Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Cop Land

« | Main | »

Obama Picks The View Over Boy Scouts

By Wyatt Earp | July 28, 2010

Why does this not surprise me? The president has an opportunity to make a quick appearance at an historic event, but he is deciding to attend some fundraisers and a taping of “The View” instead. I guess he figures the approval of a few shrieking harpies is more important than the opinion of 25 million Boy Scouts.

This man’s priorities just boggle the mind.

President Obama will make history as the first sitting president on a daytime talk show when he visits with the ladies of “The View.” But he’ll be missing out on another historic occasion — the Boy Scouts’ Jamboree marking the group’s 100th anniversary, right in the president’s backyard.

The Jamboree kicked off this week at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, where organizers had invited the president to speak to the 45,000 scouts in attendance. All three of Obama’s predecessors have made it to one Jamboree while in office.

But the president will instead be traveling Wednesday to New York for a taping of the ABC show, as well as Democratic fundraisers and a stop in New Jersey.

The most stunning paragraph comes at the end of the article, though:

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a fellow Democrat, scoffed at the idea of a president appearing on such a show.

“I think the president should be accessible, should answer questions that aren’t pre-screened, but I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency,” Rendell told MSNBC, at one point comparing “The View” to “The Jerry Springer Show.”

My God, how bad is it when I am agreeing with that fat slob Ed Rendell?

Topics: Politics | 28 Comments »

28 Responses to “Obama Picks The View Over Boy Scouts”

  1. Robert B. Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    He may be thinking that those shrieking harpies can vote, but Boy Scouts can’t. He is forgetting that the parents of Boy Scouts can. Let’s hope they remember in 2012 what Prez Zero’s priorities were.

  2. Bitter American Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    “Anti-Gay” Boy Scouts vs Gay Icons on “The View?” Seems simple enough to me….

  3. Ferrell Gummitt Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    If the President were a man he would go on the firing line featuring Andrew Breitbart and Michael Savage.

    Well we know that he won’t do that. He would rather hang out with the cackling hens coffee klatch at “The View”.

  4. USAdmiral Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    He just keep setting new lows in everything he does, but he still feels our pain.

  5. Jon Brooks Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    The prez did not attend simply because part of the motto of the Boy Scouts, as well as our military is: Duty, Honor, Country… and as Gen. McChrystal once put it…he is a wimp.

  6. USMC8511 Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Bah, who cares. Every time he opens his cockholster he shows his ignorance and it is getting very tiresome.

  7. Rides A Pale Horse Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    The Scouts are more men at their age and more accomplished than this asshole will EVER be in his whole career. That has to be irksome.

    Or maybe the idea that the event is being held at a FORT where possibly one of his mooslime buddies could go on a shooting rampage scares him.

    Whatever. He’s just a punk. I guess that covers it.

  8. Crusty Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    You better believe Barney Thwank would have forfeited that dollar discount to make the trip to A.P. Hill to dress 45,000 boys. Boys……Boys…., Boys…… Boys

  9. Smite A. Hippie Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Barack Obama likes his ego stroking and to run around the country on lavish trips, spending our tax dollars. It’s not necessarily that he hates the country.. he just has a chip on his shoulder about this country, and thinks it needs to be torn-down, for it’s supposed wrongs made to others, and to level the playing field.

    Being that it’s the Boy Scouts of AMERICA… which represent everything great about country – of course he’d choose to hob-nob with a bunch of liberal anti-American celebs, instead.

  10. Smite A. Hippie Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Crusty – dress them? Me thinks otherwise…

  11. Randal Graves Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    It’s kind of a lose-lose situation: fag-haters or fag-hags.

  12. Wyatt Earp Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Robert B – American voters have notoriously short memories.

    B.A. – It’s simple for Obumble, too. That’s why he’ll be with Joy Behar.

    Ferrell – It’s just such a nothing show. Why not go on Judge Judy while he’s at it?

    USAdmiral – I wonder what the ratings are for The View. What demographic is he reaching out to?

    Jon – Honor? He’s a politician.

    USMC8511 – I’m sure they’ll ask him some hard-hitting questions, though. Heh.

