House bill requires women to sign up for draft

By Travis J. Tritten | Stars and Stripes | February 4, 2016

Female Marine recruits practice rear hand punches during training at Parris Island, S.C., in July 2011.JAVARRE GLANTON/U.S. MARINE CORPS

Two House Republicans introduced a bill Thursday requiring eligible women in the United States to sign up for the military draft, just days after it was recommended by the Marine Corps and Army.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Minn., a retired Navy SEAL, filed the Draft American’s Daughters Act to stoke debate over the military’s historic move to fully integrate female troops into all combat roles. If passed, women from 18-26 years old would for the first time have to join men in registering with the Selective Service program and potentially be forced to fight in future wars.

“If this administration wants to send 18, 20-year-old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives,” Hunter said in a released statement.

On Tuesday, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testified to the Senate that they believe there no longer should be an exemption in the draft for half of the country’s population now that the military is all inclusive.

The Marines and Army, along with the other service branches, were ordered by Defense Secretary Ash Carter to open about 225,000 combat jobs to women candidates – the last remaining occupational specialties that had barred female troops.

The decision was made despite research and reservations from the Marine Corps and special operations community, and without adequate debate among lawmakers, according to the two congressmen sponsoring the bill.

“My daughter is a damn good Navy diver. I know women play an invaluable role in war. Many times women can gain access to strategic sites that men never could,” Zinke said in a released statement. “However, this administration’s plan to force all front-line combat and Special Forces to integrate women into their units is reckless and dangerous.”

The Marines completed a study last summer that found women get injured more often and perform below males in combat. During an oversight hearing in the Senate on Tuesday, lawmakers repeatedly referenced the study and said they are worried the military could lower standards to accommodate more women in combat occupational specialties.

Zinke said the decision now means the country must contemplate changes to the draft. His bill requires women to register beginning 90 days after it is signed into law.


“This is a very important issue that touches the heart of every family in America, and I believe we need to have an open and honest discussion about it,” Zinke said.

Men, who historically filled combat roles, are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18 years old in case a draft is again needed. The Supreme Court had in the past backed the exemption for women, but only because they were not expected to fill crucial combat ranks.

Millions of women might now suddenly and unexpectedly be required to register due to the Pentagon decision on combat roles.

Neller, who initially requested exemptions for women in some combat positions, said he thinks it is fair that women now face being called up to wartime service.

“Every American that is physically qualified should register for the draft,” said Neller, who had requested but was denied the exclusion of women in some Marine combat jobs.

$19 Trillion and Counting: The Dangers of Unlimited Debt

Veronique de Rugy | Reason - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

The statutory limit on how much debt the federal government can accumulate is back in the news, but this time it's not because Washington is close to breaching it. That's not a present concern thanks to the year-end bipartisan spending spree that included a suspension of the debt limit until March 2017. The news is that a report from the House Financial Services Committee found that the Obama administration's Treasury Department has been repeatedly misleading the American public on the matter.

Treasury has routinely rejected the idea that once the government reaches the debt limit, federal spending could be prioritized to avoid a default. During a previous debate over the debt limit in 2011, my colleague Jason Fichtner and I wrote a paper explaining that even if Treasury is unable to issue more debt, it can still avoid a default and thus give policymakers more time to implement reforms that would put the government on a more sustainable fiscal path.

Contrary to Treasury's claims, we argued that it has several financial management options to continue paying the government's primary obligations. Specifically, Treasury could use incoming tax receipts to cover high priority claims including the interest on existing debt, the principal on that debt, Social Security benefits, and more. Government assets could also be liquidated to pay bills.

Treasury claimed that such options were neither acceptable nor feasible, and thus the only choice was for Congress to promptly agree to increase the debt limit. Then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claimed that prioritizing was out of the question and that failing to pay any of the government's bills would be the equivalent of defaulting on the debt. The same thing happened again during the administration's 2013 showdown with Congress over lifting the debt limit. This time it was Geithner's replacement, Jacob Lew, claiming that prioritization was not an option.

We now know that the administration's claims were untrue. As it turns out, documents subpoenaed by the House Financial Services Committee reveal that during the 2013 debt ceiling debate the Obama administration knew it was actually capable of prioritizing payments. Indeed, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was conducting "tabletop exercises" in preparation for what the administration was publicly stating couldn't be done. The documents show that while Treasury was helping the administration scare the public, its behind-the-scenes actions proved otherwise.

While Treasury and the administration's deceptive behavior is disturbing, it's good news for the next battle over lifting the debt limit early next year. I have repeatedly made it clear in the past that I believe defaulting on the debt is not an acceptable option. However, continuing to raise the debt limit without making any substantive changes to the unsustainable financial path we are on is just as irresponsible. Under the watch of both Republicans and Democrats, the debt limit has been raised 20 times since 1993. The result is that the federal debt has ballooned from less than $5 trillion in 1993 to $19 trillion and counting today.

Deficits are also going back up thanks to a bipartisan inability to get spending under control. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest projections, cumulative annual budget deficits will add another $9.4 trillion in debt to the federal government's mountain of red ink. That figure is $1.5 trillion higher than the CBO projected less than six months ago.

Will Rogers once said, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Policymakers need to stop digging and instead implement institutional reforms that constrain government spending, which is the underlying cause of the mounting debt. Indeed, that should be a precondition to raising the debt limit next year. And this time we will know that Treasury has the means to give Congress the time to finally get it done.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

CONGRESS SET TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF ISLAM

Infowars | The Alex Jones Show | JANUARY 26, 2016

December 17, 2015 ought to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment.

Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.