Interesting word, ideologue. He can be an individual or an entire nation that is uncompromising and dogmatic in a system of belief. Reason and practicality have no place here. Blind, unquestioning faith are what counts.

When a nation comes under the sway of ideologues, the result can be appalling.

Satellite photos taken of the Korean Peninsula at night give a visual example of an ossified system of faith. The southern half of the peninsula is brightly lit; that's South Korea alive with vibrant political and economic freedom.

Then, along a sharp line that divides the peninsula in half, the northern part turns coal black. That's North Korea, ruled by the quasi-religious faith in communism.

One would suppose that the political leaders of North Korea, seeing the dismal failure of communism contrasted so vividly with their neighbors to the South, would recognize which system is successful and adapt to it. But no. They are ideologues. Results are irrelevant. Adherence to the faith is all that matters.

Think not that the US is immune to the irrationality of ideologues. Their influence permeates the military.

No, it's not communism, but rather another form of an ideology called, egalitarianism. Egalitarians believe that all people are equal; this includes the sexes. An egalitarian considers that women are undersized men and men are oversized women. Excepting size, the sexes are equal, and both deserve the same opportunities.

Just a few weeks ago the Army inducted two women into their elite fighting force, the Rangers. Did that make the Rangers a more effective fighting force? Far from it. But to egalitarians that's not the point; equality is their objective, not combat effectiveness.

Now the Navy is doubling down on the Army. The SEALs are next to disembark at petticoat junction.

If Rangers---the old Rangers---earned a Scout merit badge, then SEALs wear the Eagle Scout emblem; it's ten times tougher.

Start with an average class of 120 men, not ordinary applicants, mind you, they are extraordinarily qualified. These candidates are physically ripped, whip-smart, and have a steely resolve to succeed.

After a grueling a six-month SEAL training ordeal only 16 of the 120 remain. And they are still not SEALs.

It takes two more years of advanced training before a SEAL is ready to be deployed and can join his 2,500 fellow SEALs as a comrade in arms.

As a rule, the strongest female recruit is as strong as the weakest male recruit. It's a given that the services try to weed out the weakest men. That alone eliminates women from many positions. What chance, then, does a woman have of even being considered for SEAL training? Answer: An excellent chance.

Obama's perfumed surrogates in the military hierarchy want women in all positions, bar none. And that's the way it will eventually be with the SEALs.

First, physical standards will be drastically lowered, then training completely revamped to be “sex neutral,” and finally all impediments to the success of female trainees removed.

Second, extensive changes must be made to accommodate women: separate barracks, women-only showers, privacy considerations, and additional medical personnel (they have four times the injuries as men). Similar changes were made aboard ships and in submarines for co-sex crews.

In the past, these modifications have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, weakened unit cohesion, degraded morale, and lowered crew performance. But the ideologues remain resolutely indifferent; that's the price for equality.

Currently, 15 percent of the armed services are women; or 1.4 million women distributed among the four services. To that degree, the military has been emasculated and feminized. Without resorting to pointed Anglo-Saxonisms, military men describe “gender integration” as a disaster. But to ideologues, it's an on-going success in social equality.

There is, however, a more troubling question. It is not whether women should be combat soldiers, but rather this: Is it morally acceptable to even consider putting women into foxholes?

It has always been part of our Christian heritage for men to protect women and guard the family. Even during the closing days of WW II when the Soviets were closing in on Berlin with 1 million men against 100,000 defenders did the Germans ever consider placing women in harm's way. Boys yes, even those in their early teens, yes, pensioners, yes, walking wounded, yes, but girls or women, never.

Many readers will remember the time when exposing women to danger was unthinkable, unmanly, unchristian, and un-American. Now, however, integrating women into front-line battle positions is systematically being implemented in the military.

Lady Liberty bows her head and sheds a tear. For shame, America, for shame.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

Following the recent shooting at Roseburg, Oregon (one of far too many), Ben Carson-- whose sanity I've doubted in the past-- reiterated a popular (and dangerous) misconception of the Second Amendment.  It's long past time this misconception was refuted.

To Carson, and to gun obsessives in general, the alleged purpose of the Second Amendment is as a check and balance, so citizens can have the option of using armed force against the government.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Do you think for one minute that the framers of our government would invite people to take up arms against them?  "Got a grievance?  Come shoot us!"

Nothing refutes this notion more than the historic record of when people did confront the government with arms.  History books used by schoolkids still mention Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion, et al.  Disgruntled groups of irrational hotheads sometimes took up arms against the government, and whenever they did, they were put down by that same government.  As well they should be!  In fact, Washington himself sent troops to Pennsylvania to crush the Whisky Rebellion.

So-called conservatives claim to believe in Original Intent.  Well, the record of the Founding Fathers' constitutional deliberations shows their intent when it came to the Second Amendment.  The states didn't trust a distant Federal government to be able to keep order internally.  They wanted the right to have state militias to do the job.  Hence the first clause of the Amendment, which propagandists all too often delete.  (They also chafe at the "well-regulated" part.  For who regulates but the government?)  It was precisely to put down, not to authorize, these private little armies that the Second Amendment exists.  Furthermore, bearing arms is a collective, not an individual, right-- notwithstanding an ideologically stacked Supreme Court's recent decision in the Heller case.  The fact that it took 220 years to find an individual right here underscores the fishiness of their 5-4 verdict.

The "to take on the government" excuse is one for criminals and lunatics.  As long as we have the right to speak out, to vote, and to access the courts, there should be no silly seditious talk of taking up arms against our own government!  Even if that were a legitimate objective, it's an absolutely impractical one in this day and age.  Fine, hothead, you go up against the government with your precious semiautomatic, and they can counter you with tanks, RPG's and missiles!  Or perhaps you think the "right to bear arms" should include all these things, even nuclear arms?  Why not?  "Nukes don't kill people-- people kill people."  The NRA-sponsored redefinition of the Second Amendment is not only a historic lie, it's a suicide pact.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA

The New Oil and Gas Regulations and Still Little Protection for the People.

PA DEP revises regulations for oil and gas and might as well have no regulations. They allow gas pads within 200' of schools and playgrounds. Can you imagine that? What kind of protection is this? A farce needs to be protested and exposed.

Gas wells are allowed within 100' of water bodies and wetlands and exceptional value waters, again, horrible regulations and no protection. Anyone should realize that this is not to be allowed and a farce of protection.

DEP admits to storage pits for production fluids waste. What are they thinking? We still have pits for such waste.

This they call revised and somehow an improvement. Can you imagine 
what regulations they are revising.

There are more horrors, but I'm recovering from just writing about these. Be grateful you don't live in the fracked counties of PA.

Would you want this next to your homes and schools? Why expose any of us to this, when we can invest these billions into solar farms, wind farms, and other non-fossil-non-carbon energies.

Sincerely,

Vera Scroggins

Brackney, PA