    RAPH – Like it or not, the BSA is an American institution. Being so close to D.C., he should make the effort.

    Crusty – *shudder*

    Smite – It’s a huge mistake, but he’s made enough of them in the last 18 months, so . . .

    Randal – Can’t judge the entire organization for one policy. There are 25 million scouts across the world. Is Obama going to paint them all with the same brush. His appearance would be for the kids, not the administration.

  13. C/A Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Fag haters Randall? Why would you say that about Muslims??? Oops, my bad.

    Wyatt you scooped me on this dude, but I was there.
    Sorry I don’t think it’s a great idea to have “fags” mentor my son like Randall does. Just like I don’t think it’s a great idea to have “Fag” priests minister to my family of teach my children in school.
    At least I’m consistant.

  14. C/A Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    PS Just because Obama is a racist does that mean I hate black people now? Just want to know.

  15. bob (either orr) Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    His secret desire to to boink Maude Behar.

  16. bob (either orr) Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Whoops… his secret desire is to boink Maude Behar.

  17. Randal Graves Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Yeah, cause if the gays teach you’re kids, their “gay” might rub off on them and cause your kids to become gay. You may not be a racist, but you certainly have a intolerance for homosexuals. I forget what that’s called; hmmm?

    Oh, and for the record, I think Obama’s an ass for going on The View and a bigger ass for doing it when he could have talked to the Boy Scouts. But then again, I’m sure that there were plenty of scout parents who were thrilled that “that black guy” didn’t taint their children with his socialist, muslim ideals.

  18. Jon Brooks Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    Thats tu tu Bob. His secret desire is to boink Maude Behar in a tu tu.

  19. C/A Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    So you LIKE gay Scout masters but HATE gay priests? Hmmmm. You obviously are intolerant of PRIESTS. See how this works? Or is it just CATHOLIC PRIESTS? Guess your afraid that their spiritual values would rub off on YOUR kids. I’d actually have given you a pass if you just came right out and said you’re afraid that a gay priest would molest your kid.
    We all know that gay scout masters would NEVER do that. You know gain a kids trust by being in a position of authority and take advantage of them when they are alone, confused or vulnerable. Nahhhh. That could NEVER happen.
    Fact is I am entirely TOLERANT of homosexuals because I’m a Christian. I don’t have any reason to endorse their lifestyle or associate with them on a regular basis, but I certainly don’t wish them ill. What people do in their own privacy is up to them. That actually is a mainstream view held by most Americans. Just because I reject the gay agenda doesn’t mean I hate anyone. Does your standard apply to liberals like Al Sharpton or just conservatives like me?

  20. Randal Graves Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    No, I’m intolerant of homosexual men who prey on little children. I’m not at all intolerant of gay men, unlike you.

    “Fact is I am entirely TOLERANT of homosexuals because I’m a Christian.” – That’s real easy to say; a little harder to actually do.

    “What people do in their own privacy is up to them.” – That’s a total lie. Marriage is a private bond between 2 people and yet you’re totally against it. 2 gays getting married has absolutely nothing to do with you, yet you’re against it. And being a Christian doesn’t make you tolerant of people. ACTING like a Christian does.

    Al Sharpton is an asshole. My standard applies to you because you talk like you’re so TOLERANT of people, yet, in reality, you’re not quite there yet.

  21. C/A Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    So I guess when I pick up HIV positive gay men and transport them to hospice care or the ER I’m intolerant? If I wasn’t tolerant I wouldn’t be in the job I have. Fact is I encounter people from all walks of life, all colors, creeds, ethnicities and so on every day. I treat them ALL with dignity and respect. Intolerant people don’t last long in my profession. When I am called out to an accident scene I don’t have the luxury of determining someone’s sexual orientation any more than I do their political affiliation. I help everyone. Same goes in my everyday life. If someone needs help, I help them.
    I am not against gay people uniting. If they choose to do so I don’t care. My problem (along with millions more Americans, in fact the majority) is their co-opting the definition of marriage. Marriage is a sacred RELIGIOUS term, not a secular free for all. Therefore the definition of marriage is important the same as COMMUNION is. Or Pennance or any other religious sacrament that has an established meaning. Marriage always was and is between a man and a woman. A union between two people of the same sex is not now nor was it EVER a MARRIAGE, EVER in ANY culture. Gay people can get married, just not to someone of the same sex. Simple. (That doesn’t mean I’m intolerant. It just means I am standing up for MY BELIEFS).

