One of my daughters reminded me recently that even with all the strides women have taken towards gender equality in opportunities and benefits, there’s one gender equality battle that even the most die-hard feminists don’t seem to want to fight and that’s for the obligations of registering for Selective Service, our military draft.
Beside a picture of a woman improperly wearing the Army Combat Uniform (ACU) the Selective Service program offers this explanation:
Women Aren’t Required to Register
Selective Service law as it’s written now refers specifically to “male persons” in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.
THE SUPREME COURT
The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.
The Selective Service System, if given the mission and modest additional resources, is capable of registering and drafting women with its existing infrastructure.
While the Selective Service tells us why we don’t require women to register for the draft it doesn’t give us any insight into why this battle for gender equality isn’t being fought.
Even as the Army graduates the first women from the Special Operations capable Ranger Course and the Marines conclude their year long evaluation of posting women to infantry units women have never had more opportunities in the U.S. military services but women have yet to equally share the obligations of registration for Selective Service. Why do gender equality activist ignore this blatant and obvious form of discrimination…is it because it’s an obligation…and not a benefit? To me the two should go hand in hand.
Now I’ll admit that I was raised in an era when we were taught that women were special, people to be prized and catered to. When I first left the infantry and began serving with female soldiers I had to keep myself from extending courtesies that had been engrained since childhood like opening the door for them and assuming the heavy, dirty and unpleasant tasks that men have historically tried to protect the women in their lives from…I taught myself to treat them like any other soldier, no better, no worse. Over the years I have served for, with and led a number of female soldiers. Some were capable, some were not. Some tried to use their gender, even their ‘feminine wiles’ to shirk their duties while others were hesitant even to take a soldierly helping hand because they didn’t want to be perceived as less capable.
Potential unit and individual performance issues in infantry units aside, women can and do perform almost all military tasks as good as their male counterparts. With the male military eligible population at an all time low, maybe as low as 25% (age, illness, obesity, criminal history, drug use, & educational requirements) we need women in our ranks now more than ever and even more so should we need to activate a Selective Service Draft. Why is the gender equality crowd nearly silent on this important national security and gender equality issue? Why is the Draft the gender equality issue even feminists don’t want to fight?
I’ve said often enough that my close friends are starting to quote me that ‘I refuse to be a refugee.’ That’s easy for me to say as I live far from hurricane and wildfire country, nowhere near a nuclear plant and in a part of the country with a relatively low population density (by coastal standards) but as I read James Wesley Rawles‘ book, The Liberators: A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse a few months ago I began thinking again about prepping for political risk.
In the novel, the fifth book in Rawles’ post-crunch, ‘Patriots‘ world the characters find themselves living in territory that was both formerly part of both the U.S. and Canada but the respective national governments have since fallen. Each character must make their own decision about how to react to the advance of foreign armies and the creation of a new nation…one with radically different values than many of the residents hold.
While I refuse to be a refugee during tough times, an economic downturn or following a natural disaster…what about political change? If I find myself living in a secessionist State promoting morally repugnant policies do I flee to parts unknown? This is the very situation a number of our ancestors found themselves in a century and a half ago as the secessionist movement tore our country apart. What if the policies and values of the good old U.S.A. become unrecognizable and morally repugnant to you…how does one prepare for that?
I have friends that think our nation is on the road to ruin and have become expatriates and if recent polls are to be believed the majority of our country agrees that we’re on the wrong track so prepping for political risk isn’t just a good idea it’s potentially a matter of life and death?
Ten Ways To Prepare For Political Risk
The U.S. is still a freedom loving country…even with recent shifts in the political climate but we must maintain our vigilance, promote liberty and bring up future generations to view/fight tyranny as our forefathers and mothers did as part of our own prepping for political risk.
Forty years ago today, Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam fell to communist forces more than a year after the withdrawal of the last U.S. combat troops. The butcher’s bill from U.S involvement in Vietnam was tremendous and we honor those sacrifices at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall.
