U.S. is losing economic freedom and the prospect of women in combat

By James Shott

Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Denmark all beat the United States in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. The U.S., part of a group of countries termed "mostly free," scored 76.0 out of 100, dropping .3 from last year, compared with 89.3 for Hong Kong. The world average score of 59.6 is only .1 above the 2012 average. All free economies averaged 84.5, well above the U.S. ranking.

The Index is produced by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, and is based on Adam Smith's theory expressed in The Wealth of Nations in 1776. It covers 10 freedoms scored from 1 to 100, from property rights to entrepreneurship, for 185 countries, and has been published since 1995.

Economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself." That definition applies less to the U.S. each year.

The U.S. has lost economic freedom for five consecutive years and suffered losses in the categories of monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, and fiscal freedom. The U.S. did post an increase in one category, however: government spending, in which it scored lowest of the ten categories.

The poor U.S. position, the lowest Index score since 2000, is due to rapid expansion of federal policies, which have encroached on the states' ability to control their own economic decisions. The authors specifically mentioned the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial bill as having strong negative influences on economic freedom. They also noted that national spending rose to over 25 percent of GDP in 2010, that public debt passed 100 percent of GDP in 2011, and that budget deficits have exceeded $1 trillion each year since 2009.

"More than three years after the end of the recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years," the authors wrote. "Businesses remain in a holding pattern, and unemployment is close to 8 percent."

Until government stops trying to regulate nearly every facet of life, its tinkering will continue to slow the economy and prolong suffering, and we will continue to fall in the Index of Economic Freedom.

* * * * * * *

The decision to put women in up-front combat roles is troubling, to say the least, perhaps more so to those of us who grew up and served in times when women played important roles in the military, but were not directly involved in combat, or even close to combat.

Fortunately, only a relative few females have been injured and killed in recent military actions, but if this decision stands those numbers will grow, and that prospect is a quite traumatic one for many Americans, and completely unacceptable for many others.

The critical factor in determining whether any group or individual serves in a combat situation is whether they are up to the daunting challenges that exist. Requirements for who fills combat roles must be maintained at levels that guarantee that every person in a combat role is up to it, man, woman, gay, straight or whatever.

There are also practical considerations when males and females are in combat situations in close proximity. Troops are often in sustained operations for extended periods, and living conditions offer no privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. Finding ways to provide needed privacy during high stress and dangerous operations may very well put troops at greater risk. That is not acceptable.

A convincing argument against this is that the decision was made for the wrong reasons: it was driven by political and social considerations, not military need, according to Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, US Army (Ret.), who served for 36 years as an original member of the Delta Force and a Green Berets commander.

Some women believe that their chances of career advancement within the military suffer from being excluded from ground combat positions. And predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union, which frequently takes positions that make no sense in the practical world, agrees and has filed a lawsuit on their behalf.

The safety of our military personnel must not be put at risk in return for achieving some politically correct sense of fairness or even to allow female military personnel access to the career advantages that are available to males, as unfair as that may be. Fairness and equality sometimes must take a back seat.

Despite the strong desires of many Americans, men and women are by nature different biological creatures and distinctly not equal in important ways, one of which is that men are better suited to military combat than women. We shouldn’t fool with Mother Nature.

Cross-posted from Observations

American Amazons -- To The Front!

American Amazons -- To The Front!
The Left’s Degradation Of American Women Continues
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Women assigned to frontline combat units is just another way to degrade women and prop-up the lie that women are equal to men -- in all things. Notice – I did say LIE! I admit it. I believe it! That is my opinion.

Now, I am the first to admit that men are not equal to women in a number of things. The first thing to come to mind is childbearing. We simply cannot do that. (Nor do we want to!)

I am convinced it is just another avenue the left has chosen to destroy what used to be the finest military the world has ever known. Today, the US military is quickly becoming second -- behind the Israeli Defense Force.

We can only pray that we will soon have a conservative Commander-in-Chief who will rebuild out military into a war-fighting force rather than the armed peace corps it has been transformed into by the liberal-socialists in the Congress and the White House.