  22. C/A Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Tolerance to you Randall is selling out what you believe in so other people think you are just swell. If I compromise my beliefs then people like you will say how TOLERANT I am. Um… I don’t care if someone thinks I am tolerant or not. I don’t see many in the gay community losing sleep about the pain their intolerance causes people of faith. Many deeply religious people have long held and important beliefs that those on the left feel free to attack and ridicule at will. They are portrayed as backward, bible thumping idiots. This is fine if you are on the left yet the same pass isn’t given to those on the right. THAT’S TOLERANCE for you. You can keep it.

  23. Medic3 Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    Erm, C/A…

    The religious definition of marriage was co-opted decades ago when state governments got in the business of recognizing these religious unions (“marriages”) as having a particular legal standing and also selling “marriage licenses”; not “union licenses”. That took the church based property management concept of marriage and applied it across all bounds of heterosexual, nominally monogamous couples seeking that secular legal recognition.

    States recognizing their own or other jurisdictions’ homosexual, nominally monogamous legal recognitions of the property management known as “marriage” is an extension of this legal condition to all. If we demand that non-church-approved marriages be called something else, then ALL of the legal unions need to be called that same something else. “Marriage” is the term used for this in the western and western-influenced nations.

    Either change the traditional religious term for this union, or change the civil term for this union, or leave them both alone and call it all marriage; but don’t say that your (and my) religious term is synonymous with the legal term here and here, but not over there.

    Oh, and by the way, marriage (including religious marriage) has not always been “between a man and a woman.” Marriage has traditionally been centered around groupings capable of producing offspring for the raising of said children, but it has taken many forms, including polygamy, monogamy, etc. Note that taking surrogacy/artificial insemination and/or adoption into account, there is no reason why a homosexual couple (we still discriminate against polys) cannot produce (or take in) and raise children.

  24. C/A Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    The definition of marriage recognised by the state has always been between a man and a woman, hence the reason for trying to CHANGE it now.
    If this is about property management then gay people can incorporate or simply have civil unions blessed by a secular government since most religions DO NOT MARRY people of the same sex.
    The state already recognises “common law marriage”. That is not a religious based union and no one would mistake it for one.
    The government adopted a religious term “marriage” when they got into the marriage business. It was always between a man and a woman. If they want to get into the business of uniting gay people they should us another term as this is not the same relationship.
    (Civil Unions).
    Justices of the Peace are empowered under law to marry people. Captains of ships at sea are also allowed to do so. This has been the case for as long as we can remember.
    Gay people are asking the state for official “property management” rights as you put it. This is a new arrangement that has no legal prescedent in any culture. Why not then take the MUSLIM term for it?
    Like I said- Marriage is a Sacrament. So are the Last Rites, and Baptism and so forth. Are we now supposed to change their meanings as well?
    Last Rites= Spring Break! Woo Hoo!
    I’m offended by your intolerance.

  25. Medic3 Says:
    July 31st, 2010 at 1:19 am


    One, you’re a firefighter, as am I; I don’t believe that you are “offended” by my so called “intolerance.” I’m certain that you have heard the expression about leaving your feelings in your car because there’s no room for them in the station.

    Two, I am not intolerant; in fact, I am referencing the history of marriage which contradicts your assertions. When it comes to offense, libel, etc, truth is the ultimate defense. If you feel that I am intolerant, or are offended by this, just be aware that that is the sensation of ignorance (willful or accidental) being challenged. Kind of like pain being weakness leaving the body.

    I am not offended by accidental ignorance, only willful ignorance. I teach on the side.

    Two references on a history of marriage:
    I’ll wait while you catch up.