Let’s pray that our Nation’s leaders carefully consider our National goals and interests prior to committing combat troops and once combat forces are committed that we keep the politicians out of their way and let our men and women in uniform crush our enemies and win the peace.
In [President] Obama’s defense, he’s a liar. His core supporters believe him, who can ask for better evidence? No sense in getting all worked up about it. Some people are left handed, some people are short and others tall, some people stutter. Obama lies. It’s just his way. He can’t help it so let it be.
Ol Remus via The Woodpile Report
Despite what the open borders crowd and ACLU will tell you, yes it is: “.. in North Carolina, which compared its voter rolls against a federal immigration database. The cross-check of 10,000 voters found 1,425 likely non-citizen voters, including 109 illegal immigrants or so-called “Dreamers.” And with elections being decided by a few hundred or few thousand votes, such as Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race, these numbers make voter fraud a real possibility.
“…two Old Dominion professors concluded that non-citizen votes may have been responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. “Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.””
So you can’t buy beer or wine, or cigarettes, or get on an airplane, or cash a check, or pick up your prescription, without an ID, and that’s no problem. But to vote? Come on down! Show an ID?? Why, that’s racist! You’re suppressing my vote! What if I don’t have an ID? (Notice how we have evidence of voter fraud, illegals with IDs on the voter rolls, but the folks that fight against Voter ID Laws never seem to have actual evidence and numbers and real people with them that can prove that the law keeps someone from voting. And actually, it can never actually keep someone from voting that is legally able to vote: all they have to do is get the required ID, and most states bend over backward to make sure that is easy and cheap to do).
Andrew’s Note: I still get asked for my ID when I vote…I don’t think it’s a political statement or a sanctity of the ballot box issue…I think the election judge just finds it easier to find me on the roles…but I always say “thank you for checking ID.”
When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?
Hillary Rodham Clinton writing to Saul Alinsky in July 1971 via Read Hillary Clinton’s Letters to Saul Alinsky
Andrew’s Note: If you’re not familiar with the book Secretary Clinton is describing as ‘Revelation’ it’s a Marxist dirty tricks manifesto which Alinsky dedicated to Lucifer himself.
There aren’t many honest men or women in Washington anymore. Politicians get where they are by the sheer force of their egos, not their convictions. And you know what? It’s our fault as voters. We don’t demand better candidates, so we end up getting what we deserve—on both sides of the aisle.”
Illinois voters have used many elections to make theirs the worst-governed state, with about $100 billion in unfunded public pension promises, and $6.7 billion in unpaid bills.
The state is a stark illustration of prolonged one-party rule conducted by politicians subservient to government employees unions.
A new Gallup poll shows that Illinois has the highest percentage — 50% — of residents who want to leave their state. If Illinois voters re-elect Gov. Pat Quinn, 65, they will reject Bruce Rauner, 58, who vows to change the state’s fundamental affliction — its political culture.
The state’s strongest civic tradition is of governors going to jail. Four of the last nine have done so.
Andrew’s Note: My father is a wise man. When I was young he taught me that one of the greatest gifts the founders gave us was government gridlock. He said that the nation was best served when one party controlled the White House and the other controlled Congress. I agree and we have cities like Chicago and Detroit to remind us what one party rule has in store for the U.S.
We’re in favor of a lot of things and we’re against mighty few.
President Lyndon Johnson via George Will: Great Society’s decline: The high cost of Lyndon Johnson’s grand project
Andrew’s Note: Why do folks fall for meaningless political speech…what does this even mean? It makes as much sense as U.S. citizens, resident aliens and the dead electing a freshman Senator promising hope and change.
You turn on the TV, and you see very bland interviews. Journalists in the United States are very cozy with power, very close to those in power. They laugh with them. They go to the [White House] correspondents’ dinner with them. They have lunch together. They marry each other. They’re way too close to each other. I think as journalists we have to keep our distance from power… I’m not seeing those correspondents that would question those in power. It’s like a club. We are not asking the tough questions.