Time was when the recruiting slogan of the US Marine Corps was The Few, The Proud, The Marines. Petty catchy, that. But, alas, such talk is unfit for the new order of the ages which is fast upon us.
No, in times like these, more inclusive slogans are what’s needed. And after reading this piece from the Army Times, I think I have just what the PC doctor ordered. From henceforth, I propose that the Marines use the following, safe-space approved slogan: The Few. The Proud. The Transgendered.
As the story, titled “Sailors, Marines will be able to declare transgender status this fall,” reports,
Following the Defense Department’s lifting of the ban on transgender service members in June, the Navy Department is preparing to provide medical and administrative support for transitioning sailors and Marines, train personnel on the particulars of serving in a transgender-inclusive force and, by next summer, accept transgender recruits into boot camp….transgender sailors and Marines may serve openly and cannot be involuntarily separated or denied re-enlistment for their gender identity…
When I showed this to a friend at lunch today, his reaction was, “The end is near.” And really, it’s hard to argue with his comment. The government really has only two jobs, punishing evildoers – this Biblical provides justification for, among other things, a nation having a defense force – and praising the good, which means the laws put forth by the civil magistrate ought to line up with the Ten Commandments.
Ratified in 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed women the right to vote in the United States. The text of the Amendment reads in part, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Prior to the adoption of this Amendment, women had limited access to the ballot box. Some states permitted women to vote, as did some municipalities. But with the 19th Amendment, women were guaranteed the same voting rights as men. And if women had the same voting rights as men, on what basis could anyone deny them the right to hold office, up to and including the presidency?
This very point was raised during the debate over woman suffrage in Great Britain. During the parliamentary debate on the 1906 Resolution on the Enfranchisement of Women, several points were put forth by those opposed to women voting. Among the reasons for opposing female suffrage was the following:
Because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that an many similar absurdities.
But what was scarcely imaginable in 1906 has in 2016 become a self-evident truth. To deny it is to run the risk of being declared a heretic in the church of progressive liberalism and, at least metaphorically speaking, being burned at the stake.
But if this be heresy, let us make the most of it. It is the contention of this writer that those opposed to woman suffrage were in the right, and the suffragists in the wrong. My case rests on the evidence of the Scriptures. And while the conclusions drawn from Scripture on the matter are, in and of themselves, decisive, the practical experience of the last 96 years can be called upon to support this contention as well.
Please click the link below the story quoting Pippa Malmgren stating “there’s no price discovery anymore” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/ex-plunge-protection-team-whistleblower-governments-control-markets-there-no-price-d
Please click the following link for Sean Gerety’s article Faith Alive http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php
In 1558, John Knox wrote was is still to this day perhaps the most politically incorrect tract in history, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. The proximate object of Knox’s blast was the reign of Mary Tudor in England, but in targeting Bloody Mary, the Scottish reformer also took aim, “against the very principle of female government itself” (Roger A. Mason, John Knox On Rebellion, xv)
Over the following centuries, the political theory and practice of Protestant nations generally was ikn agreement with Knox. But with the rise of secular feminism in the 19th century and its subsequent influence on the evangelical church, that consensus began to fracture.
Today, not only does Great Britain have its second female prime minister, but Germany in headed by Angela Merkel. France is likely to find itself under the sway of a woman as soon as next year. And here in the United States, the Democrats have nominated Hillary Clinton for president.
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s nomination. The mainstream press is fond of describing it as “historic” as indeed it is. The reaction of the New York Times was typical of mainstream reporting on Clinton’s nomination, with the paper featuring the headline “Democrats Make Hillary Clinton a Historic Nominee.”
As the story itself went on to report, “The Democratic convention formally nominated Hillary Clinton for president on Tuesday, making history by choosing a woman to be the first standard-bearer of a major political party, a breakthrough underscored by a deeply personal speech by Bill Clinton calling her ‘the best darn change-maker I have ever known.’ ”
Fairness. Such an innocent sounding word. So why do I always loath to hear politicians speak of it?
Very likely my trepidation has something to do with the way political hacks abuse the English language. Our public discourse has reached what could be called peak dishonesty. Whatever words our public servants use, if you understand the opposite you’re probably pretty close to catching their drift. And so it is with fairness. If some wanna-be office holder starts using that word, think “mega-ripoff” and you won’t go far wrong.
Hillary Clinton, to no one’s surprise, is the latest politician to use the oft-exploited term “fairness” as cover for more theft by government. One need only look at her proposed “fairness” tax to see this principle in operation.
According to the factsheet Investing in America by Restoring Basic Fairness to Our Tax Code,
There is essentially a “private tax system” for the wealthiest Americans that lets them lower their tax bill by billions, while working families play by the rules and pay their fair (sic) share. In 2013, the 400 highest-income taxpayers – those making more than $250 million per year on average – paid an effective tax rate of just 23 percent, in part because of tax gaming and sheltering to reduce their tax bills. Some multi-millionaires can pay lower rates than their employees.
Now there is much here that is true. The US tax code is hopelessly complex and provides ample opportunity for those who can afford top-notch CPAs and tax-lawyers to take advantage of legal loopholes to shelter vast wealth from the tax man. Ordinary Americans, on the other hand, are not so positioned. Most of us dupes on Main Street end up forking it over big-time to the IRS.