Dr. James Dobson, the pioneering radio voice of Christian and family values for tens of millions through Focus on the Family and now Family Talk is issuing a call to flood the telephones lines for two U.S. lawmakers and the secretary of defense to object to plans to impose the military draft on women.
In his April newsletter, he lists the office telephone numbers for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., (202-225-5672), Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., (202-224-2235) and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (703-571-3343).
“Please weigh in on what is happening here. Contact the … ‘players’ and tell them you will not stand for this intrusion into America’s young womanhood. Pull no punches. Irreversible decisions could be made at any minute.”
He asks mothers and fathers: “Do you want your daughters engaged in combat situations during national emergencies?”
Dobson noted the Pentagon “has already decided that women will help fight our wars.”
“Speaking personally, I resent McCain, Hunter and other members of Congress trying to ram this policy down the throats of American families,” he said.
A WND message left with Hunter’s office seeking comment did not generate a response. There was no option to leave a message at McCain’s office.
The expansion of the roles for women in the military accelerated under President Obama. He also moved down the path of promoting homosexuality and transgenderism in uniform.
A proposal to move forward with a draft for women has been changed into a study. But the study still is expected to recommend that women serve in any position in the military.
That, Dobson said, just isn’t right.
“Imagine women being disembarked in Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944, when 17 or 18-year-old boys, many coming straight out of high school, fought, bled and died for their country. These fellows slogged through wet sandy beaches under a staggering load and into the face of withering machine gunfire and treacherous mines. Then, exhausted and terrified, they fought their way up heavily defended bluffs from which crack German troops rained down hell upon them.”
He continued: “Two thousand of them perished that first day. … That trauma went on for 11 months. Some units didn’t have a single survivor when it was over.”
Yet, he said, the “hoary-headed senior officers in the Pentagon pretended that women were as equipped as men to withstand physical and psychological deprivations, and then fight to the death against hardened troops with high octane testosterone surging through their veins.”
He quoted the 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert Barrow, who testified to Congress when the issue first arose years ago.
Barrow told activist lawmakers then: “This is not about women’s rights, equal opportunity, career assignments for enhancement purposes for selection to higher rank. It most assuredly is about combat effectiveness in the next conflict, and so we’re also talking about national security.
“Those who advocate change have some strange arguments. One of which is [the meaning of combat]. That women have been shot at, they’ve heard gunfire, they’ve been in areas where they could have been hit with missiles. Well, exposure to danger is not combat.”
He turned to the topic at hand.
“Combat is a lot more than that. It’s a lot more than getting shot at or even getting killed. Combat is finding and closing with and killing or capturing the enemy if you’re down in the ground combat scheme of things. It’s killing, that’s what it is. And it’s done in an environment that is often as difficult as you can possibly imagine – extreme[s of] climate, brutality, death, and dying. It’s uncivilized! And women can’t do it, nor should they be even thought of as doing it.”
Challenged by senators regarding his experience, he stated: “I was in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. I commanded in all three. And I found nowhere in my mental exploration any place for women to be down in the ground combat element.”
He cited one of America’s great military battles, the battle of Chosin Reservoir in Korea.
“First Marine Division confronting eight Chinese divisions spread out along 35 to 40-mile linear disposition … in extreme cold, minus 25. Winds out of Siberia bring[ing] the wind chill factor down to God knows what. Mountains, constant attacking, they were attacking us, we were attacking them, for days, night and day.
“Death all about, frostbite, inadequate clothing. I said, ‘Suppose we had 15 percent women, 20 percent women.’ My supposition led me to say I wouldn’t be here. I guess Kim Il Sung would be taking care of my bones along with everyone else’s.”
At the Center for Military Readiness, President Elaine Donnelly posted a report in December on McCain’s establishment of a commission to study and promote his aim: “Draft America’s Daughters.”
“Chairman McCain has long been a passionate advocate of national service mandates that would commandeer the lives of both young men and women,” she wrote.
The plan that was crafted apparently by McCain “authorizes an 11-member, politically divided commission that will have as long as three years … to spend up to $15 million per year” to work on a recommendation.
She pointed out the commission was stacked from the beginning, with “advocates of mandatory military or national service” in the majority.
In fact, she said, the report “could very well be prepared in advance.”
“If the focus were placed on military readiness, not politically correct social goals, an objective discussion would conclude that calling up equal numbers of men and women, knowing that only a small minority of women would be minimally qualified, would paralyze the system. Such a policy would hurt readiness at the worst possible time.”
Dobson said that while McCain is the “villain,” Hunter also has sponsored an amendment “that should have been called the ‘Dare you to Draft America’s Daughters.’”
“Disturbingly, new appointee as the Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, is in on the scheme, too. He nominated Rudy DeLeon to be head of Personnel and Readiness, a former Clinton administration DoD deputy secretary. DeLeon was one of the architects of Clinton’s determined efforts to repeal the DoD policy regarding homosexuals in the military.”
He noted DeLeon is a vice president at the ultra-liberal Center for American Progress.”
