There is a fourth scandal that is equally serious but is not being addressed because this cover-up involves both the administration and Congress, Democrats and Republicans.

The issue that has divided them are the principles on which the two organizations were founded:  A belief in God and a pledge to abide by the moral truths that are revealed in His Word.  

•  In the 70’s, the Girl Scouts put feminist icon Betty Friedan on its national governing board. It wasn’t long before the Girl Scouts began purging its materials of all positive references to homemakers.
•  In 1980, the organizations changed its policy on homosexuality and welcomed lesbians as scouts and troop leaders.
• In 1993, the Girl Scouts took aim at the Creator himself, making God an option by inserting an asterisk by the word “God” in the Promise.  

Due to public outrage and loss of enrollment, that asterisk was removed from the latest Girl Scout Handbook.  Don’t be fooled.  Instead, girls are simply being instructed that when reciting the Promise they are “free to substitute their own wording for God’”  http://www.girlscoutshs.org/sensitiveissuesfaqs.  In other words, a girl is free to pledge to do her duty to herself as any good atheist would.  

The Girl Scouts make it clear that they are a “secular organization” but allow God to come along as long as He doesn’t stir up any trouble or interfere with their “all inclusive” policy of accepting anyone and everything.  Although the word “diversity” has replaced sexual orientation on the official GSUSA website,  that policy remains in force and now includes transvestites.  

You might say that Randall Stephenson, the influential chairman of AT&T, is the Boy Scouts’ Betty Friedan.  As first vice-president of the BSA’s Executive Board, he is next in line to become president.  Stephenson and his side-kick, James Turley, the CEO of Ernst & Young, persuaded the other board members to go along with a resolution that will be voted on by the National Council on May 24.

Stephenson and Turley are between a rock and a hard place.  Their companies bowed to political pressure and included “sexual orientation” –  the term invented by homosexuals to make this practice appear to be immutable –  in their non-discrimination policy.  

How do they square this circle of channeling company funds into the BSA, an organization that restricts its membership to those who take an oath to “God and Country” and pledge to keep themselves “morally straight”?   By leading the Boy Scouts away from their moral underpinnings.    

These two should have been axed long ago but their companies have donated millions to the Boy Scouts and it has become obvious that money is more important to this board than God.  

By promoting this resolution they are hiding behind the premise that, since sexual conduct of any kind is contrary to the virtues of Scouting, young people who declare themselves to be homosexual just come to that realization all by themselves.   

The rest of the board is either intimidated or in denial.  Their proposal is a slippery slope because it keeps the ban in place that prevents homosexuals from becoming Scout Leaders.  Anyone with half a brain knows this policy cannot stand.

In the past, the BSA has had its problems with sexual molestation with over 99 percent of it homosexual in nature.  They brought in so-called “experts” to whitewash this problem.  Their experts point out that not all of these molesters “self-identify as homosexuals” so they really  don’t count.  

The members who will be voting on this resolution need to examine what happen in the Girl Scouts.  

In the 1997 book “On My Honor:  Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience,” Marcia Munson revealed that she was first introduced to lesbianism at a Girl Scout camp when she was only 13.  Is the BSA really prepared for this?  

While political correctness would have us believe that one is “born gay,” science provides evidence that homosexual desires develop primarily as a result of psychological and environmental influences and (here is the important part) early experiences. 

The Bible says, “If anyone causes one of these  little ones — those who believe in me –  to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

When you throw out God’s principles, what’s next?  Will the BSA go the way of the Girl Scouts and give the Creator the boot?

You can’t serve both God and money.   It’s money that is the real issue here.  

Dealing with a sticky issue and want to pass the buck?  The timeworn established practice is to conduct a study.  That is how the Executive Committee responsible for governing the Boy Scouts of America decided to deal with the issue of opening its ranks to homosexuals.

The results of this “study” led to a proposal that will be presented to roughly 1400 voting members of its National Council on May 24.  It is a compromise that will please no one: admit homosexual youth but keep the ban in place that prevents openly gay adults from becoming Scout leaders.  

A closer look at the Executive Summary released to the media reveals the twisted logic and the true agenda of those charged with running this prestigious youth organization.

The “key findings” are revealing.  Some are in italics below.

• Attitudes and opinions among Americans related to gay and lesbian relationships have changed rapidly over the past three years.