    A few facts, uncolored by opinion:
    - In western civilization, the state got into marriage during the Renaissance
    - In medieval Europe, marriage was managed by the Church as a means of encouraging many congregants and as a means of managing property arrangements for the nobility (and eventually middle class)
    - In classic civilization, marriage was a business arrangement for the joining of families, production of the next generation, etc.
    - In Babylonian civilization, marriage was a reproductive/breeding property issue.
    - In the US, polygamy was not outlawed until 1862; prior to which it was legal and practiced in states and territories (famously Utah by the LDS).
    - Historically, recognized homosexual marriages are documented in ancient Rome and China.

    The term “marriage” means very different things in the dark ages as it did in classic Greco-Roman civilization, different in the Renaissance than the dark ages, different in the Industrial Revolution than the Renaissance, and different things now than any of those. Commonly used terms evolve as the society evolves (or devolves, depending on your point of view). But the term “marriage” (and its forerunners in Greek, Latin, Old English, Middle English, etc) are the common terms that meant a recognized union between persons with historic implications on property rights, sexual mate selection, childrearing, etc. Not all of these needed to be present for a marriage to be legitimate. (E.g., a pair within a marriage need not be fertile together).

    Commonlaw marriage is a carryover from English Commonlaw, which is the codification of many of the rules that the medieval peasants conducted daily business without benefit of clergy or nobility. It has a negative connotation today as compared to the recognized unions (marriages). Commonlaw marriage applies by tradition (the source of common law) to single male, single female pairings.

    Civil Union is a newer term that was invented to mean “like marriage, but not marriage.” And in the US where we have a tradition of equality (more or less) it rankles people to be told that they can be functionally married (by the state) but it won’t be called marriage. Hence my point that it doesn’t matter what the civil recognition of that relationship is, it needs to be the same across the board.

    Depending on your age, you may remember in high school, there was a basketball team, perhaps two or more. When basketball was a male only sport, there was a Varsity and a JV team…maybe a freshman team as well. After females in high school began playing and formed a recognized team, they needed to differentiate it from the established male teams. So there was Varsity, JV, Girls’ (later Women’s) Varsity, and Girl’s JV. It was then raised that to apply a modifier (in this case Girls’ or Women’s) to one set of teams but not the other indicated that there was a disparity in how the teams were treated and/or regarded. So the male teams acquired the additional tags of Boys’ or Men’s.

    So as I have said, pick a different term or use the same term, but apply it universally. The churches could change it if they wanted to; there is nothing sacred about the English word marriage. The Christian churches started in and around Rome; speaking Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. If they wanted to use the Arabic word (Nikah) that is fine with me as English has absorbed many foreign words into common use. (BTW, Muslim describes a follower of Islam; Arabic is the traditional language used in that religion).

    Regarding property management and inheritance rights, you are putting words in my mouth indicating that that is the sole purpose that homosexuals are seeking marriage rights. I pointed out that marriage is traditionally largely about property; you inferred the rest.

    You are welcome to change the names of any of your sacraments you like (as long as your church approves) but as far as I know, none of them were legal traditions before being named sacraments as marriage was. Please leave off of the red herrings…I don’t really care for fish.

    G’night, everybody.

  26. C/A Says:
    August 1st, 2010 at 12:28 am

    Main Entry: mar·riage
    Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
    Date: 14th century
    1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
    2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
    3 : an intimate or close union

    Websters is the standard translation that the english speaking world uses. Even they classify a difference between the two.
    They also leave out that Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic faith.
    This definition reflects a more liberal intrepretation of what Marriage has always stood for.
    As for your claims of Roman and Chinese same sex marriages I would dispute there was any religious connotation to them as no religion I know of has historically approved such relationships and in fact most condem it. Roman society was notoriously immoral so I wouldn’t hold them up as an example and with a BILLION Chinese I’m not sure that’s a good example of a thriving gay population either.

  27. Randal Graves Says:
    August 1st, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Just remember, “All men are created equal…except gay men. Oh, and keep them away from my kid because all gay men are child predators; oh, but I’m not a bigot.”

  28. Jon Brooks Says:
    August 4th, 2010 at 8:29 am

    What is really being ignored is the 20000 pound elephant
    in the room (the one in the corner over there), the boy Scouts of America are predominately…white. I believe this is the real reason they were ignored by obambi, our new post racial (cough cough) president.