Right now, men are the only ones forced to register or lose any future government help. Women may receive any government services without such requirements.
Equality at work.
Scripture makes it clear that women may go into battle:
Judges 4, verses 4 - 10
4 "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?
7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.
8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.
9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.
10 And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him."
So, women battle are NOT an abomination. God says so.
Men -- and women! -- die all the time. We don't keep women out of automobiles because they might die in a car crash. We don't necessarily keep women out of the military because they might be killed.
It's the Democrats who are raising the spectre of a draft again, even though neither the voters nor the military wants it. With a draft, the Dims think, it will be easier to get people upset about a war that only the Dims oppose.
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
By Action Alert
May 27, 2004, 14:50
The Draft will Start in June 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft.
The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg
Given the number of women in the military right now, if there is an attempt to draft men only, I'm sure that many of the men drafted will take the issue to court. If the government is willing to take women volunteers, how can they refuse to draft women along with men?
And it's not only the question of forcing men into harm's way and not women. What about the fact that all of a nineteen-year-old man's female contemporaries would be getting a head start on him as far as graduating from college and snapping up the entry level jobs? I think those young men would have a good case.
President Bush has been right to offer women more opportunities in the military, and I respect him for it. It's a good reason to support him. Yes, some women have screwed up, just as men have. Yes, there are a lot of problems to be solved, but how much worse to try to turn back the clock just as intelligence, training and technology are becoming more and more important in winning military conflicts.
Sad but true and to make matters worse, many of them are raped by their own comrades-in-arms.
The Bible is not a factor in miliytary strategy!
Should the nation be required to raise great armies via a draft then women will now also be subject to the draft. Since the US Army is now an equal opportunity employer, so faced with the choice of sending the 'girl next door' out to fight and die or retreating to our own shores the chances for choosing retreat are greatly improved by the presence of young women in combats units.
That kind of nation would send it women out in great numbers to fight and die?
I predict entire units of Private Benjamins. Woe to that poor boot camp commander who tries to turn a gaggle of makeup wearing primadonnas into warriors. We may as well surrender now.
On another note, it is not only our leaders who have changed their attitudes about women. Disrespect for women pervades society. While part of this is due to feminist activists, men must take responsibility for their part too. No offense to men reading this post, but there are few good ones left. I've met more men who lied, cheated, treated me like dirt, stole from me, demanded that I and other women earn a certain amount of money to support them or contribute "equally", of course while expecting the house to be clean and food to be cooked. Then there are those who want to hire people to do the latter so the wife can work 60 hours a week to fulfill some guy's visions of financial success. I can't tell you how many men have inquired about my income as a nurse, while ZERO women have ever asked. It is no surprise men think women in combat is a great idea. It is the next logical step.
The Middle Easterners will be thrilled. Just think, entire units of females will be captured and treated as harems. It doesn't get any easier.
For the money hassle and heartache of one women propped up to do battle
at least ten able bodied men could stand in 'her' stead.....
The affirmative action...femanazi agenda is disrputive, a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and puts other male soldiers at risk having to prop up females in combat....
Life was tough enough in an Inf platoon in Vietnam..having to deal with females in the unit
would have been a complete disaster
imo
That some conservatives approve of women in combat, not to mention the draft itself, is just another indication of our failing society.
And that some will use extremist feminism to defend such a view is detestable.
Send your own daughters to this war, you multiloquent, myopic malcontents, if there is any sincerity behind those forked tongues.
The Bible also calls a shrimp cocktail an abomination.
My daughter will never be "drafted." She will graduate from the Air Force Academy in 2010, hold up her right hand and like seven previous generations in our family, willingly swear to defend this great nation and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
She will exit the auditorium as a Second Lieutenant in the mightiest Air Force the world has ever known. God willing, she will receive her first salute from her grandfather, a WWII, Korea, and Vietnam Vet.
Where are the pastors with the courage to preach on what God says about sending women into combat? "
one of the pastors is at scripturesforamerica.org
also on shortwave: Mon thru Fri. 10 pm EST 5.070 Khz
Answer: Yes.
Comment: The drafting of females will start very slowly. Public reaction will be tested after each step. At some time in the not too distant future it will become a matter of course and without limit. A lot of the needs of various cohesive voting blocs will be satisfied by the drafting of females.
I love Doug Phillips, he's a sweetheart, but he's a noodle.
The "powers that be" will continue floating trail balloons about the draft, then will save the day with a "brilliant" proposal: allow foreigners to join up and serve for a few years, with citizenship for themselves and their families as a reward.
This will serve several purposes. It will gain the support of many Americans who don't want to get drafted themselves. It will dilute the integrity (defined here as loyalty to the Constitution) of the American military. It will advance the one-world open borders policy of the gov't. It will dilute an already tenuous American culture. And finally, it's cheaper to employ foreigners in the military than Americans. So the politicians can cut the defense budget and give themselves more money.
No.
Are they coming to take the author of this screed away, hee-he, ha-ha, ho-ho?
Probably...
Bottom line: if enough men stopped lying abed in America on St. Crispian's Day, this would not be an issue. But they aren't enlisting (I don't see Mr. Philips discussing his service; I must conclude that, like many folks out there kvetching and moaning about our military, he has not served, and would not serve unless given a choice between said service and a firing squad). So, in the spirit that this idiot's screed is offered, I offer this:
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Doug Philips? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
...Rangel said he hoped his initiative would spur his colleagues in Congress to "take a good look at this war before we get involved in it. If we do get involved, at the end of the day, let all of America say we're sharing the sacrifice."
Senate sponsor Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-South Carolina, said the bill could make the country's leaders less bellicose. "One way to avoid a lot more wars is to institute the draft," the World War II veteran said. "You'll find this country will sober up, and its leadership, too."
THE LAW
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
At President Clinton's request, the Department of Defense reviewed this issue in 1994. DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view. Although no conclusions were reached, DoD recognized that policies regarding women need to be reviewed periodically because the role of women in the military continues to expand.
The Selective Service System, if given the mission and additional funding, is capable of registering and drafting women with its existing infrastructure.