This is not about upholding the values that have made Scouting Scouting. It is about public opinion. 

• Parents in three of four BSA regions oppose the current membership policy.

A closer look reveals it is not about the opinion of the parents of boys  involved in scouting. This survey had to include parents in general in order to reach this conclusion.   It is well understood that conservative parents channel their boys into Scouting because of its emphasis on conservative values, while more liberal parents choose other activities for their children.

However, the same slight-of-hand was used to make it appear that the majority of the boys in Scouting wish to change the policy.

Not true!  In fact, three of the four BSA regions recommended “no change to the current policy.”

• Slightly more members of the Board and Advisory Council initially supported the current policy, but Board members reversed themselves to slightly opposing the current rules after responding to the scenarios.

In other words, members of the Board and Advisory Council were manipulated!

One surprise:  Only 33 percent of those identified as “major donors” support a change but  — and this is key — the majority of current and former corporations that have or are now supporting Scouting support a change.  

It is clear that this capitulation is about keeping those large corporate donors who have been pressured by gay rights activists.   Money is the bottom line!  

But just how much money is really needed to fund scouting?   You need a few pup tents, a printing press, computers, a small national staff, local campgrounds and the insurance to protect the organization and its volunteers.  You do not the tens of millions that are poured into the national organization and its sprawling reserves.

The Summit in West Virginia covers over 10,600 acres and, when finished, will soak up hundreds of millions of dollars.  It will be more of a monument to the adults who run scouting than the boys in the local troops.

By far the most troubling aspect of “the study” were the four “experts,” on child safety who were consulted: David Finkelhor, W. Walter Menninger, Charol Shakeshaft,  and Victor Vieth.  They are said to be “consistent” in findings such as this 

• The nearly universal opinion among sexual abuse authorities is that same-sex sexual interest or same-sex sexual experience, either in adults or youth, is NOT a risk factor for sexually abusing children. 

This flies in the face of common sense:  Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men and over 1/3 of these crimes are with boys. In other words, they are homosexual in nature.  Since only between 1-3 percent of the population is gay, one must assume that homosexual men, in particular, are a problem for youth organizations.

At least two of these experts, Finkelhor and Shakeshaft, have explained this away by pointing out that a great number of the men who victimize young boys are not “self-identified homosexuals.”  

Ah, that makes all the difference.  We don’t count those who commit homosexual acts but don’t “self-identify” as homosexuals.  We don’t count pedophiles who only want to commit homosexual acts with children.  Also, we don’t count those who have been married to women or those the popular culture would identify as bi-sexual.

This proposed resolution puts the Boy Scouts on a slippery slope.   Any rational person knows it will not stop with admitting self-identified gay youth.   Who could defend the policy of admitting a gay teen and then kicking him out of Scouting on his 18th birthday?

Gay activists are patient.  They take incremental victories.  Apparently some activists on the Executive Committee are willing to do the same.

                       Next Week:  Following the Girl Scouts’ Example

The leadership of the Boy Scouts of America has proposed a similar arrangement in the effort to satisfy its members, volunteers and donors over the issue of admitting open homosexuals to its ranks.

The proposal, which will be voted on May 24, is to admit homosexual young people into scouting, while keeping the ban in place that prevents homosexuals from serving as staff or adult leaders.  This proposal satisfies no one and, if it goes through, will mean the death of scouting as we know it.  

To pretend that this baby can survive is, at best, self-denial or, at worse, hypocrisy! 

The Scout Oath, which members pledge to keep is 

“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country . . .”

Furthermore a Scout pledges

“To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

Since all major religions condemn the practice of homosexuality in the strongest terms, it is as impossible for young people who declare themselves to be homosexuals to keep the oath as it is for atheists, who also are barred from becoming Boy Scouts.

It is true that some liberal denominations or sects within religions have attempted to explain away the prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication and even adultery. They fool no one, least of all the Creator who designed and made us.  

So how did the Executive Committee which crafted this resolution attempt to square this circle?  

The answer is in the whereases which are part of the proposed amendment:

          WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, 

           and any sexual conduct, 

          whether homosexual or heterosexual, 

          by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the 

          virtues of Scouting; 

Hello!   Homosexuality is a choice.  One is not born that way as some claim.  If that were the case there would be no former homosexuals.  There is no gay gene.  Science has found no biological basis for homosexuality, though not for lack of trying.  Homosexuality is a practice not a gender.    

