemed unconstitutional, you either change the law or change the constitution. You don't lobby for "votes" on the Supreme Court. If you go down that path, then the country is no longer a democratic republic, but an oligarchy.

But that's the path we're happily running down. From abortion to gay marriage to religious liberty to self defense, we are accepting the "rights" of the Supreme Court to decide what they want rather than what the Constitution says. And when we talk about Scalia (and Gorsuch) who hold the opinion that the Constitution says what it says, they are labeled "extreme" and Democrats try to block their appointment because of their "conservative views." News flash - if you appoint a court that reinterprets the Constitution, you are just a couple of appointments away from having everything you worked for reversed. The way to change laws is supposed to be through the legislature, not the courts.

Read More