Chuck Norris has long since made the transition from actor to activist, but this is actually the first time he's coming under such heavy fire for speaking his mind on one of the hottest current topics. In a new essay, he argues that gays are not American enough to be in the Boy Scouts of America, more or less.
Titled “Is Obama Creating a Pro-Gay Boy Scouts of America?” and uploaded on AmmoLand
, the piece tries to argue that James Turley, board member of the BSA, is doing Obama's pro-gay work because he's on his payroll.
In so arguing, he also makes a series of very damning statements, such as how gays are not American enough to be in the BSA and how the organization only upholds traditional family values.
“A Boy Scouts of America national board member, James Turley, who is also global chairman and CEO of the accounting firm Ernst & Young, recently said he 'will work from within to seek a change' to overturn the BSA policy that bans gay Scouts and leaders,” Norris begins by saying.
“But is Turley working on his own initiative, or has the White House prodded him with perks and favors?” the star
He's not really waiting for an answer from his readers, because he's already made up his mind about what it is: Obama has Turley in his back pocket, as the many “coincidences” Norris lists next prove – or so he thinks.
Norris also believes Turley is violating tradition by opposing the BSA “pro-traditional family stance,” and argues that he's only doing so because he's been bought off by the Obama administration.
Even worse, he adds, “I personally have known a host of Boy Scouts, Eagle Scouts and BSA leaders. These individuals epitomize the best of America.”
The insinuation is obvious: the BSA men represent “the best,” whereas the gays don't.
So Norris asks once more: “Is it a coincidence that BSA national board member James Turley came out swinging against the BSA’s century-old policy to ban gays from leadership and that he has such close affiliations with the pro-gay Obama administration?”
Judging by the responses he's already gotten to this essay, we'd say few actually follow his logic or consider his arguments solid or sane.