Here ya go, boys and girls...
Change the channel to your local PBS station every morning and catch that bastion of pre-school education, Sesame Street, where a big yellow bird struts near a group of kids learning the ABC's from a little furry red monster called Elmo, who's voiced by...an alleged sexual pervert.
You read that right. Allegations this week are that longtime Elmo-puppeteer Kevin Clash had met underage teen boys online and hooked up with them for sex. As of today, Clash has resigned over the allegations, ending 28 years at Sesame Street.
But this blog isn't about him; it's about protecting kids from individuals of a specific kind, so we're going to focus on something that's near and dear to Americans' hearts, something that liberals of all stripes want to force some changes in: the Boy Scouts. What they want to have in the BSA are gays, both as scouts and as scoutmasters. Reenforcing their views is this bit of news which surfaced recently, that the BSA has "quietly shielded scoutmasters and others who allegedly molested children" between the years 1959-1985. In short, the allegation here is that the BSA covered it up. They didn't want the attention that there are sexual predators camping out with the kids. Meanwhile, UPS and other corporations have pulled tens of thousands of dollars away from the BSA, charging that in keeping gays from scouting, they are practicing discrimination.
Has it ever occurred to these people that they could start a scouting program of their own? The "GBSA"? Or do they prefer that existing organizations change their tune to accommodate them?
But that's not the point here. To their credit - and despite the covering up of the predators they had - the BSA removed these people from scouting. They certainly don't want the scouts molested. And they still don't want active homosexuals within their ranks, a concept which rankles liberals everywhere. Why? Could it be same-sex attraction? Could they keep such attraction to themselves, assuming they have succeeded in joining?
Mrs Jane Doe, die-hard liberal single mom of three daughters, is vocal in her opposition to the Boy Scouts discriminating against gays. "The #&**@# Boy Scouts had better change their ways, or else," she rants as she serves a cafe latte to her next door neighbor, a conservative thirty-something man named Jim Bob whom she loathes, but tries acting neighborly around him. "I don't want to see poor gay kids being subjected to that kind of hostility!"
"So, if the Boy Scouts lift their ban on gays in scouting," Jim Bob asks, "you're fine with the scouts being led by gays in the camping grounds, sleeping in the same tents with them, and so on?"
"Yes I am," Jane says. "There is nothing wrong with that at all."
"I noticed you got three daughters," Jim Bob says. "How old are they?"
"Seven, eight, and ten, why"
"Can I take them camping?"
Jane looks at him incredulously. "What?"
"Can I take them camping?" Jim says again. "Just me and the girls, a weekend in the Smokies, camping along a stream."
As Jane's jaw drops and anger forms in her eyes, Jim leans closer and asks...
"Just what could possibly go wrong?"
As Jane thinks of accusing her neighbor of being a sexual pervert, Jim becomes decisive:
"So you're sitting there thinking about the possibility that your three daughters could be subjected to a sexual attack in the woods by a man you barely know, yet you have no problem with Boy Scouts being in the same situation with people who are sexually-attracted to them?"
And that's the way it is with the Boy Scouts right now, as liberals and their allies are fighting to force into the BSA people with a same-sex attraction to boys, while the Scouts are fighting to keep them out. After all, Jerry Sandusky wasn't attracted to little girls, was he?