Posted on 11/23/2006 8:03:16 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
It didn’t take long, did it? The Democratic Congressional majority is unflinchingly leading us into that promised new direction, bowling us over with excitingly innovative ideas even before officially taking over.
An example of the daring, novel approaches we can expect came this weekend from New York’s Charles Rangel, who’ll chair the Ways and Means Committee, arguably the most powerful panel in Congress. Mr. Rangel will wield a big gavel; when he talks, people – especially his colleagues – listen.
The Congressman told CBS News’ Face the Nation viewers he will initiate legislation reintroducing the military draft.
The irony is delicious. Only 38 percent of young people (18-29) voted for Republican Congressional candidates earlier this month. Doubtless that percentage was even lower among college students naïve enough to buy the Leftist propaganda that permeates campuses across the nation.
They’ve heard the rumors that there were plans to start up the draft. Supposedly, though, it was George Bush and those bellicose Republicans who were going to sneak it through when no one was paying attention. That’s what Democrats said.
John Kerry told the Des Moines Register in October of 2004 that if Mr. Bush were re-elected there’d be a “great potential” for a military draft. That same month, Washington Congressman Jim McDermott was quoted in the Washington Times: “Nobody trusts them (Congressional Republicans). … It’s pretty clear, if George Bush is re-elected, there is going to be a draft.” Texas’ Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (Have I ever mentioned extreme caution need be exercised in trusting women with hyphenated names?) warned that “there is a secret plan for a draft.”
This isn’t Mr. Rangel’s first effort to revive conscription. His most recent attempt was in February.
That proposal required mandatory military service for every man and women between the ages of 18 and 42. When I was drafted a lifetime ago, the “old guys” were about 25. And, of course, women weren’t drafted at all. Talk about going in a new direction.
What if the military didn’t need all the people who’d be called? Crafty Charlie contemplated that possibility. They’d be required to perform some national civilian service.
There would be exceptions. Deferments would be granted up to the age of 20 for people to complete high school, an obvious pandering to Democrats, many of whom require at least that much time. Moreover, there’d be deferments for “reasons of health, conscience or religious belief.”
Interestingly, Rangel said that he didn’t expect his own bill to pass. A press release he issued claimed he wanted “for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed . . . A draft would ensure that every economic group would have to do their share, and not allow some to stay behind while other people’s children do the fighting.”
It’s difficult to take seriously a Congressman who uses the legislative process to propose laws that he doesn’t think will pass only to make a political point. The system is already too bogged down to waste time on meaningless “constant reminders.”
When Mr. Rangel introduced a 2003 draft bill that applied to men and women from 18 to 26, it garnered 14 cosponsors, all Democrats. A similar bill was then introduced in the Senate by South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings.
The House voted on Rangel’s 2003 bill in 2004. Rangel himself voted against it, complaining that Republicans didn’t permit a full airing of the issues associated with renewing conscription.
Mr. Rangel’s draft scheme underscores a significant philosophical difference between many liberals and many conservatives. Liberals often view individuals as entirely subservient to the government.
When Clinton was president, he explained why tax cuts weren’t a good idea even when the Federal government has budget surpluses: “We could give it (the tax surplus) all back to you and hope you spend it right. But if you don’t spend it right. . . ” The premise here is that government has first claim on your money. You get what’s left only with its permission. And you’d better use it the “right” way.
Mrs. Clinton shares that outlook, saying that “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” Liberals believe what’s best for society is determined by government.
The draft is an idea whose time hasn’t returned. Most Americans oppose it after our three decades of experience with an all-volunteer force.
Mr. Rangel’s previous moves to reinstitute conscription were futile. That was when he was a lonely voice in the minority. Now, however, he’ll be an influential committee chairman exerting remarkable pressure on his Democratic colleagues.
Leaders such as Nancy Pelosi can claim that a draft will never happen. They used to say the same thing about giving away the Panama Canal.
Is Mr. Rangel serious in bringing up the matter once again or is it just another reminder of how he can waste everyone’s time? I wonder how many citizens today wish they could take their votes back.
What a monuMental idiot.
Rangel shows what side he is really on here.
I guess they will need more troops for the coming screw up in Iraq.
That's where this is really leading... mandatory national "service", which will require young folks to perform any number of liberal activities: campaign for Dems door-to-door, assist Jimmuh Carter as he monitors the elections of Marxists in South America, that sort of thing...
Screw the Democrats. Nothing would weaken the will of the nation in the Iraq campaign than campus riots over a draft.
I really find Democrats disgusting.
Welcome to FR, and a Happy Thanksgiving to you!
Yep, we are registering the young men as we 'peak.'
This won't come up for a vote. If it does, it won't pass. If it does, it won't overcome a veto (assuming Bush is capable of one more veto).
This is all publicity. Sharpton, Jackson, Rangel. They're all about grandstanding and publicity.
OK, forget about the draft.
The issue is, how do we get the elites in our society, the ones benefitting most from America's blessings, to contribute their share to the defense of the country.
If you do a survey of all those people in the news, the politicians, the pundits, the journalists, the academics, the celebrities, the movie stars, the pro atheletes, the CEOs, you will find few of them or their children who would ever think of putting on the uniform.
Compare that to WW II, where all of Roosevelt sons and the DiMaggios and Williams and Gables and Stewarts and the graduates of Yale and Harvard and Princeton served. If the War Against Islamofascism is our WW III, why don't you start putting the pressure on those elites to serve?
Imagine a Ben Affleck or Alex Rodriguez or Bill Gates or Peyton Manning calling a press conference announcing that they are joining up and encourage their peers to do likewise.
Let's have a little less knee-jerk on this issue and start pointing the finger at those who take much but give little. Rather than the empty words "I support the troops", let's hear "I want to join them".
Big assumption.
I think we'd better consider the possibility this is more than a grand gesture by the Dims.
A draft would offer two advantages for them:
1.)A large force of warm bodies they could assign wherever they wanted. This would attract outside sources of political support.This would increase their power.
2.) Control or influence over the assignments given to individuals within their districts. This would strengthen them within out borders, thus also increase their power.
I think we'd better assume they're sincere.
This is actually, unbelievably true. The full quote is:
"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right. But if you don't spent it right, here's what's going to happen."
Of all the donkeys, Rangel is the dumbest ass of the lot.
Regards.
The answer is, don't forget about the draft.
I don't know what Rangel's reason(s) are for proposing a return to the draft and quite frankly, I don't care, but he's right. I hope it comes up for lengthy debates in the House and the Senate. If it does, it should include the registration and the drafting of women.
What you are suggesting just might push this country over the edge.
over the edge, how so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.