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

Making Babies in the US Military

Making Babies in the US Military
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
************************************

"The U.S. Military commander in northern Iraq defended on Tuesday a new policy imposing strict penalties, including possible jail time, for troops who become pregnant or get other soldiers pregnant. "In this 22,000-soldier task force, I need every soldier I've got, especially since we are facing a draw down of forces during our mission," Major General Tony Cucolo, who commands U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq, said in a statement. His policy applies only to his command." (Read the entire article HERE.)

It is a "No-No!" You can look but you cannot touch. Well, that rule works about as well today as it did way back when chaperones were in vogue.

See, once again, we are messing with Mother Nature. And it never works! At least, it never works out well.

With all the babies being conceived at the front lines in the two wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Iraq, another of the socialist government's social experiments has failed.

Let me see how plain I can make this: Even a complete fool, a blathering idiot, an imbecile, a Moran, knows -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that if you put young men and young women together in an environment where hormones surge continuously they will find each other and they will copulate. It is Mother Nature's way of insuring the survival of the species.

Everybody KNOWS this instinctively. Except, it would seem, for the feminists among us who deny the existence of natural law. Call it what you will -- when you deny that young men and young women will not find a way to engage in sex ANYWHERE, including the battlefield, then you are denying the existence of such a thing as natural law.

OK. Just so the record is clear. I do not believe there is a role for women in combat, anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances. PERIOD! Women are the sacred "givers of life." Without women the human species would die out -- and quickly. Women should be protected, at all costs, even at the cost of the male's life.

Nature (God, if you please.) created the male and the female differently with different characteristics. The male was made larger, muscular, and more aggressive. The female was made smaller but with the ability to hold within her body a new life which, when fully developed, would emerge as a brand new human being. The female would perpetuate life, she would insure that the human species would survive on this garden planet which was given us as our home.

The point is, if there were no female combat soldiers, the military would not be facing this problem. "Oh," but you say, "There are no American women serving in combat roles in the US Military!" That is pure "bovine scatology!" If you believe that I have a hell of a deal on a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to talk with you about!

Woman soldiers have been fighting, in combat, in Iraq and Afghanistan right from the start. Their roles have been disguised as truck drivers and security for convoys, helo pilots, tanker pilots, etc, etc. The ruse goes on. They are out there getting shot at and shooting back. And, in my opinion, they ought not be anywhere near the battlefield! There are plenty of jobs for women in the military -- in the rear areas -- completely away from combat. Filling those jobs with women would free up the men, now sitting behind computer monitors, to grab a rifle and a pack and get their dead rear ends to the front and engage the enemy!

Want to know how our politically correct military is handling the situation of so many pregnant soldiers at the front? Take a look at this: "The military's solution, instead, is to promote total abstinence, which let's face it, is entirely unrealistic. Cucolo's policy also prohibits soldiers from having sex with Iraqis or from spending the night with a member of the opposite sex unless married or granted explicit permission. Instead, the military might fare better if they provided reliable access to birth control for soldiers, both male and female."
You may read the entire article HERE.

Back in my day in the US Army we were issued "Pro-Kits" when we received a three-day, or a weekend, pass. It was understood that we were going to have sex with an accommodating female as soon as possible and as often as possible. You could always tell when it was "Pay Day" on the Post without ever glancing at a calendar. The main streets of the Post would suddenly be filled with automobiles, filled to capacity, with women of all descriptions flaunting their wares and assuring us they would be waiting to fulfill our dreams just outside the front gates. And they always were.

Within my first week as a soldier in the US Army my company was marched over to the WAC barracks and we were lectured while standing just outside the wire fence that surrounded that forbidden land. We were told in no uncertain terms that if we were caught on the other side of that wire we would be shot -- period-- end of discussion! You know, I believed them!

I think it is admirable for a young woman to want to serve her country in the US Military. But, I also think her service should be confined to a military occupation that insures her safety far from the killing and dying. She should NEVER be in danger. But then, I am "an old foggie", a believer in chivalry, a man who was reared to respect women, and time has passed me by. So say some.

Forgive me if I see no respect for women by placing them in harm's way on the battlefield -- even if they demand it. The complete idiocy of such a policy says much about a nation's care for its citizens. Placing women in combat positions breaks the foremost rule of Nature, and it will insure the downfall the nation that makes it a practice -- and -- it places the entire human species in danger of extinction. How DUMB is THAT?!

Had those female soldiers not been there to begin with, this problem would never have come up.

Woman in combat is just plain DUMB! And you wonder why America can no longer win a war? Really? I mean, do you REALLY wonder about that?

J. D. Longstreet