Thursday PM ~ TheFrontPageCover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
Women and Selective Service Registration
m9irDRtc-ULDa0iuJUyXvR2noquH-3Bn5M4Z7GkiCnn9pvfMvb9uphBRQIyPz0K4TvxWiw54Kw6iNQVIrE2rA5htp0pWeZ16VsaPltfSn1K55haL-CXRB-7gKOKYPekSQ8rMMSMFfIltck9Y8u2f49MXVlUArKX7STSgaF0=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Charles Paige  
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
USMCA Deal Moving Forward, as Trump 
Outlines Changes Required to U.S. Law
rRCl3UJUrV_HZXI6jRUKG6BhBQWJ2mGbzW10pMuWI-TeurURZUp65ibiqYsZLb43cA9IYUrLjGs_7gX81c38AD8CGbEZ7XfSDGoZz2fPy8G7GiR0SZIk7kzV_MCYUwzX-RKD11I9g-CK3R31wA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=by Steve Byas
{thenewamerican.com} ~ The Trump administration sent to Congress on Tuesday a list of changes to U.S. law that will be dictated by the United States, Mexico, and Canada (USMCA) trade deal... illustrating how multilateral trade deals reduce American national sovereignty. The submission of required changes to American law is also a demonstration of how, over the years, Congress has surrendered much of its constitutional authority over international trade to the executive branch. Under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a president can negotiate trade deals on his own and then send them to Congress, where members are not allowed to make any changes, but can only vote the entire deal up or down. Acting in concert with recent U.S. presidents, Congress has increasingly given up much of its constitutional authority to make laws for America — all in the name of “free trade.” With the Trump administration now pushing Congress to adopt its new multilateral trade agreement with Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA, this trend seems destined to continue, unless Americans become more aware of what is happening and rise up to stop it. During his successful presidential campaign, candidate Trump demanded that NAFTA be repealed, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the USMCA simply continues the trend of America losing control of much of its own economy...
Watch College Students Actually Change Their 
Minds on Trump After Learning Truth About Pulosi
oVBCZe-OgQeVb8dRLnUWRCZn4tqjYm2umvX73HO0TzEgKOPN_xMncY4N9MpAqnnwZgiZID_az6JTHGK3JbPCbxZ4239ZJHo-rOie9BOxzoK947dQPSJ64YXcYIGeY-0H98Q9zFVYCVn6ohwt8OVbUGGqGnJOSyHDs1EyRg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by BEN MARQUIS
{westernjournal.com} ~ There is little question that the predominately liberal mainstream media provided incredibly one-sided coverage of the lengthy partial government shutdown... by blaming the situation on President Donald Trump being unreasonable while exonerating Speaker Nancy Pulosi and Democrats of their refusal to negotiate a compromise to end the standoff. That glaring disparity was revealed when Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips interviewed a number of students at a Washington D.C.-area university and asked who was to blame for the government shutdown. All of the students said that Trump was to blame for the lengthy shutdown, as he had not offered up any sort of compromise solution … only to find out later just how wrong their initial assumptions of the “facts” actually were. As an aside, we have covered these Campus Reform videos numerous times in the past, and while many on the right will chastise the ill-informed students on their lack of knowledge about the reality of the world around them, the students are merely uninformed young adults who have had biased narratives drilled into their heads by liberal academia and the liberal media. Once the students had been informed that President Trump had made several offers of compromise to the Democrats — all of which were flatly rejected by Pulosi and her Democratic Party — their tunes on who was to blame for the longevity of the government shutdown changed dramatically...
.
Media Silent on Democrats’ Abortion Bills
1jGcdO-1-6wtWsGsm7AL_dDQyKGdNnRSRtKvQ2AC9nHxeeBwGYyN7UbDpTMDqndLpEKjBpMJLTd539HBhdrnuxFEaHTav0LO9eIO-IHZsHsinqa-2O2YaMIQ4e-ALi17qAfFITf4G4T463zKj8b_UjZQE4le=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Brian McNicoll 
 {aim.org} ~ A revolution in abortion law is taking place, and the mainstream media is determined you not know about it until it’s too late... New York’s Democratic state legislature passed – and its Catholic Democrat governor, Andrew evil-Cuomo signed – legislation that allows abortion up to the moment of birth for any reason and does not require a physician to certify that reason. Video of the legislature cheering passage of the bill and of the governor ordering the One World Trade Center in New York City lit up in pink to commemorate passage of the most aggressively pro-abortion legislation in the United States shocked the consciousness of many of the 87 percent of Americans who oppose third-trimester abortions. The New York Times did not even write a story about the bill but included details in a piece entitled “Dream Act is Approved in N.Y. to Aid Undocumented Students, In Rebuke to Trump,” by Christina Goldbaum.  On the story’s 14th paragraph, Goldbaum finally writes: “On Tuesday, Mr. evil-Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act, to expand rights to abortion. New York’s abortion laws had not been updated since 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade. The measures moves abortion regulations from the state penal code to the health code, recognizing abortion as a public health issue rather than a crime form which the state had carved out exclusions.”  The next paragraph returned to coverage of the immigration bill mentioned in the headline...
Democrats Refuse to Compromise 
on Border Before Negotiations Even Start
0s_7YDclFu7Wl4hOp-ZKnnFi9pzL_8-ZLv2Wtwn6tYn0pL7f5uLnkfi7DIpDfC2TTJwpUWpy91iM2PJFHuw4HhcIBP9kcofz4rSZvSEFQlJtHd_9OxVxjs1uJhTM1P9bqEVavxXgUR1NojlsjUqn60ATKJ1ZzKFBP6G_6-wqeQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
{thepoliticalinsider.com} ~ Republican and Democratic leaders haven’t even started their post-government shutdown border-wall negotiations yet, but the prospect for any deal might be dead already... When President Donald Trump ended the longest shutdown in history last week, he said he needed a  compromise from Democrats, even suggesting protecting so-call “Dreamers” in exchange for border-wall funding. But Democrats are already ruling out the idea. “The fading prospects of the negotiation mean Trump is likely to receive only a fraction of the $5.7 billion he’s been seeking for his southern barrier in any deal, if one can be put together at all by Feb. 15,” Politico reports. “Then he would have to decide whether to unilaterally move funds around by declaring a legally dubious national emergency or embrace another debilitating shutdown.” Negotiations are supposed to begin Wednesday, but Democrats are taking a negative outlook. Senate Minority Whip scumbag-Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “I’ve tried to work with this administration on issues involving immigration with a great level of frustration. And I do not want to take so many innocent people whose fate is hanging in the balance of this political debate and start off with the premise that we have a likelihood of solving their problem.”... scumbag-Durbin you are wrong.
.
Congress Already Has Authorized DOD to 
'Erect Barriers, Roads, Fencing...to Disrupt Drug Smuggling'
_1CT2NqkRg-IpUGp3uGb_Ez4gSpY4XcjexCMmohmWdQQiytN6SbI_S6vDsG5lccT8Th6s1XDFN8x_OtbOAVKJEaZ_f7WOtHkuwwnxiMUdRggThhY4xiHuRxEgq4cYzPLDk5NqzNmAEo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
by Susan Jones  
{cnsnews.com} ~ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told a news conference on Tuesday that "I'm for whatever works... which means avoiding a shutdown and avoiding the president feeling he should declare a national emergency." On the same day, at a hearing of the House Armed Service Committee, a Defense Department official agreed with two Republican lawmakers that President Trump doesn't need to declare a national emergency to get military assistance in building a border barrier. The subject arose when Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) pointed to Title 10, Section 284 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the Defense Department to provide support for counter-drug activities, if such help is requested by appropriate federal or state officials.The law identifies various activities that DOD is authorized to conduct, including "Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States." Hartzler asked Under Secretary of Defense John Rood how long DOD has been providing support to counter-drug operations at the border. “Congresswoman, we have, at the Department, provided support to the counter-drug missions at the Department of Homeland Security and indeed other civilian agencies for a very long time, for decades. That support continues,” Rood said... Then why is the Pulosi's house saying NO to funding. What is wrong with her.
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Women and Selective Service Registration
m9irDRtc-ULDa0iuJUyXvR2noquH-3Bn5M4Z7GkiCnn9pvfMvb9uphBRQIyPz0K4TvxWiw54Kw6iNQVIrE2rA5htp0pWeZ16VsaPltfSn1K55haL-CXRB-7gKOKYPekSQ8rMMSMFfIltck9Y8u2f49MXVlUArKX7STSgaF0=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Charles Paige:  The National Commission on Military, National and Public Service is halfway through its congressionally mandated review of, among other things, the Selective Service System. The commission released a report that didn’t offer much in the way of concrete recommendations (those are not required until commissioners conclude their work in March 2020), but it (re)raised some points worth pondering.

The requirement for men to register with the Selective Service System has been in place in various forms (usually tied to an actual draft) since the Army failed to meet recruiting goals during the early days of World War I. Both Selective Service registration and the draft were dropped in 1973 in the wake of Vietnam, but when the former was restarted in 1980, Jimmy Carter proposed requiring women to participate. He was rebuffed by Congress. In 2016, the House voted against language approved in the Senate — supported by both conservative hawks and liberal feminists — that would have required women to register. That legislative tussle was prompted by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter changing Department of Defense policy to open to women all military positions and assignments, including those in ground combat units.

Most commentators start from the position that IF combat roles are open to women — in the name of equal opportunity — THEN women should be required to register — in the name of equal obligation. While that’s a logically sound argument, requiring women to register even if the combat exclusion were to be reinstated is also a plausible — and arguably the preferable — course of action.

Conservative opposition to expanding registration to females usually centers on the general appropriateness of women serving in combat, with the argument being that no civilized  nation would require its mothers/daughters/sisters to fight. However, these arguments oversimplify the relationship between registration and the draft. While registration would expedite the process of drafting individuals into the military (at least in theory) should that policy be resurrected, it doesn’t necessarily follow that thousands of females will end up fighting “in the trenches.”

Selective Service registration does not necessarily mean that anyone — male or female — will be drafted. It’s hard to envision a Congress and society as divided as today’s being able to reach consensus on such a controversial issue short of World War III breaking out, in which case women in combat may be the lesser of the evils. And even a gender-agnostic draft does not ipso facto equate to women bearing the brunt of bayonet charges. The “it’s not civilized” case just doesn’t hold much water in the Selective Service debate.

The reality is that there are plenty of roles that don’t presuppose ground combat that the U.S. military simply could not fill without including women and in which women’s physiological capabilities are not a limitation, such as the nurses FDR proposed adding to the draft near the end of WWII. Perhaps more importantly, there are not enough males who are mentally (have a high-school diploma or GED and can pass the entrance test), morally (no criminal history), and physically (not obese; no disqualifying conditions or medications) fit to serve. Given the necessity of including women in the military in some capacity, requiring them to register is a prudent and logical policy — if you accept the premise that registration contributes to military readiness in break-glass-in-case-of-emergency scenarios. That’s a topic for another day, as is the broader question of national service, which the commission is also analyzing.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/60820?mailing_id=4042&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4042&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center