F orget about any moral arguments (as hard as that may be for all of us) and help me answer some very important practical questions. These might seem silly, but I assure you they deserve very serious answers. If the U.S. Armed Forces are to be open and accommodating to all “protected” classes, how do we deal with the following?
#1 Daily Life Men and women currently don’t live in the same rooms or squad bays nor are they expected to shower together nor be naked in front of one another. So, how do we deal with each of the LGBT? Separate facilities for each letter? What about the aspiring “transgendered” who have made their decision, but haven’t had hormones and/or surgery? Different rules prior to and after “reassignment?” What about the man who says he’s a woman, but who never has surgery? What about a man who has “transgendered” (with or without hormones and surgery) who still prefers women, so considers himself a lesbian? What about the bisexuals? Does each bisexual get a private room because it would be harassment to domicile him or her with a comrade of either sex? And, please, let’s not forget the asexual, pansexual, polysexual, genderqueer, androgyne, bigender, trigender, third gender, two-spirit and on. I swear, I’m not making this stuff up!
#2 Physical Standards What should be the physical standard for each letter in the LGBT? Yes, I know, you’ll probably respond, everyone should have to meet the same “minimum” standards. But that has NEVER happened with the increasing role of women in the military. Every time roles have been expanded for women, the physical standards have been lowered (or kept low) for them. This inevitably will happen for at least some letters of the LGBT. So, to which standards should each be held? A man who considers himself a “woman,” but has not had surgery would, say, still need to perform 42 push-ups in order to pass that portion of the Army PFT? How about a man who has had surgery to make himself a “woman?” 19 push-ups like real women are currently required to perform to pass? What about a woman who considers herself a “man?” Men’s standards? Women’s standards? Some other standards?
#3. Sexual Harassment OK, this is going to get even more complicated! While we’re scrambling to miracle our way to the pot of golden tolerance at the end of the rainbow, how are we going to deal with the here and now? That is, where is everyone going to sleep, shower, poop and pee? And how will we define “harassment” in this pantheon of enlightened sexuality? And who is qualified to define what will no doubt be myriad rules and regulations? And what happens “out in the field,” in combat and in other circumstances where the niceties of modern living aren’t available? In a tactical or expeditionary situation, a man-soldier who needs to go number one, will, frankly, just unencumber himself in front of God and country. Will this now be considered sexual harassment? Will it be OK if he turns his back to any of the protected and potentially offended? And for which of the LGBT?
It was so much simpler when libertines didn’t like war.
Ah, yes, the children. It’s always about the children. Well, almost always. The sign below hangs in a Los Angeles office building garage. Does the State of California also require Planned Parenthood and the Beverly Hills third-trimester abortion mill Pro-Choice Medical Center to post similar warnings in their offices? Or at least in their garages?
The following news story is hot off the press. Stand by because gun-controllers across the country are taking to the streets in righteous indignation.
GERMANTOWN, Maryland, Feb. 8, 2013/The Warshington Post/ – A 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Germantown, Maryland, on Thursday, February 7th, as a direct result of a gunshot to the head apparently fired point blank during a routine firearms exhibition at a gun show popular with the Capitol Tea Party and sponsored by the National Gun Owners of America (NGOA). NGOA Executive Director Willy “Hog Leg” Johnson, who attended the show and was present during the accident, has been unavailable for comment and is reportedly vacationing at Ted Nugent’s Sunrize Acres Ranch in Jackson, MI, where NGOA members can hunt world-class trophy whitetail deer, American buffalo, Quebec black bear and “various exotics.” Johnson was hailed as a “hero” in Nugent’s latest documentary “The Second Amendment Blues,” which premiered recently at the Glen Beck Rally for Freedom on the site of the First Battle of Bull Run near Manassas, Virginia.
On the very same day that the young woman died, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) posted on their website approval for the NGOA to hold firearms exhibitions throughout the country without any inspection of their weapons, ammunition or personnel.
