RUTHFULLY YOURS

Ms. Pulley, a 2000 graduate of West Point, is a former captain in the U.S. Army.

With Capt. Kristen Griest and First Lt. Shaye Haver recently becoming the first female soldiers to complete Army Ranger School, demands for the complete integration of women in the U.S. military are growing. In 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground-combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions.

As a former captain and airborne soldier in the Army’s Second Infantry Division Support Command, I say be careful what you wish for. Overturning a long-standing tradition in a martial organization like the U.S. military will undoubtedly have unintended consequences. I am particularly concerned with demands that the Army permit women to join its Infantry Branch.

Don’t misunderstand, I was thrilled when Capt. Griest and First Lt. Haver earned their Ranger tabs. I was especially pleased when Army cadre and peers assured me that the Ranger School’s high standards were maintained. As a woman, I support equal rights to a sensible point. At the same time, women must acknowledge that equality does not mean selective equality. I wish it did. I want to see those hard-charging, superwomen sisters of mine pursue every career opportunity the military offers men. No doubt they can do it—and do it well. But Ranger School for these two exceptional individuals is not the same as allowing women to serve in the infantry.

Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of Britain’s Labour Party is being cheered on the right as a gift—as close as you get in politics to a guarantee that your side will win an election that’s still five years out. Mr. Corbyn leans so far left that he might not be able to assemble a parliamentary shadow cabinet, never mind a governing majority.

That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that the political ascent of a man who admires Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and keeps company with Holocaust deniers is another milepost in Britain’s long decline amid a broader unraveling in the West.

The phrase “Only a Clinton” entered our lexicon in the nineties. Ever since then the unsinkable Clintons have continued spewing outrageous lies and ridiculous ploys that only a Clinton could get away with.

Hillary Clinton tried campaigning for the White House without actually taking positions on anything. Iran was a particularly touchy subject because the Democratic Party has two constituencies that are sharply divided on the issue. Jewish voters oppose the deal while left-wing voters back it.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t pander to both at the same time. Or could she?

Hillary Clinton endorsed the deal while in true “Only a Clinton” style running against it. She endorsed the deal using militant rhetoric that threatened Iran with war. Her message is that she endorses a deal that gives Iran near zero breakout time to the bomb and lets it self-inspect and fund terrorists, but that she’ll be the toughest terror deal supporter you ever saw. No one will be tougher on that deal than her.

Only a Clinton.

This isn’t the first time that Hillary Clinton pulled that particular scam. Trying to get Americans to forget about her infamous “Reset Button” photo, she compared Putin to Hitler. (But if Putin was Hitler, that would have made her Neville Chamberlain or, considering her politics, Vyacheslav Molotov.) It was over the top and even the media took her to task for it.

Hillary Clinton has vowed to crack down on for-profit colleges. Very interesting. We wonder if she or her aides have looked at the new “college scorecard” that the Obama Administration released on the weekend.

The online tool, which provides data on college costs, graduation rates, average graduate debt and future earnings, is intended to help would-be students make more informed decisions. Who knows if kids will be enlightened, but the scorecard is a better alternative to the ratings plan that the White House scrapped over the summer to tie student aid to the government’s value judgments.

A major political goal of the scorecard is to steer students away from for-profit colleges, which educate a disproportionate share of low-income and non-traditional students like single parents. As a result, for-profit schools don’t perform as well as nonprofit and public colleges on measures like debt and graduation rates on the Obama scorecard.

Some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists were hauled before the farcical “Human Rights Commissions” of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act.

The Commission is allowed to head out all by itself and search for things that are offensive. One must wonder whether it may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?

The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of “hate speech” — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words.

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/09/14/why-have-arab-countries-abandoned-muslim-refugees-on-the-glazov-gang/

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was hosted by Ari David, the host of the Ari David Show Podcast, and joined by Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know.

Nonie discussed Why Have Arab Countries Abandoned Muslim Refugees?, and analyses why the media won’t demand that Arab nations take care of their own.

Don’t miss it!