Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 16) - Women in the Military

Introduction

Recently, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress a few years ago, has said that women should be allowed to serve fully in combat.  "It is time to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," the commission said.  They went on to say, "Minorities and women still lag behind white men in terms of the number of military leadership positions.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he expected women to be let into special operation forces eventually.  A Pentagon spokeswoman said that the department would review the recommendations when the report is delivered. 
Opponents have said that most women lack the necessary strength and stamina needed for battle.  They have also said that it could harm unit cohesion, and that Americans won't tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags.

Some facts about women in combat

1) It is certainly true that most women don't have the strength and stamina that men have.  And in almost all military physical-fitness tests, the requirements for women are lower than those of men. So if women were allowed into combat units, the men would know they weren't as physically capable as their fellow males.

2) Men and women think and react differently, because their brains are wired differently.  In The Male Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine, she says that men's brains are wired so that they become protective of their mates, and this generalizes to other women, as well.  Thus, in a combat situation a man might unconsciously or consciously be more concerned with protecting the women in his unit than with the mission.  Related to this is that because a young woman could be pregnant, a man may again be more protective of a woman in their unit, and thus be distracted from the overall well-being of the unit.

3) Because of the factors mentioned above, unit cohesion would almost certainly be affected.  We don't want men to be worried about protecting the women in their unit at the expense of accomplishing their mission.

4) Men are distracted by attractive women at via the most primitive parts of the male brain.  This distraction could prove to be a disaster in some situations.

5) Both women and men get pay more attention to an angry man than they do to an angry woman.  Thus, in a command and control situation, an angry male commander is more likely to be obeyed than an angry female commander.  This could negatively affect the unity of the group, which could weaken the accomplishment of it.

6) Women who are pregnant can harm their fetuses when firing in a gun range or in combat or even in an aircraft carrier with loud noises. Children have been born with burst ear drums because their mothers shot guns while pregnant. It could be mandated that pregnant women be removed from combat or combat training if pregnant, but, of course, women are usually pregnant for a certain amount of time before they know that they are.  If women were allowed into combat, almost certainly, some of the children they bear will suffer developmental deficits of one sort or another because of it.

Furthermore, a young woman who is injured in combat may well injure their child-bearing organs — or experience post-combat distress syndrome, either of which could negatively affect their  capacity to be a good mother.

7) It used to be that women who became pregnant were discharged from the military.  Now, they are not only not discharged, but they receive medical benefits, receive full pay, and even are given uniforms to conform to their pregnancy.  And they get child care once their child is born.  This is a waste of tax payers' dollars, since at some point in their pregnancy, they are not longer able to be productive members of the military.  And if women are allowed into combat, a pregnant woman would have to be removed from their unit immediately.

Women stationed on ships and even those who are in small, close-nit units have a very high pregnancy rate.  A Time Magazine article stated that about 13% of the women in the military are pregnant.  Nearly 40% of females in certain Army units are pregnant, according to a report from the Air Command and Staff College.  Aside from the dangers to their fetuses mentioned above, if a woman gives birth and stays in the military, mother-child bonding and certainly father-child bonding can be adversely affected.  This would certainly lower the chances that the child be breast fed for the optimal amount of time. Is this good for our country?

8) If women were allowed into combat, it would not be long before they would be required to register for the draft, and therefore get involuntarily drafted into the military during a war-time situation. They could be assigned to a combat unit.  You might think that the law could allow women to opt out of the draft or being in a combat unit, but the individuals who want women in combat would make sure that such "discrimination" does not occur.  How many fathers out there would encourage their daughters to join the military if they could be put into combat?  I wouldn't.

9) If women were required to register for the draft, a woman who qualified for combat would be required to do so. How many women would intentionally get pregnant just to get out of joining the military?

10) For those who think that being in the military is a right, this is just not so. There are many requirements to be able to get into the military, including age, health, intelligence, etc.  There is no right for anyone to be in the military. 

The most important consideration

My most important concern is this - that idea that women should be treated as men - is culturally degrading.  It is the duty, responsibility and honor of men to protect women (and children).  It is built into our brains, and cannot be removed.  To place a woman - who may at any time be pregnant, into a combat situation - goes against the very being of most men.  My suspicion is that any civilization that does this cannot last long.

Only a woman can bring a new soul into the world -- the most important single thing that anyone can do.

For those who think that such thinking is sexist, their definition of "sexist" must be much different than mine. To me a sexist is a person who believes that their sex is inherently superior to the opposite sex.  My view is that God made all of us as His children and that both sexes are equally important.  Of course, men and women are different in many ways, otherwise there wouldn't be men and women.

If I said, "Men are very, very bad at having children," would this be considered a sexist statement?  Clearly not, since the truth cannot be sexist.

The differences between men and women are expressed in many ways, such as with the yin/yang concept, positive and negative, male and female.  And such concepts express not only that there are differences, but that both are equally needed.  God has created the male/female duality for a purpose, and we would be wise to not attempt to ignore or eliminate it.
_____________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer and Graduate Adviser in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

What is going on in the Muslim World?

In December 2014, Talban terrorists murdered over 100 school children in Pakistan. It is an act that is inconceivable by almost every person in the world. Here is a quote from NBC News given by a 'spokesman' for the Taliban:

"Taliban spokesman Muhammad Umar Khorasani told Reuters his group was responsible for the attack. 'Our suicide bombers have entered the school, they have instructions not to harm the children, but to target the army personnel,' he said".

So they go into a school, not to harm children, but to target army personnel.  What can be said about this ridiculous statement?

Ahmed Rashid, an expert on the Islamic militants, told the BBC the insurgents had various reasons to attack the school, one of which was to send a message to the supporters of Malala Yousafzi, awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, who advocates education for women and children.

Apparently, the Taliban consider murdering children a rational response to a woman who wants education for women and children in Muslim countries.

This is just one attack out of hundreds that have resulted in the murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent people, mostly Muslims, by those who think they are doing God's will. We've heard about so many of these that they have become commonplace.

Clearly, this is a relatively new development. Beirut, Lebanon used to be the most common vacation destination in the Middle East. Who would vacation there now? My grandparents were born in Syria and Lebanon, so my parents went to Syria in 1971 and had a wonderful time. Times have certainly changed.

Obviously, most Muslims are peaceful. But far too many are not. And the peaceful Muslims have allowed terrorism to occur in their countries. In the United States, if there is a terrorist attack, we immediately go after the perpetrators, and we don't allow terrorist cells to form.

What is there to say about those who murder in the name of Islam?  And why have so many terrorist attacks been done in the name of Islam?

My belief is that due to the lack of a good education, and to the many corrupt and harsh governments, many Muslims are angry and frustrated. And many of those are weak-minded in the sense that they blindingly believe those who think that murdering innocents will award them an esteemed place in Heaven. Why else would a suicide bomber kill himself in a school?

The only reason I can think of to explain this, is that the forces of Evil have taken advantage of the hate, fear and anger of many Muslims. This is main way that the forces of Evil influence any of us. And this is one reason that Christ taught us to love others, even our enemies.

The way out of this is for the peaceful Muslims to decide that they will no longer put up with terrorism. Governments would have to be fairly non-corrupt, so that people could report terrorist cells, and report about individuals who advocate terrorism.

This will be a long and difficult task, but I see no other way out of these impossible-to-conceive-of inhuman acts.

______________________________________
 
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer and Graduate Advisor in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas.  The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

 

Statement of My Core Philosophical Beliefs

In brief, I am a Christian reincarnationist. So the beliefs below reflect this, and I believe they all are in harmony with Christ's teachings.

1) Every person is a child of God, and is here on Earth to grow toward God.

2) Each of us should love God and love others, even our enemies.

3) Each of us ought to treat others as we would like to be treated.

4) Each of us is to use our talents to help make the world a better place.

5) Cause and effect operates in the realm of human interactions as well as in the realm of physical laws. Hence, the consequence of each person’s thoughts, words, or deeds will return to that person in kind. For example, loving thoughts or actions that benefit other people’s lives will come back to us as loving thoughts or actions which others show toward us.  Similarly, negative actions will result in a negative repercussion. To summarize, “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”

6) Adults are personally responsible for their own lives – for each thought, word, and deed that they have.

7) Each person has the right to life, liberty, and to be secure in their own property. Thus, each person has the right to live life in the manner in which he or she sees fit, as long as this does not interfere with the right of others to do the same.
 
(I use the term “property” to refer to anything tangible or intangible that can belong to a person or group of persons. A car, an engagement ring, money, a legal contract, a business, and a patent are examples of property that a person may own. This is to be distinguished from the term “natural resources” in that the natural resources are tangible or intangible entities that are a product of nature. Thus the air, trees, oil, minerals, water, land, radio, electro-magnetic spectrum, etc., are natural resources).

8) No person, group, or government entity should force their beliefs on another, nor is it the role of government to legislate as to how individuals should lead their lives, as long as they do so peacefully. Rather, the main role of government is to protect our right to have whatever beliefs we have, and to protect our right to live as we see fit, as long as this is done in peace.

9) Each person has the right to defend himself, his family, his country, other people who are innocent from harm initiated by another person or group of persons.

10) Since the Earth’s natural resources were not created by individuals, they do not a priory belong to any one individual or group of individuals; therefore, they should be considered the property of the people as a whole. Hence, they ought to be under the control of the government, which may then sell, lease, or rent such resources to individuals, groups of individuals, or corporations who may then use or develop these resources so that they can be of value to themselves and others.  These entities would then be required to pay a fee to the government or each individual, for the right to extract a natural resource.

11) Children are our greatest resource, and families with loved and well-reared children are the bedrock of a true civilization. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children, and each child has the right to love, food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education. It is the responsibility of the child’s parents to provide these. (However, it may be currently necessary or expedient for the government to assist parents with some of these responsibilities with subsidies. In such cases, the parents should be given as much freedom as possible to fulfill their responsibilities to their children). The ideal situation is that children are raised by their married, biological parents in a loving environment.  It is also best if the mother need not be concerned with earning money, so that she may focus on this most important of tasks.
____________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer and Graduate Adviser in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed here are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
_____________________________________

Benjamin Franklin Quotes

Can a list of quotes be interesting? Indeed they can when they come from one of the most brilliant Americans who ever lived.  Try them and I'll bet you a dollar that you’ll like them.

1) God helps those who help themselves.

2) Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What's a sundial in the shade?

3) I didn't fail the test; I just found 100 ways to do it wrong.

4) I look upon death to be as necessary to our constitution as sleep. We shall rise refreshed in the morning.

5) If you know how to spend less than you get, you have the philosopher's stone.

6) In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.

7) Many people die at 25 and aren't buried until they are 75.

8) Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today.

9) No nation was ever ruined by trade.

10) Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

11) Speak ill of no man, but speak all the good you know of everybody.

12) Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.

13) The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.

14) Three things are extremely hard: steel, a diamond, and to know one's self.

15) Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

16) To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals.

17) Where liberty is, there is my country.

18) Educate your children to self-control, to the habit of holding passion and prejudice and evil tendencies subject to an upright and reasoning will, and you have done much to abolish misery from their future and crimes from society.

19) Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful.

_________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed here are his and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

____________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law – (Part 2) – Appointment of Supreme Court Justices and Limits on Congressional Authority

Appointment of Justices 

Only Supreme Court Justices who are strict constructionists should be appointed - those who will interpret the Constitution as it is currently amended - not as they would like it to be. 

There are certainly times when many of us have wished that the Constitution would have granted more (or fewer) powers to Congress.  But these powers of Congress should be changed only through the amendment process given in the Constitution and not by judicial fiat.

Powers of Congress

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress – in what areas Congress is able to legislate.  Reading this section shows how few areas in which Congress is able to create legislation.

Most areas have to do with the military.  Some of the other more important areas have to do with the:

-   Ability to lay and collect taxes

-   To coin money, and borrow money

-   To regulate commerce between the States and between foreign countries

-   To establish post offices and postal roads

-   To establish rules for copyrights and patents

Furthermore, a number of the Bill of Rights amendments further restrict Congress and explicitly indicate that Congress only has the powers granted to it by the Constitution:

-   Amendment I forbids Congress from passing laws involving religious expression; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; the right of the people to peaceably assemble; and to petition the government for grievances.