Perhaps you’ve deduced by now that this story is a complete fabrication. This one, however, is not…
GERMANTOWN, Md., Feb. 8, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ – A 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Germantown, MD on Thursday, February 7th, as a direct result of complications experienced during a 3rd trimester abortion by LeRoy Carhart – who was hailed as a “hero” in the film “After Tiller” at the recent Sundance Film Festival…
Thursday morning around 5am, the young woman was short of breath and in intense pain. When she and her family tried to contact LeRoy Carhart for assistance and follow-up care, he could not be reached…
On the very same day that this woman died, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene posted on their website that they issued a license to Carhart’s clinic to perform abortions – without a single inspection of the facility.
Now, ponder with me for a moment the media attention that the first, fake, story might garner. Front page material, no? Any doubt that every major newswire, newspaper and TV station in the country would lead with this atrocity? And what about the web? Would not Google News be awash in hundreds of thousands of results (0.28 seconds)? And for the second, real, story?
Go ahead, take a guess…
Nope, not even close. The answer is…1 (sort of). Post Local, the “hyper-local” internet arm of The Washington Post daringly posted an epic 118 word blurbsposé that they attributed to the Associated Press, but which cannot be found on the Associated Press news website.
NY Times – nothing
Baltimore Sun – nothing
Los Angeles Times – nothing
abcnews.com – nothing
nbcnews.com – nothing
cbsnews.com – nothing
cnn.com – nothing
huffingtonpost.com – nothing
UPI – nothing
Reuters – nothing
Google News – nothing, except of course, articles from pro-life advocacy organizations
Now, I’m no conspiracy-theorist, but there’s something rotten above the fold. Clearly, there’s a story here and I’m sure every “mainstream” media outlet has an ethics policy similar to that of the Gray Lady’s:
As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.
So, what gives?
It’s now old news that outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has removed the combat exclusion for women. What is not old news, however, is how one bureaucrat (albeit the top bureaucrat) has the authority to make this decision. Even President Obama has applauded the move in a manner to suggest the Secretary acted without direction from the White House. And has the U.S. Congress once again abdicated? But I’ll leave it to those more scholarly than I to determine the decision’s constitutionality. Instead, let’s explore some of the practical implications of this giant leap for womankind.
Caution: this post is rated R for language (not mine)
“The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.” So says the departing defense secretary in announcing the end of the combat ban for women. Yep, it’s all about the “mission.” The mission certainly couldn’t be “met” by depriving mothers and daughters of their God-given rights to not just “shoot the bastards, [but] rip out their living g*ddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.”* Mr. Panetta quickly followed with the reassurance that “I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job — if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve.”
Riiiiiight. Because we’ve never lowered standards to accommodate the increasing role of women in the military. But, of course, these statements are utter nonsense and the secretary—a nearly 50-year career politician—knows it. And his dependable lapdog Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, enthusiastically admitted as much during the very press conference in which Panetta made those promises:
If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?
So, in reality, the standards that have long been in place to ensure the U.S. is served by “the most capable,” – the qualifications the Secretary is “not talking about reducing” – will come under review if (read: when) the powers that be come to the most reasonable conclusion that they are, after all, too “high.”
But enough about standards. We all know they will be lowered, that diversity quotas will be mandated, etc.
Let’s turn our attention to the natural evolution of this quest for fairness. In 1981, the Supreme Court held in Rostker v. Goldberg that requiring only men to register for the Selective Service System does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:
The existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.
Now that the combat exclusion has been lifted, it only follows that women must be compelled, like men, to register with Selective Service. It’s only fair, right? Which means, that when our wise leaders decide some day in the future that our youth must be forced to die so “we can be free,” 18 year-old women will be drafted and herded to the front line abattoir along with their dads, brothers, husbands and boyfriends. And by this time, it won’t matter that your little 105 lb. angel can’t fight, doesn’t want to fight. No, she will be expected to advance constantly—“we’re not interested in holding anything except the enemy’s balls. We’re going to hold him by his balls and we’re going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living sh*t out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We’re going to go through the enemy like sh*t through a tinhorn.”* And your little angel better keep up.
A civilization that sends its mothers and daughters into combat is serious about neither civilization nor combat.