“America, let your voices be heard. The White House and Congress need to know where you stand,” Dobson said. “All I can do is alert you to the facts as they are known.”
NECROPOLIS AND 225
My previous book, 225, portrays a not too distant future where the Progressive revolution has run its course, folding all public institutions into itself and coalescing into a totalitarian nanny state. We follow the adventures of a high school student tasked with writing a college entrance paper on “The Evolution of Culture.” Paul decides to compare his current culture, One World, with the one that came before, the Judeo-Christian, in an effort to illustrate, what he believes is, the inevitable progression of civilizations from lower to higher, from the vulgar to the increasingly enlightened. It seems a straightforward proposition.
But he discovers that the historical record is much more nuanced than the hostile narratives he has been fed about the bloody and prejudicial Crusades, the witch holocaust and the persecution of Galileo.
And other questions arise, challenging his faith in the coherency of One World’s scientistic worldview: How can reasoning occur in a society where materialism is the accepted basis of reality for, if our thoughts are mere products of random chemical reactions in our brains—if we are biological robots—then doesn’t this lead to a wholly deterministic environment where reasoning is impossible? If there is no transcendent authority—no God to set the rules—then do our moral judgements have any legitimacy? How can we prove our core belief—that true knowledge is only obtained through science and reason—without appealing to the efficacy of the very things—science and reason—we are trying to validate?
In Necropolis we step back to the present time, where an inchoate One World is emerging. A native Indian and the President of the United States are the antagonists, representing the two worldviews, Judeo-Christian and Progressive. The President sees himself as a messiah of Progress, sent to align the people with the irresistible intent of History, but Methuselah challenges with the alternative narrative, the Gospel, God’s work in history.
While 225 offers an apologetic for historic Christendom and exposes the unacknowledged metaphysical assumptions of the Religion of Progress, Necropolis examines the prospectus of Progressivism—abortion, euthanasia, anti-Christian, anti-family, licentious—and burrows down to reveal the underlying hopes and dreams of its adherents. What drives the President to seek to establish the Progressive god-state? Why are Progressives so devoted to the Culture of Death? Why are they so consumed with matters of sexuality? Why do they despise Christians?
At one point Necropolis revisits the 1969 Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village, for they sit on the cusp of America the Christian society and America the Progressive. It’s where the gay population gave up its attempts to achieve “just like you” acceptance into Judeo-Christian society and, instead, set out to transform the dominant culture, so that it would reflect the mores and practices of the gay community. But it wasn’t just a gay movement, and the wider revolution wasn’t just about gay rights.
Other groups made common cause with the insurgents from the beginning: the Black Panther Party, feminists, anti-war demonstrators, Liberal churches and other left wing organizations. You can witness this phenomenon today at Gay Pride parades where the participants and sponsors, gay and straight, are not united by sexual orientation so much as by their commitment to the new morality, or at anti-Trump protests where the rainbow flag is brandished in support of open borders. In these venues the rainbow flag is revealed in its wider context, not merely as a banner for the homosexual revolution, but as a symbol of a much broader coalition seeking to displace Christianity with the Religion of Progress. The Gay Liberation Front Manifesto of 1971, with its gender-bending, sexual libertarianism, anti-family, anti-Christian, collectivism could be incorporated into the policy sheet of any number of contemporary groups, from Black Lives Matter to the Black Panthers, from Planned Parenthood and The Women’s March to the Democratic Party: it is antinomian, it is collectivist, and it is God-less.
The revolution the Manifesto expounded back in 1971 has been spectacularly successful. We see its effect in the normalizing of what used to be “gay” behavior—the hookup culture, the gender-bending, the disdain for heterosexual marriage and for monogamy, the commodification of children—all staples of modern Progressivism. Progressivism uses tools like sexuality, Islam, race and the environment to attack Judeo-Christian society, intending to install the Progressive god-state in its place.
The vast majority of Americans are disengaged from this struggle. They are, perhaps, disturbed by the effects—intolerance and the suppression of free speech, mob violence and intimidation, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianism, same sex marriage and the abolition of gender, the death culture of abortion and euthanasia, the victim culture, the elevation of ideology over the Constitution and of emotion over reason, fake news—but don’t recognize the driving force behind these occurrences. They don’t appreciate the momentousness of the revolution happening right before their eyes. They just swallow the revolution’s latest imposition and drift along, believing their lives won’t be affected, and that things won’t change much, after the foundational assumptions governing their society are inverted. Even those who count themselves “Christian” often endorse policies designed to expurgate Christianity from our culture and they cast votes in favor of politicians committed to Progressivism’s triumph. In this way, the Progressive revolution continues unabated.
When the traditional family disappears—marriage trivialized, children sexualized, private property abolished—and our churches are neutered, our healthcare left to government budgetary restraints and euthanasia, our interpretation of human nature and worth conscribed by Darwinian belief, our school children indoctrinated into the Religion of Progress—when the Progressive god-state rules supreme—will the open, compassionate world we have known still exist? Does the Religion of Progress really provide the foundation for human flourishing that its apostles claim?
Necropolis and 225 invite the reader to ponder this question.