-   Amendment II forbids Congress from passing laws from infringing on the right of the people to own and bear arms.  (This is an aspect of the Natural Right we have to defend ourselves, our families, and or countries).

-   Amendment III starts with, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, shall not be violated by Congress, except upon probable cause, which must be determined by a judge".

-   Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  In other words, people have thousands of rights, and they could not possibly be enumerated in the Constitution.

-   And Amendment X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is certainly clear that the Constitution explicitly limited the powers of Congress.  Clearly, Congress has far exceeded its Constitutional mandates.  A good Supreme Court would have struck down many of these laws. 

Examples of a Law that Violate the Constitution 

Probably the most devastating laws passed by Congress have to do drug laws.  Look as hard as you wish and you will find that Congress has no authority to pass such laws.  It is not the place to go into it here, but so many of our citizens have been arrested for such laws that it is a disgrace.  For further information see Michelle Alexander’s excellent book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness." 

As proof that such law are unconstitutional, when Congress wanted to make alcohol illegal (Prohibition), they knew that they had no authority to do this, and instead proposed a Constitutional amendment, which passed, but was soon overturned.  Nanny-state laws have no place in the United States of America, a country based upon the freedom to live in peace.

Examples of Supreme Court Decisions that Violated the Constitution

A famous example of a Supreme Court decision that violated the Constitution was to not allow students to lead prayer groups before or after school, with students who voluntarily attended. This was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Another series of Supreme Court decisions that violated the Constitution allowed for the "separate but equal" treatment of whites and “coloreds”.  For instance, in Plessy v. Ferguson the ruling required railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races.  The "separate but equal" doctrine applied to railroad cars and to schools, voting rights, and drinking fountains.  However, there was nothing “equal” about these decisions, and they were finally overturned in Brown vs. The Board of Education.

A final example is a Supreme Court ruling about the Ten Commandments.

Here various Supreme Courts have come up with conflicting decisions about this. First, keep in mind that the Supreme Court building has the Ten Commandments inscribed in stone in at least three places.  How could they then rule that other public institutions could not do so?

It is a mystery to me. Displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building has been done since the founding of our country and was certainly not found unconstitutional then. Why now? After all, the display of any text does not ‘establish a religion’ which meant that the US would have an official religion.

Even displaying the words, God forbid, “We love Satan”, would not be unconstitutional, although I, and many other would not walk into such a building.

Suggestions

A Constitutional amendment should be passed that requires Congress to cite the part of the Constitution that gives them the authority to pass a given law.

A Constitutional amendment should be passed that requires Congress to pass laws that have no more words that there are in the Constitutional itself. This would stop the ridiculous laws such as the Income Tax Laws that have over 2 million words in them. What Congressman or person can read a law with hundreds or thousands of pages, which is not uncommon.

The Constitution should be amended to require a balanced budget.  A government that lives within its means does not pass on its debt to our children, who must pay it off with interest.  Such an amendment would force our legislators to make difficult decisions regarding spending and taxes, and not be able to cut taxes and increase spending just to get more votes.  The amendment should include a provision so that, in an emergency, Congress may spend more than permitted if two-thirds of both Houses vote to do so.

This may be hard to believe, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the national debt will be around $17 trillion for the 2013 fiscal year.  This is quite a bit over $100,000 of debt per family!  Each year we must pay the interest on this debt, and the debt and interest has been growing under every almost every administration since 1969. Additionally, the Constitution should be amended so that any tax or spending increases over and above those due to inflation and population growth must be approved by a 2/3rds vote of both houses of Congress.

The clauses in the Constitution that give Congress the ability to pass laws in certain areas are called the “enumerated powers”.  The 10th Amendment gives the states and the people the ability to pass laws in other areas.

By helping to control federal spending and by reducing deficit spending, the three items above will help to keep Congress and the President from inserting themselves into the lives of the people any more than is necessary. And this means that we the people have more freedom to live our lives and practice our beliefs as we see fit.

____________________________________

                    

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer and Graduate Adviser in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

____________________________________