There's a reason to shudder.
"Hello everyone, welcome to Civilian Service training. I'd like you to meet our friendly trainers..."
Posted on 07/27/2010 7:13:58 PM PDT by Man50D
A bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., would reinstate a compulsory military draft during war time and require U.S. citizens not selected for military duty to perform a "national service obligation" – as defined by President Obama – for a minimum of two years.
Rangel introduced the Universal National Service Act, or H.R. 5741 on July 15. The measure was referred to the House Armed Services' Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23.
Rangel introduced similar bills in 2003, 2006 and 2007. His current bill does not have a co-sponsor.
Rangel took to the floor of the House to reintroduce HR 5741, stating, "I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is HR 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they're men or women, whether they're straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks 444! Have a great day.
He wants a draft? Compulsory service? Fine.
Step one: read the Militia Act of 1792, wherein ALL able-bodied citizens of service age were REQUIRED to own standard military gear, and would participate in periodic training. Today that translates to every 17-45 year old (women included to be fair) owning a full-auto M16 (and that means OWN, at personal expense, at home, not just a loaner when doing an annual drill for 10 rounds) with monthly live-fire combat training (not ladeling soup for the homeless). Every town square would be converted to a firing range. And, of course, carrying that M16 everywhere would be a given.
"... to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened."
First off, the *opportunity* is already (always) there, compulsion is not opportunity.
But why does 0bama get to define "a national service obligation"? Why is he specified, not "the president", whoever is sitting in the chair? A committed Marxist is going to determine what future generations of Americans will be compelled to do as a condition of citizenry? I don't think so!
Exactly, this is a terrible bill to begin with, but then to give that power to one person is way too much.
There's a reason to shudder.
"Hello everyone, welcome to Civilian Service training. I'd like you to meet our friendly trainers..."
" . . . and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they're men or women . . . "
This would run head-on with the Christian faith of millions of Americans.
We knew it would only be a matter of time before legislation would be introduced to draft women.
Imagine drafting women up to 42 years of age!
At 42 years of age my wife was expecting her seventh baby. Three other children were still at home, and we were then, as always, home schooling.
We had a larger family because of our faith. My wife has never worked for an employer outside of our home since marriage because of our faith. We have always home schooled because of our faith.
There are multitudes of Americans just the same way.
Translation: There are too high of a percentage of blacks and Hispanics currently in the military, while too many whites are indifferent to the sacrifices they are making. So I'll fix it so that more whites are "being placed in harm's way."
...ML/NJWhen comparing these wartime recruits (2003- 2005) to the resident population ages 18-24 (as recorded in Census 2000), areas with median household income levels between $35,000 and $79,999 were overrepresented, along with income categories between $85,000 and $94,999. (See Chart 2.) Though the mainstream media continue to portray the war in Iraq as unpopular, this evidence suggests that the United States is not sending the poor to die for the interests of the rich.
With the addition of data for the 2004 and 2005 recruits, the quintile trends noted in the previous report are even more striking. (See Table 1.) From 2003 to 2005, the representation of the highest-income quintile rose 0.68 percentage point, from 22.17 percent to 22.85 percent. As conflict in Iraq continues, youth from wealthy areas continue to volunteer for duty despite increased risk. Additionally, over the course of these three recruit years, representation from the poorest quintile has decreased dramatically. The representation among recruits of the lowest-income quintile fell nearly a full percentage point, from 14.61 percent in 2003 to 13.66 percent in 2005.
...
According to the 2004 Census ACS, 75.6 percent of the national adult population self-identifies as belonging to the racial category white alone. In both 2004 and 2005, 73.1 percent of recruits were classified as white alone. This indicates a recruit-to-population ratio of 0.97, with 1.00 indicating an exact proportional representation. (See Table 4.) Whites are the most proportionally represented racial group among recruits. Excluding the group of a combination of two or more races, minority representation varies between being moderately proportional to extremely disproportional. The most overrepresented group is Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander, with a ratio of 7.49 in 2005, or an overrepresentation of 649 percent. The Asian category is the most underrepresented group, with a ratio of 0.69 in 2005.
...
I don’t think Rangel has seen those numbers. He would be about the last member of the House to read a Heritage Foundation report. He prefers to engage in legislating based on his personal analysis, which - as is so often the case with leftists in government - is at odds with reality. (Just like ObamaCare, cap and trade, stimulus, etc., etc.)
Thats what they alled patriotism in the old days. Rangel assumes that racial or ethnic minority soldiers are not patriotic.
Try putting that over on Lt.Col, West ( retired) who is running for a Florida congressional seat.
The real problem for Rangel andhis leftists is hat soldiering makes racial and ethnic minority soldiers into patriots. They want that stopped.
Why? Ask youself why the DOJ will not let soldiers serving overseas vote by absentee ballot this November?
Rangel is a trasonous SOB. A crooked one at that. Sooner gone, the better.I would like to see him in Afghanistan,walking the line.
Fascism on the rise.
We want Acorn like mobs in national service, dedicated to the community organizing nationalist socialist model, not patriots! /s
Thanks justiceseeker93.
I will not be your slave Rangel.
Also I’m sick of hearing young adults that choose to join the military referred to as “children”.
Well, at least it’s not 2,000 pages long. (LOL!)
>>>>That’s what they called “slavery” in the old days.<<<<
>>Thats what they alled patriotism in the old days. Rangel assumes that racial or ethnic minority soldiers are not patriotic. <<
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
My point is that Rangel is trying to press people into “national service” (servitude), under the false equivalence to military service.
I know that was your point. But the bigger view is that they want to segregate the armed forces and bring on ethnic conflict in America.Its also the reason why all the voting districts under the 2010 census will be re arrangesd to consolidate ethnic communities into independent voting blocks.
Polarization is the name of the fascist game.
Few see the fascist plan, and believe me, it is fascist.
I wasn;t criticizing your point, I was expanding on it.
Here is a good article on the master plan, inside which all these gaffs and initiatives around race are occurring.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
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.