The Boy Scouts of America were new once, too.

I'm saying that you're not allowed to remain neutral on the subject of gays. You must either be for them or against them. An organization (such as the Boy Scouts) can't say "You know, these are kids, and as such we just don't think this subject has a place here," because the left will insist that a position be taken.

And it's not just the gay issue. Ask the Komen Foundation what happened when they tried to not take sides over abortion. Ask businesses in Wisconsin what happened when they refused to take sides in the Scott Walker Recall.

The politicization of everything means that you are forced to state your support or opposition to every position taken by the left so that if you happen to take the wrong one (i.e., the non-leftist one) they will rally their forces to destroy you.

I can see the lawsuits already.

Are you sure?

Not talking about it is not allowed anymore.

I think we're seeing it in Sweden right now -- a bunch of entitled youth who contribute nothing to the country where they live, yet continue to have their idle lives financed by that country, are now rioting across that country because they have no stake in it.

Just as everything will be politicized, everything will also be sexualized.

I just read this at The Atlantic ("Why My Son Still Won't Join the Boy Scouts") and nearly ground off a few molars.

Go read it . . . then come back . . . and then tell me if I'm not reading too much into it. Because what I see is a normal kid who wants to join the scouts like his friend -- wants to do the stuff his friend does -- but knows deep down that he must choose between the scouts and the political narrative ushering forth from his mother.

Why has this horrible woman (I feel comfortable making that declaration) brainwashed her seven-year-old son with identity politics to the point that he is made to feel uncomfortable wanting to join the Boy Scouts?

Because I don't for a moment believe it was his decision, or that those are anything other than his mother's words when he allegedly says that the Boy Scouts' decision "wasn't good enough" because it didn't allow gay adult leaders.

This is a seven-year-old, for [redacted's] sake! Why burden a seven-year-old with gay identity politics?!

There's an alternative to Girl Scouts that some of our local churches have adopted. It's called "American Heritage Girls," and I ran across it last year while looking for something for my daughters. I've gone no further than examining their Website, though. 

A couple churches in Our Fair City seem to have chapters. I should look into it. It looks like it started back in '95.

I would not be surprised to find more Boy Scout alternatives show up. A shame that a once-proud and manly American tradition has been destroyed by identity politics. But that was the goal all along, right?

Next on the list of targets, your church.

Unless we punch back twice as hard.

The President's "War on Terror" speech yesterday is a clue. There didn't seem to be any reason for it, though I'm sure it was part of the Squirrel Strategy. Yet with Benghazi being one of the major scandals -- the most important one some would say -- one wonders why he'd start yapping about terrorism.

So, my guess is that we're going to get new Benghazi information that implicates the President somehow, and he'll point to something from his speech yesterday to show how serious he is about terrorism.

See, one of the keys to being a good liar is that you boldly state contradictory things -- both X and Y -- so that later if someone says "You said Y, not X!" you can correctly show that you did, in fact, say X. (Yes, you also said Y for those times you're accused of saying "X, not Y!")

Of course, now I'll have to read a transcript of the speech to figure out which sentences will be key in his defense.

The last thing a teenage boy in the hormone-poisoned stage of life needs is gender-politics terrorists screwing up his naturally confusing life.

Boy Scouts should help teenagers direct their energies away from base impulses. This just muxes everything up.

Oh, how I wish the organization would have just told these terrorists to shut the [redacted] up, and then we could have a nice court case and see if that old "freedom of association" thing is still true in America.

I assume it's the revelation that in spite of her insistence that she didn't do anything wrong, Lois Lerner personally signed off on the Tea Party abuses. That came out last night, though. So there's not much left today except to ignore it.

Though I guess if there is anything new today it'll be that she was acting on orders from Eric Holder who acted on a wink and a knowing nod from El Presidenté.

A temporary alliance with the press may be beneficial, but Conservatives need to remember that "the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy."

Insert the parable of the frog and the scorpion HERE.

There are several reasons that Holder should go -- chief of them being that he's an enormous jerk. But if he didn't resign over Fast and Furious, where hundreds were murdered, then I don't see how he resigns for being a good little oppressor on behalf of the State.

When you have a mass media and a political party that declares all objections to its policies are nothing but racism, is it any surprise that racial violence is on the rise?

Keep playing the race card, eventually you'll reap a jackpot of violence.

The president himself declared that the police "acted stupidly." Just another case of him injecting himself into a local story when there's a race angle he can exploit.