How does a young boy decide that he is a homosexual?  It is by engaging in this sexual conduct. 

It is no secret that surveys taken on gay issues like marriage show that the younger the respondents, the more likely they are to embrace the idea.  The surveys taken by the Scouts in the run-up to this vote were no different. 

Why?  Because, we sat idly by and allowed homosexuality to be mainstreamed, promoted and, in fact, encouraged in our schools along with all manner of sexual activity.  

Do the adults who drafted this resolution seriously believe that a young boy who “comes out” and declares himself to be homosexual and is demanding to be admitted to the Boy Scouts just came to that conclusion out of the blue? Seriously, are they really that naive?  

No, a closer examination of the “findings” of the study commissioned by the Executive Committee reveals that the major force behind the push to admit homosexuals is not from its membership or the chartering organizations but from its corporate donors.  

Gay rights activists, though small in number, are bullies.  Large corporations are particularly sensitive to this pressure.  Most now have policy statements that include “sexual orientation” (the term invented by gay rights activists to make this practice appear immutable) in their non-discrimination policy statements.  

Over the years, these activists have turned up the heat on corporate donors to adhere to that non-discrimination policy by cutting their donations to the Boy Scouts. Many already have pulled out. Others are being pressured to do so.

That is why the Boy Scouts are attempting to cut the baby in half.  This is not about upholding the high moral standards which have characterized the Boy Scouts from the very beginning.  It is not even about pretending that boys who declare themselves to be homosexual are not engaging in this activity.   It is about money.  

The Executive Committee is attempting to shield itself from the righteous indignation of its membership by making members believe it is their idea.   Let’s hope and pray that the voting delegates who assemble in May will figure it out.   The sword is raised.  The jury is out.

(Next Week:  A closer look at the study that led to this resolution)

That means that the average taxpayer will work 29.4 percent of the year, just to pay his or her tax bill.  But not so fast, the Tax Foundation which runs these numbers does not include the amount of annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owned.  

So you see,  celebrating Tax Freedom Day would be like paying your family’s bills that come due each month while ignoring the amount you run up on those credit cards in order to meet all of your obligations.  

This year, the federal government plans to borrow another $833 billion, but remember, that is best case.  The year isn’t over yet.  

If we add in the cost of all this borrowed money, Tax Freedom day will not come until May 9, which is well over a third of the year.  Under the old feudal system which was practiced in medial Europe, the lords, who owned all the property, taxed the serfs 1/3 of what they produced and we called them slaves!

It gets worse:  In order to calculate Tax Freedom Day, the Tax Foundation divides all the taxes paid by our total national income.  Bear in mind, that roughly 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all, so the entire tax burden is bore by 54 percent of hard working Americans.  The rest get a free ride.

It’s worse still:  Americans for Tax Reform Foundation adds in the cost of all those pesky regulations with which we are compelled to comply in order to come up with the number of days the average American must work to pay for the total cost of our behemoth government.  Last year, it was a full 197 days, which pushed Cost of Government Day to July 15.  That is over half the year! 

An Important note:  This was the fourth straight year that Cost of Government Day fell in July.  Prior to the Obama Administration, the COGD had never fallen later than the month of June.  

It is true, many of those regulations are borne by businesses and they don’t effect you directly — but they all effect you indirectly and drive up the cost of everything you use or consume.  Ka-ching, Ka-ching!   And so it goes.  You work hard.  You may make a decent salary but at the end of the year you have little or nothing to show for it.  Where did all that money go?

We have been poor stewards of a government that was won for us by the blood of our forefathers, one based on equality and personal responsibility.  

Your local, state and federal tax bills are just the beginning.  Here are some examples of the personal consumer taxes most of us pay each an every day, month and year without thinking:

• Gas and electric bill fees & taxes
• Water and sewer fees & taxes
• Federal, state and local gasoline tax
• TV cable/satellite fees & taxes
• Federal telephone surtax, excise tax and universal surcharge
• State telephone excise tax and surcharge
• Telephone minimum usage and recurring/nonrecurring charge tax
• Waste management tax
• Oil and gas assessment tax
• Air travel: $3.80 per segment plus a security fee and Passenger Facility Charges
• Hotel tax
• Car rental tax
• Road and bridge tolls
• Alcohol and cigarette tax
• Driver’s license renewal fee
• Passport fee
• Nature trail permit
• Watercraft registration & license
• State and national park permits and entrance fees
• New car surcharge
• Luxury & gas-guzzler car tax
• Recreational vehicle tax
• Jewelry taxes & surcharges
• Yacht and luxury boat taxes
• Hunting license
• Fishing license
• Bike license fee
• Dog permit/license
• Sports stadium tax

This is just a sample of the hidden taxes we pay and doesn’t include the countless taxes imposed on businesses large and small.  The dirty little secret is that businesses don’t pay taxes.  They are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.

So take a long, hard look at the real cost of your government.  And bear in mind, when you lose the ability to control a fair portion of what you earn, freedom is just an illusion.  

The dreaded April 15 has come and gone, but if you think you have finished paying your taxes, you are sadly mistaken.  

At that time, our only deterrence against a nuclear attack was something called  MAD, which was short for Mutual Assured Destruction.  It was an appropriate acronym.  You nuke us; Then, we’ll nuke you and together we will blow ourselves off the face of the earth and take the rest of the world with us.  Even for Reagan, a man with a strong believe in God and the hereafter, that was a terrible option.

The left went crazy when he presented this idea.  What happened to sitting cross-legged around a solar heat source with the rest of the world’s leaders and singing Kumbaya?  “We’ll get rid of our nukes.  You’ll do the same and we’ll all be friends.  Kumbaya,  kumbaya.”

“It is impossible to hit a missile with a missile!” they whined.  “It will blow up the budget and keep us from creating a perfect green world where every basic need is provided by the government.  No, no we will not waste money on this Star Wars dream of yours!”

Despite, all the groans from the left, Reagan pursued his dream and this country — and many others — are much safer for it.  

During the Gulf War, the Patriot anti-missile defense system was trotted out and the world watched as lives were saved.  Voila! 

The left grudgingly had to admit that it was, indeed, possible to hit a missile with a missile!  Gasp, Ronald Reagan had been right! 

Nevertheless, the pressure from the left has been relentless and these programs were scaled back.  Today, there is no infallible space-based shield that Ronald Reagan envisioned.  We do have limited land and sea-based missile defense and, yes, we can thank God and Ronald Reagan for that.

However, thanks to the left, our ability to defend against weapons of mass destruction is still limited at best.

Not a pleasant thought in the face of mad men like Kim Jong-un, who has drawn up battle plans to hit our friends in South Korea and Guam as well as parts of the U.S.   Many are downplaying his threats.  Most doubt that he has the nuclear payload to go on an ICBM that can be lobbed over here.  But what about the crazies in Iran?  If not today, what about tomorrow or the day after that? 

The truth is we don’t know just how mad these leaders are or exactly when they will have that capability — limited though it may be — but we do know they are working on it.  Bear in mind, just one nuclear ICBM that successfully makes its way through our spotty defense system will spoil your whole day and make what happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, seem like small potatoes.  

Personally, I thought it was a little tacky for the Obama Administration to beat its chest and preen as it announced that it is increasing the number of our mid-range, land-based interceptors in Alaska in light of Kim Jong-un’s recent threats.  For the most part, the media gave him yet another pass on it.

Wasn’t this the same Barack Obama who pushed to cut missile defense and cancelled those Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)  interceptors in Alaska planned by George W. Bush from 44 to 30 shortly after becoming president?   Now, thanks to Obama, they will not be in place and operational until 2017.   Thanks to the left, even when they are operational, our defense against these weapons still will not be impenetrable.  

Reagan, like JFK who put us on a path to send men to the moon, was a visionary.  Unfortunately, both of these men’s plans have been compromised.  Funny, those who have squandered billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the theory of human-induced global warming never seem to tire of this extravagance, while shaking their heads at those of us who see space as a starting point, not an end.

Was it too much to expect Obama to say, “Thank you Ronald Reagan that we now have this technology — the technology that I first cancelled and now am willing to deploy”?

Instead of crowing about his latest decision, eating a little crow would be much more appropriate.  

It is frustrating to see so many pro-family advocates and the attorneys representing them in court completely drop the ball when the answer is relatively simple.

There are only two reasons to marry:  1) to make a vow before God and have the union recognized by the church.  2) to have the union recognized by the government.

Since all major religions condemn homosexuality in the strongest terms, reason # 1 is an attempt to “feel good” at best.

So, why does a couple seek to have their union recognized by the government?  Conversely, why do so many heterosexual couples no longer bother?

It can be summed up in one word, “benefits.”   There is an axiom in government: The more you reward something the more you get of it.  The more you tax something, the less you get of it;

The government has long recognized that it costs money to raise good productive citizens.  When the income tax was first established in 1913, it sought to put a “hedge of protection” around the traditional family to shield it from this burden.  The personal exemption was established to do just that.

However, if everyone is allow inside the hedge, the hedge — for all practical purposes — no longer exists.

Unfortunately, this personal exemption was not indexed for inflation so the hedge has all but disappeared.  While, there are some benefits to marriage, most can be achieved by other legal means and the ones that still exists don’t really amount to much.

Presently, the laws on marriage are a confused mess.  There are now over 1100 tax benefits, rights and, yes, burdens (known as the marriage penalty) linked to marriage.  In 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that if gay marriage were recognized, it would bring in another $1 billion a year over ten years.

So why are so many gay couples trying to get into it?  The perceived benefit is acceptance.

And why do so many heterosexual couples avoid marriage entirely?  Benefits.

A  young, single mother is most likely eligible for free medical care, free housing, free food under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP, more free food under Women’s Infants and Children WIC, free childcare and free educational benefits.  Her partner also may be eligible for some of these benefits.  However, if they marry, most of these benefits go away.

This not only lessens the chance that children conceived outside of marriage will grow up in a stable home, it creates dependency and adds to our burdensome national debt

Our whole system has been turned upside down and children are the biggest losers!

Children raised in in-tact marriages do better in school, are less likely to do drugs, go to jail, have out-of-wedlock births and thus be a drain on society.

So what about the children living in homosexual households?  Despite all the rhetoric, they are few in number.  However, most of these children were acquired by one or both partners who were in former heterosexual marriages or relationships.

To be sure, some homosexual couples adopt or conceived through artificial insemination.  Although these children are brought into these homes as a result of careful planning, they are also likely to suffer negative outcomes.

A  study by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, published in Social Science Research, is the most exhaustive study to date on this subject.  It completely overturned the conventional wisdom that there is no measurable difference between children growing up in in-tact households with a mother and a father and those raised in homosexual households.

Unlike previous narrow studies that focused on minor children who are still under the influence of their parents, the Regnerus study was done with adults.  His study found that those adults who have a parent who is or has been in a same-sex relationship are subject to the same unfortunate outcomes as those raised in single family homes, but also are

• 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or adult caregiver.
• 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will.
• Are more likely to have “attachment” problems.
• 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual.

These things are much too important to be ignored in deference to political correctness!

The real question is this:  Has traditional marriage outlived its usefulness?  If the answer is “no,”  then take away the disincentives that keep heterosexuals from marrying and rebuild that hedge!

Have they no shame!  Another month, another lavish vacation for the Obama clan.

No, I don’t begrudge the first family a little down time, but considering our current economic situation, their choice of venues is just plain tacky.

Obama won the 2008 election, not because he was the most qualified, but because most people largely believed he cared about them.

It was the same in 2012.  Despite a dismal record, Obama was returned to the White House because of his ability to make people believe that he genuinely cares about the average Joe.

Are we blind?  Is it mass hypnosis?

There is a huge disconnect between how the Obamas live and the talk they talk.

The latest slap in the face to the poor saps known as taxpayers, is the Obama daughters’ spring break at the luxury Atlantis resort in the Bahamas.   Mum is the word on Her Highness Michelle, whose taste in vacation locations goes from lavish to extreme lavish.

The Obamas pick up the direct costs of their daughters’ vacations but that is a pittance compared to the cost of the entourage that must accompany them to these exotic locations.

Thanks to Judicial Watch, we now know that Milia’s spring break to Mexico last year, along with 25 Secret Service agents, cost the taxpayers $115,500.87.

Spring break is seen as a right of passage for well-heeled, college-age kids.   Bear in mind, Malia is only fourteen and sister Sasha is eleven  — and this is their third vacation of the year!

The family spent 17 days over Christmas and New Year’s at a rented home in Kailua, Oahu, on a beach that is rated one of “the best in the country.”  The Secret Service had to settle for the Moana Surfrider, a posh resort where a modest room is $425 per night.   The taxpayer’s tab for this one vacation was a cool $7 million, partly because Obama made — not one — but two round trips to the island aboard Air Force One.  That’s $180,000 an hour for the 18 hours it takes for each round trip.  The extra trip to Washington was completely unnecessary, largely a photo op to celebrate a deal that averted the fiscal cliff and raised taxes on everyone.

These opulent vacations are bad enough but, to make matters worse, they often travel separately, often just hours apart.

Worse still, they often go their separate ways.  In February, Michelle and the girls went skiing in Aspen, Colo.,  while the prez traveled to Florida to play golf with Tiger Woods.  That means twice the advance planning, more Secret Service agents, more lavish hotels and large expense accounts for the entourage that must follow them.

Obama’s minions try to defend these overt displays of extravagance by pointing to the number of days, George W. Bush and Reagan spent away from the White House.  They come up short, way short.

Reagan spent most of his time away from the White House at his modest ranch in a 1500 sq. ft. home near Santa Barbara where he often entertained heads of state.

Bush 43 went to similar digs in Crawford, Texas.  No five star hotel for the Secret Service detail.  They had to rough it.  Also, these repeated trips didn’t require a lot of advance planning, so costs were minimal.

Also, Bush spent most of his “vacations” working, often entertaining foreign dignitaries and giving them a taste of the down-home atmosphere with which the “average” American could identify.

Did Laura Bush ever vacation apart from her husband?  In her eight years as first lady, she went on many foreign trips as an ambassador for the U.S., but took only five vacations without her husband. Four where to national parks with her long-time hiking buddies.  The fifth was a brief safari with her daughters while on a trip to Africa for the AIDS initiative.

Obama, like most presidents, has a fondness for golf.  He played over 100 rounds in his first four years.  Bush, on the other hand played only 24 times in eight years. In 2003, he gave it up because “It just didn’t seem right during a time of war.”

The Obamas, on the other hand, have shown no such sensitivity.  They are behaving like a nouveau riche family that just won the lottery.  They are living the gaudy high-life while denying American schoolchildren a chance to tour the White House.  Their behavior could be forgivable if the economy were sound and average Americans were not hurting.   For now, it must be viewed only one way:  a public display of bad taste.

Its illness doesn’t appear to be acute or life-threatening, particularly at the state level where Republicans hold 30 governorships.  It’s at the national level where the patient is getting weaker and a sense of hopelessness has set in.  This despair can cause a downward spiral which, if untreated, can lead to a slow, painful death.

The man who holds the GOP’s medical power of attorney is Rance Priebus,  the chairman of Republican National Committee.  He recently subjected this patient to exploratory surgery and the results were published for all to see.

The biggest problem with the Grand Old Party isn’t its strong stand on law and order or the moral issues, as some have suggested.   It’s the second word in its three-word handle.  It’s OLD! The brand has grown stale and out-of-touch.  Among the words most often used to describe the GOP is  that it’s a party of “stuffy old men.”

While Priebus will not dare bring this up, I will.  The  GOP’s image would improve overnight if members of the House and Senate would elect new leaders.  House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may be nice guys but they are B-O-R-I-NG!

They also meet the definition of old.   Age is not so much a matter of years but energy.   McConnell has none and Boehner has very little.  Maybe Boehner leaves it in the (golf course) locker room but it’s hard to stay awake during one of his speeches or TV appearances.

As for McConnell,  he is totally expressionless, giving one the impression that he is completely disinterested in what he has to say.  If he cares so little about what he is saying why should we care?

While the president has a bully pulpit, these party leaders have bully pulpits of their own, should they care to use them.  They are considered a big catch by producers and can appear on most any newscast or television program any time they want.   For the most part, they can’t be bothered.  If you can wake these two up long enough to do a speech or TV interview, you end up wishing you hadn’t.

Imagine how the GOP’s image would change if two of the GOP’s young guns were put in charge!

The second part of the problem is the message.  The average person isn’t getting it.

Dr. Ben Carson, the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins who burst into the nation’s consciousness after his rousing speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, hit the nail on the head last weekend at CPAC.   Carson said, “You talk to the average person and they may be able to tell you who won ‘Dancing with the Stars’ or who won the football game but they can’t tell you anything that’s important.”

Dr. Carson is no spring chicken but he has energy to spare and it’s contagious.  He is getting ready to retire from medicine, but one gets the feeling that he is about to perform major surgery on the Republican Party.  Some, like myself, would like to see him make a run for the White House, while others think he should pay some political dues by running for a lessor office.

Dr. Carson has something much more valuable that political experience.  He has “real world” experience.  Furthermore, he has spent a considerable amount of time studying this country’s problems and has laid out his prescription for solving them in the latest of his four books:  “America the Beautiful:  Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great.”  To quote Carson, “It’s not brain surgery!”

More importantly, Dr. Carson can explain these things to the average person in a few short sentences that both enlighten and inspire, something the current GOP leaders are unable to do.

Last week, while dinning at an upscale restaurant,  I met a thoughtful Hispanic waiter who told me that he became a citizen under Ronald Reagan.  My husband made the comment that Ronald Reagan was a Republican and asked him about his vote in the last election.  The waiter answered, “I voted for Barack Obama because he reduced my home mortgage.”

I didn’t lecture him about the problems with government handouts.  Instead, I reached him by talking about his goals for his children.

All parents want to give their children a better life and our young people want their shot at the “American Dream.” This is where the GOP must begin.

In the last couple of decades the organization that has trained more that 110 million American males to become productive citizens, responsible fathers and respected leaders, has been under attack for holding true to the standards in its founding principles.

After prevailing in a plethora of law suits brought by feminists, atheists and homosexuals challenging its membership criteria, it is sad, indeed, that the organization now has signaled that its values may be negotiable.

The Boy Scouts of America’s Scouting programs are open to all boys age 7-18 who agree to follow the Scout Oath which includes duty to God and country and  who pledge to keep themselves “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” 

Since all major religions condemn homosexuality in the strongest terms, and teach that the only appropriate sexual relationship is that which exists between and man and woman in the bonds of marriage, those who say they cannot abide by this restriction have, quite naturally, been excluded.  The Supreme Court has upheld the Boy Scouts’ right, as a private organization, to do this.

Last July, the organization announced that, in response to a petition to reconsider its policy on homosexuality, it had carefully examined this question and released the following statement:

Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting. While not all Board members may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization and supports it for the BSA.

Just six short months later, out of the blue, the organization announced it would take up the matter again and would announce the results at its National Executive Board meeting in February.  A large outcry ensued from parents, former scouts and churches that serve as chartering organizations.  Nevertheless, the board did not end the matter.  It simply put off the decision until its much larger annual meeting in May.

What message does this send to the the 2.7 million youth presently enrolled in scouting?

The message given to these young people is that God’s standards, which are unchangeable, must now be subject to man’s standards which are subject to to whim and public opinion.  Perhaps even more important to some, they can be bought!

Homosexual activists are relentless in their effort to win total acceptance of their chosen lifestyle.  While one cannot blame them for trying to win popular support, their tactics should be condemned in the strongest terms.  Since they cannot win with science, they have used fear, name-calling and intimidation.   This has to stop!

Their present campaign consists of harassing large corporate donors of the Boy Scouts and accusing them of unjust discrimination.

As a result, many companies like CVS Pharmacy, Levi Strauss and UPS have caved  in to the pressure and pulled their support as well as individuals like Steven Spielberg.  What a shame!

It appears the Boy Scouts are now trying to have it both ways.  It may end the national prohibition but allow local councils and charting organizations to make their own policy.  Another big mistake!  The Bible says, “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will follow?”

It is no secret that Scouting is not as popular as it once was.   However, it is not because of its membership restrictions.  There are many more activities for our young people and many more demands on their time.

While sports participation always has been an important activity for boys, today it has become much more competitive.  One simply cannot attend practice sessions.  A boy must train year-round and attend sports camps if he hopes to make “the team.”

Many parents push their boys to participate in team sports when their children would be much better off in a well rounded scouting program that teaches skills that can used for the rest of their lives.

I am grateful to the Boy Scouts for preparing my Eagle Scout husband to be a man of principle, a man who is able to meet life’s challenges head-on, a man I  greatly admire.

Hopefully, with enough letters of encouragement and gifts of support, the Boy Scouts can be persuaded to remain steadfast and hold to those principles that have produced great men of character.

The country needs more “Boy Scouts.”