By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
October 27, 2000
Al Gore was on Good Morning America with Charles Gibson yesterday for about 12 minutes, answering some surprisingly tough questions for ABC to be asking a Democrat. The toughest questions came from viewers of the show. Gibson asked the vice-president to explain the "secret agreement made with the Russians in 1995 that you signed with Russian prime minister Victor Chernomyrdin at that time" which he did not tell Congress about. "Did you allow Russian weapon sales to Iran to continue in defiance of the law you personally co-sponsored?"
GORE: Well, first of all, that didn't happen because what happened under the agreement, or the understanding that we reached with them, stopped any new arm sales for the last five years. Congress was briefed on it. This-this has been the subject of extensive dialogue. And what happened was the old contracts that were signed before the Gore-McCain law was passed, and it didn't apply to them, were allowed to-they were allowed to finish out those contracts which did not include advanced weaponry. And they agreed not to have any new ones. And that's been in the best interest of our country, for sure.
GIBSON: Senator McCain himself said that this agreement was intended to evade sanctions. And Senator McCain says the-the argument that these weapons, the weapons that were sold, were not covered by the agreement is provably false.
GORE: Well, look. We're in the final 12 days of this election campaign, where the people in the other party are throwing their hardest fastballs, and we're doing the same. But the facts remain, Charlie. This-this understanding has been helpful to our country and to the peace, and it stopped the-the reaching of any new agreements between Russia and Iran.
The understanding has been helpful to our country and to peace? That seems to be an admission that he DID have a secret agreement with Chernomyrdin that was not approved or even mentioned to Congress. The issue is not whether or not it was "helpful" but whether or not it was in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the law he helped to sponsor. The next question also dealt with a Constitutional matter - the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude homosexual, or other, leaders they believe are not good role models for young boys:
GIBSON: Let me ask you another question. A viewer from Vermont, Howard Holly, I believe his name is. "Does the vice president agree with the Supreme Court decision regarding the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexual leaders?"GORE: On the grounds that were used for the decision, the right of free association, yes. But I oppose discrimination. And the court did not reach the underlying question that others have raised there. I-I want to see a day, Charlie, where we don't have this-this kind of discrimination by groups public or private. And I think that we're moving into a future where that discrimination can be brought to an end. The principal piece of legislation on that, incidentally, is the employment nondiscrimination act, which I support and which Governor Bush does not support. And I think we need to move to a day when we don't have discrimination.
If someone had asked me as recently as two years ago if I thought that a major presidential candidate would go on record in opposition to the Boy Scouts' moral standards, I would have said it was not conceivable. Yet, that is exactly what Al Gore did. In his answer he has taken both sides simultaneously. First he says "Yes" he agreed with the Supreme Court Decision to permit "the right of free association," which is a guaranteed right under the Constitution under the First Amendment's "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
He then advocates "moving into a future where that discrimination can be brought to an end. The principal piece of legislation on that, incidentally, is the employment non-discrimination act, which I support and which Governor Bush does not support." In other words, he does NOT actually support the right of the Boy Scouts to maintain their "morally straight" standard for scoutmasters and he would eliminate it.
This kind of definition of "discrimination" would eventually make it illegal to "exclude" anyone from a "private or public" organization on the basis of race, color, creed, age, national origin, sexual orientation or any other factor that might be added to "non-discrimination" clauses in the future. The Boy Scouts, or even a Church could be prosecuted under that kind of thinking if they rejected a convicted pedophile for a position in the Boy Scouts or as a school teacher. Gore is talking about PRIVATE groups being required to "end discrimination" against those the private groups think are inappropriate or even contrary to their private beliefs. Gibson continued:
GIBSON: Just very quickly, I-I noted in doing research for this, every president since William Howard Taft has been honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts.GORE: And I'll continue that.
GIBSON: You would. You would take the role as honorary chairman?
GORE: And try to continue to provide leadership to end discrimination.
Gore would legislate, somehow, an end to the Boy Scouts of America having the "right" to reject homosexuals as role models for young boys. When there are occasions in which boys are sexually abused by men, in almost every case the man involved is a homosexual who is attracted to other males, just as, generally, when girls are sexually abused by men, usually the abuser is a heterosexual male who is attracted to females. As Gavin Grooms, Chairman of Save Our Scouts says, in Save the Boy Scouts: "I can talk from experience and tell you that gay men going camping with young men or boys isn't a good idea. The fight now is to destroy one of the last hopes for America's young men the Boy Scouts of America."
If such a view of ending "discrimination" became the law of the land, not only would Boy Scouts be banned from public parks and buildings, but any OTHER group which "discriminates" - based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, etc. Senior citizen groups like AARP, for example, which discriminate against the young would have to also be barred from using public parks and buildings. Jewish War Veterans, which also has a Federal Charter, like the Boy Scouts of America, would have to be barred for discriminating against Christians and Muslims in their membership rules. The Girl Scouts, have a rule that all girl scout troops MUST have a woman leader (she can have a male assistant) would have to halt their discrimination against males. Lesbians already have the opportunity to be Girl Scout leaders and models for young girls
Organized groups at the United Nations, who agree with this kind of "discrimination" definition have tried for several years to force language into international documents which would make prostitution, sexual "freedom" for children as young as ten, and homosexual marriage a "universal human right." All it would take at this point in history to accomplish that on a worldwide basis.
Practicing Homosexuals have a life-span in America of 39-41 years, which is 30-40 years shorter than that of the average heterosexual. While 80% of America's heterosexual, married men live to and beyond age 65, only about 9% of America's homosexuals live to age 65. Only 1% of America's homosexuals with Aids live to age 65, the new drugs notwithstanding. Already it is considered "discrimination" in some circles to even point out that homosexuals not only don't live very long, but also have many diseases before they die.
Of course, with our current mixed up priorities, protecting children appears to be less important than "defending" the "right" of others to live dangerously and jeopardize the rights and health of others - even if they are children.
To Sign the Save Our Scouts petition, (http://www.saveourscouts.com/index.html) Click Here
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription