Ah, well, it looks like the liberal whackjobs are after the Boy Scouts again, and are fostering the idea that Scouts might consider allowing gays to lead scouting programs. True? False? Actually, these things do not matter to the liberals; the important thing is that the media are claiming that the BSA is considering this.
Simultaneously, we are seeing another renewed attack on football. Yes, the NFL, not that Euro-nonsense. Liberals have always hated football, and every couple of years continue to attack it.
Radio host Mike Gallagher wrote a popular book a while back listing 50 things that liberals repeatedly attack. Some of them are an obvious stretch, but quite factually there are a bunch of things you see time and again from liberals: firearms, scouting, football, Mormons, evangelical Christians, NASCAR, and so on. The media obediently reports each of these attacks with gustoand then, after a few months when the dust settles, the media go report on another round of attacks on these same groups.
Theories differ as to what it is that liberals hate about these things. In Gallaghers book, he cites that liberals hate scouting because it segregates girls and boys and resists change; they hate football because the sport is emulative of war, and so on.
The Czar has a different theory: liberals hate a lot of these things because they are perceived as conservative institutions. They have little idea what goes on at these eventsnot that any of it is secretbecause they cannot be bothered to look. Simply to look.
Instead, it is assumed that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all brainwashing the kids to conservative morals. Football and NASCAR must somehow promote Republican voting. And dont get them started on whatever weird rituals the Mormons and Evangelicals are doing. But the smarter you get about religion, the more likely you vote Republican, so those religions tend to be bad. Hard-working, legally documented immigrants tend to vote Republican as well, which is probably why Republicans fight blanket amnesties so much.
And have you ever been to a gun show? The liberals, neither, but you can easily imagine all sorts of conservative wackiness there with Confederate flags, Dont Mess With Texas bumper stickers, and survivalist nonsense. Or something. Notice how nearly every gun control argument reduces down to We hate the NRA in some form or another. It isnt guns that liberals hate, because liberals are quite good at using them; its conservatives with guns that scares the hell out of liberals. Conservatives might shoot back.
And when you are in a war for your life, as liberals perceive everything, each of these institutions represent some sort of resistance front. Quick: name a Boy Scout who voted for Clinton; they cant, eitheryou see?
And curiously this is somewhat self-fulfilling: because liberals refuse to participate in these American iconic institutions, they tend to be dominated by, well, conservatives. And the last thing they can tolerate is giving conservatives any sense that they represent a majority.
So there you have it. Liberals see certain groups as pockets of conservative resistence. Every person they had who tried to infiltrate one of these institutions never came back: so powerful is this resistance that infiltrators wound up liking it and joining its ranks. Joining en masse and reforming the organization from within takes too long, so the simpler plan is to destroy that institution with a barrage of ridiculous lawsuits and relentless negative press: give the conservatives no place to hide.
So when you hear that the Boy Scouts are under attack again, you know full well that football will be next. And since all of these attacks are based on phantom arguments and imagined assumptions, they quickly fizzle into wasted time.
This is why progressive liberalism is in its final days: the public is slowly getting tired of this warlike repetition.