Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

McKinley: Sequester Could Affect Boy Scouts

Spending cuts could hamper security for National Jamboree

March 12, 2013

The National Guard is set to provide the security when West Virginia hosts its first National Boy Scout Jamboree this summer, but mandated federal spending cuts could affect safety there, according......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(21)

TrollSlayer

Mar-15-13 1:05 PM

impact “Did Trollsucker call Hefner a liberal loon?”

Did impacted say he once promised to be Clean and Reverent?

impact “We never had security at Sandscrest”

The National Jamboree is a slightly larger, slightly higher-visibility target than Sandscrest.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Mar-15-13 10:34 AM

Support private organizations?!?!? Should the government not support Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Austal to research and develop defense systems? Maybe you mean private, CHRISTIAN organizations. Oh, now I see what you mean.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impact

Mar-14-13 4:16 PM

Did Trollsucker call Hefner a liberal loon?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impact

Mar-14-13 4:15 PM

Why do they need the National Guard. I had no idea this was going on. Scouting sure has changed since I was in it. We never had security at Sandscrest

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

walksabout

Mar-14-13 12:43 PM

ever watch the politicians in session. they all have bounce in step, good skin color, no wheel chairs or crutches. wonder where their food source is, what difference it would make if they lived in the same world as the public ?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

walksabout

Mar-14-13 12:37 PM

what next, politicians wanting limo service or free bottle water ?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

walksabout

Mar-14-13 12:36 PM

you can get them to use the guard for festival guarding not for border guarding ? can't the scout security be handled by drone operators setting in some foreign country boiler room ?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

walksabout

Mar-14-13 12:34 PM

time to put all organizations under same umbrella of simplistic fairness for those who don't belong and can't qualify for memberships. call it the great melted pot ot managerie.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

walksabout

Mar-14-13 12:32 PM

the organization throwing the shindig should pay for their own security. the tax payers shouldn'r be expected to use their military for anything other than fighting.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Mar-12-13 8:58 PM

next move will be to classify ketchup as a vegetable for school lunches while all of the politicians eat like kings.didn't this happen before?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Mar-12-13 3:16 PM

Hefner “the idea is to hurt the public as much as possible”

Bingo. And for the Democrit pass-the-buck party that invented and signed the sequester bill to blame the party that has been out of the White House for over four years and is a majority of only one chamber of Congress for all that pain.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardwhee

Mar-12-13 1:54 PM

Hate to admit it, but the Fed Gov should not provide support for private organizations. He##, The military has & is hiring private security in Iraq and Afganistan + many of our embassies. something screwy here. They just love to spend OUR money.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Mar-12-13 1:23 PM

Again I agree 100% with your points, but as you well know we are at a critical juncture financially in our country and sacrifices have to be made, and obviously, the idea is to hurt the public as much as possible. I would imagine there are a million other things that could be cut and go unnoticed, but you will also recall that the Administration isn't thrilled with theBoy Scouts stance concerning homosexuals in their midst, so this is obviously pay back time.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Mar-12-13 1:22 PM

Again your I agree 100% with you points, but as you well know we are at a critical juncture financially in our country and sacrifices have to be made, and obviously, the idea is to hurt the public as much as possible. I would imagine there are a million other things that could be cut and go unnoticed, but you will also recall that the Administration isn't thrilled with theBoy Scouts stance concerning homosexuals in their midst, so this is obviously pay back time.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Mar-12-13 10:45 AM

Hefner, I agree that Government support of private activities is not the taxpayers’ responsibility. But why deny the National Guard both a valuable training opportunity AND a valuable recruiting opportunity? If the Boy Scouts of America wants to allow the National Guard to use their private wilderness training facility to conduct a legitimate security and operational support training exercise, which is beneficial to the Scouts AND the Guard, at no cost to the Scouts and at reduced cost to the Guard considering the Guard has free use of the entire Scout reservation to conduct that exercise, why not allow that?

Where else can National Guard security and operational support units get better, cheaper training than actual security and operational support at a 10,000 acre wilderness training area that they can use for free?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Mar-12-13 9:38 AM

Trollslayer: Valid points but it is not the taxpayers responsibility.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Mar-12-13 9:08 AM

By the way, in providing security and operational support for a Boy Scout Jamboree, National Guard personnel are simultaneously training themselves for providing similar support during real-world combat and disaster relief operations. Providing security, providing emergency medical care, constructing temporary emergency response facilities, all in an unfamiliar wilderness setting, the money spent in National Guard support is not wasted – those Guard personnel are receiving some of the best real-world training they can get at Boy Scout Jamborees. The support the Boy Scouts receive at the National Jamboree is essentially free – it's a by-product of the real-world National Guard training that is being conducted to support the Boy Scouts. Win-win.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Mar-12-13 8:51 AM

Supporting Boy Scout Jamborees is an invaluable recruiting tool for the National Guard and the US military. Boy Scouts make the best servicemen – trustworthy, loyal, helpful..., brave, clean, and reverent; duty to God and Country... – and events like the National Jamboree may be the first and only face-to-face exposure for many Boy Scouts to our fine military personnel. Withdrawing military support for Boy Scout events will hurt the US military as much as it will hurt the Boy Scouts.

But let’s let liberal loons, with their pro-LGBT, anti-freedom agenda, screw up the great long-standing relationship between the Boy Scouts and the US military. Why not? Those anti-American “progressives” are working hard to screw up every other good thing about America.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Mar-12-13 8:47 AM

The federal government using federal tax dollars to provide security for the Boy Scouts, or any other private entity, is absolutely wrong and should be stopped. No wonder our federal debt is 17 trillion.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GETACLUE

Mar-12-13 7:43 AM

""Since 1972, the Department of Defense has been supporting the Boy Scouts Jamboree," Forbes said. "As it stands now, the Department of Defense can pull their support from events like this due to sequestration or for whatever reason."

Until the B.S.A ends its policy of discrimination they should receive NO FEDERAL SUPPORT PERIOD. You can't profess to be a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION for the purpose of DISCRIMINATING, then turn around and suckle the FEDERAL TEAT because it is financially beneficial. NO NATIONAL GUARD PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE DISCRIMINATORS.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

justmytake

Mar-12-13 6:35 AM

The national guard providing security? For what??

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 21 of 21 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: