For nearly a century, the Boy Scouts of America was never a "problem" in this nation. It's only when President Barack Obama became supreme ruler (in his mind,) these changes have taken place and the worst part is, America didn't ask for this.

If I was running the Boy Scouts, I'd have shut the whole thing down rather than let it become what it is.

If I remember correctly, the Boy Scout oath goes like this:

On my honor, I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally STRAIGHT.

That's right, I used to be a Cub Scout and later I was a Boy Scout. My mother trusted the scout leader and den leader when we went on trips and events and we felt safe. I don't understand why this insitution has to be "attacked."

I don't live in the stone age but I do have a perfectly legitimate question - Why do gay men want to be scout leaders for young boys? It is like they are totally confused about their sexuality. Wouldn't it be more natural for the Girl Scouts to allow gay men to be scout leaders for young girls ?

The Boy Scouts has only become a problem under the Obama administration. Once he shined the national spotlight on it, the Boy Scouts were dragged into one of the most polarizing and destructive social conflicts America has faced in decades. They pitted their supporters against each other over an issue that has NOTHING to do with scouting.

Boy Scouts from the Chief Seattle Council carry U.S. flags as they prepare to march in the Gay Pride Parade Sunday, June 30, 2013, in downtown Seattle. Credit: AP

As a result, no matter what the Boy Scouts decided, many of the donors on one side would stop supporting them. Even though they ultimately decided to let boys that considered themselves gay join, liberals STILL continued their nonstop condemnation of the Boy Scouts for not also allowing gay men to be leaders.

The LGBT community didn't care that many parents simply don't feel comfortable sending their young boys camping alone in the forest with openly gay men, and how ruinous this would be for attracting new members. Instead these selfish hatemongers wanted to make sure that the Boy Scouts would lose at least as much by not completely giving in to their demands, doing everything they could to convince more liberal parents and organizations to boycott the Boy scouts to coerce them to comply. The Boy Scouts could not win, given only a choice between "bad" and "worse," and ultimately ended up with much less funding, fewer volunteers, and fewer members.

Obama claimed he supported the Boy Scouts, but what he did was the equivalent of dropping an innocent civilian on the front line of a war zone with a vibrant target painted on their back, after personally informing both sides that the "enemy" would be there. With their guns pointed and demanding "whose side are you on?", what could they say to avoid destruction? Nothing.

There is no more efficient way to destroy an enemy than to divide them into fighting each other, and this bastion of American values, honor, responsibility, patriotism, self-sufficiency, hard work, community, family, personally helping others, courtesy, and respect does seem like it would be a natural enemy of liberalism.

The Boy Scouts wisely never wished to become involved in this toxic conflict, and while the ultimatum-placing supporters from both sides should be ashamed for being so easily manipulated, Obama is ultimately to blame for making them a target in the first place.

Why wasn't this simple solution exercised? Copy the bylaws of the scout organization, mirror it from beginning to end and form your own groups. Parents wouldn't have to send their precious kids into these groups but would instead make alternative arrangements.

There is nothing to celebrate here. Society is continuing on a downward spiral. Shame on Obama and all who voted for him and this administration. He is swiftly leading America into a toxic wasteland.

–

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.