If the current trend continues we will have the best dressed, best equipped, most inclusive military in the world, but -- one, which is unable to fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

With homosexuals able to serve openly in the US military, I expect the country will have no other recourse than to allow women to serve in frontline units! Men, sure as hell, will not want to willingly join a service where homosexuality, a life-style condemned by none other than God, Himself, is accepted.

Oh, did I forget to mention the slaughter of women in frontline combat units? Well, of course, if we only require our military to act as good will ambassadors, charged only with winning the hearts and minds of the enemy (Pardon me while I laugh at “winning the hearts and minds of the enemy!”), and not winning battles or winning wars, then women on the front lines will be OK. Bored to death -- but not shot to death.

On the other hand, should we actually find that we have no other choice but to fire real bullets at an enemy and take incoming fire from said enemy, our women soldiers will be slaughtered.

You may choose to believe Hollywood productions in which tiny women toss men about as if they were dresses piled up on a sales table during a half-price sale, or, you can believe the truth. The truth is: It ain’t possible. Oh, sure, a handful of women can toss an average size man about – but that would be a miniscule number by any stretch of the imagination.

Know this: When ordered to place women in frontline combat positions, the US military WILL DO IT! It is far to politicized to balk and appeal to reason with its civilian commanders. Women will be sacrificed in large numbers before anyone has the cahones to protest that the frontline is no place for a woman – period!

Frontline combat in high intensity warfare is no place for a woman. It is dirty, it is brutal, and it is horrifying. It tears the strongest men to pieces -- physically and mentally. The blood, guts, and gore, the stench of death is everywhere. Once exposed to this degradation a soldier’s mind is forever scared.

Have we Americans become so crass, so insensitive to truth, so ignorant of the laws of nature that we are willing to place who reproduce our species in mortal danger in an attempt to prove an improvable lie that women and men are the same physically, mentally, and emotionally? Societies wishing to survive do not do something this utterly stupid.

Look, the US military needs soldiers who will stare death in the face and still leap toward the enemy as they are being splattered with their friend’s blood and gore, with the dying screams of their buddies to their left and right tearing at their ears through the cacophony of battle and STILL charge forward toward the enemy ripping and tearing his life from him until the battle is won.

Women cannot do that. Most women are not physically capable of performing in such a manner. Most women are not capable of withstanding the dirt, filth, blood, gore, and the pure animalistic bloodlust to kill, to wrench another man’s life from his body as he stares, horrified, into their eyes.

A combat soldier must live the remainder of his life with the memories of what he has done to a fellow human being on the field of battle. Those nightmares live forever. Do we really want the future mothers of our children to suffer from the effects of those mind shattering flashbacks and memories that create a living hell for them when the sounds of the guns cease?

Here in the South, southern boys are taught from early childhood to protect our womenfolk. They are made aware that women are the bearers of our children, that women are chief “child-care” specialists for our children as they are reared. We are taught that women bring civility, gentility, and yes, even religious faith to our society. Our women are more precious than the most priceless of gems. They are the linchpin that holds our society together. Without them – we would be nothing.

A southern soldier’s first reaction in combat will be to make every effort to protect the women in his unit – no matter that those women are also armed and trained to defend themselves. It is nearly instinctual for that southern cavalier to give his life to protect them FIRST, even placing their safety before the success of his mission. The military will have to train that out of him.

That, then begs the question: what kind of man will he become when he returns to his home after having been trained that his mother, his wife, his sister, his daughter is to be treated no differently than his beer-drinking buddies.

The ramifications of women in frontline combat units will have far reaching effects upon American society. There will be an immediate clash with southern culture and, I expect, with the cultures of the other regions of the country as well.

American society is already a near mirror image of the sordid society of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah. We have a couple of generations, at least, that have been deeply influenced by the leftists fecal matter pumped into our homes (through television) from the sewer that is the leftist entertainment business. Our movies are profane, pornographic, and titillating. Our mainline religious denominations have surrendered to the leftist ideals of something called “social justice,” which is nothing more than pure Marxism. In short we are disgusting as a civilized society. We have become an embarrassment to ourselves! And yet, we continue our steep slide into the abyss.

Further degradation of American women by placing them in frontline combat units is unacceptable and, by any standards of human decency, should be unthinkable.

J. D. Longstreet