Friday, July 16, 2010

Charlie Rangel Proposes Slavery

Rep Charles Rangel (D-NY) has introduced a bill to re-instate the Draft. It will require compulsory service in either a military or civilian capacity during times of war or national emergency. See the text at OPEN CONGRESS or THOMAS.

True to his Statist beliefs (no man is above the State), service to the State is paramount in his view. Charles Rangel never met a tax hike he didn't support, a gun restriction he didn't endorse, or a crime he was above committing. To this we now get to include support for involuntary servitude. You know, SLAVERY.

The last time I checked, my copy of the Constitution had this little note added to it in 1865 called the Thirteenth Amendment. You know, that pesky addition that abolished slavery? Yeah, that one.

Maybe in Charlie Rangel's view, our professional and highly-skilled volunteer army has too many minorities and women in it. Maybe in Charlie Rangel's view, the military is not a proper avenue to escape cyclical poverty and learn valuable life skills while serving your country. Maybe in Charlie Rangel's view, proposing the draft is a back-handed way to ensure that only the rich kids get to serve. I don't know.

I tried to join when I was 18, and failed the physical. I was heart-broken because I really WANTED to serve. The people in our armed forces right now serve because they want to, not because they have to. Our military is better as a result of motivated people striving to do the best job possible. The lying political scum like Rangel, who disdain them, are irrelevant to the esprit d'corps.

Charlie Rangel, you are deceitful, despicable, and corrupt. You are an oxygen thief of the lowest order. I sincerely hope that you get all of the justice you deserve. You will have earned All of the tar and feathers that are your due.



Newbius said...

Adding this as an afterthought. The bill essentially provides for mandatory universal service, at the discretion of the President and answerable to him alone.

I wonder what form the domestic, civilian service would take? Is it much of a stretch to envision Obama Youth, Gauleiters, or Block Captains in order to enforce "domestic order"?

The real test will be to see if this legislation gets traction, or sits idly. I do not have enough faith in Rangel's intelligence to believe that this action is occurring without Leadership oversight and approval.

Old NFO said...

New- you got it in the comment... All I can think of is Brown Shirts...

Geodkyt said...

Rangle has been tossing out the draft idea since 2002. The primary reason he wants a draft is SPECIFICALLY to cripple the military. A slave army of voters and the children of voters will NEVER be deployed -- the mindset that accepted the draft in WWI, WWII, Korea, and most of Vietnam is simply absent from most of society.

NOTE -- the draft has functioned best when it was imposed during POPULAR periods of military service, including "the Good Wars" of WWI and WWII, as well as peacetime service during the first 20 years of the Cold War. When wars were unpopular amongst large segments of the population -- the Civil War, Korea, the latter half of Vietnam -- the draft was widely opposed, heavily dodged, and functioned poorly. In other words, conscription for Americans works best NOT as a tool to force manpower -- but as a centralized manpower allocation tool to balance the needs of the various services and the civilian economy. American conscrition is a wonderful tool for socialist and fascist central economic coordination; not so great for it's alleged purpose -- to provide a military that will fight.

I have never understood how SCOTUS maganed to square the 13th Amendment with the draft. Despite what traditional obligations a citizen has always had to his nation (that's the justification of teh draft), the 13th Amendment EXPLICITLY states that slavery or involuntary servitude can be imposed ONLY on convicts as part of their sentence.

Unless you're only planning on drafting NEW convicts (ex post facto and all that), I don't see how the draft can possibly be constitutional.

Now, I have a way that you make the draft perfectly constitutional, by making sticking your name in the lottery pool 100% voluntary. . . but to make that work would require two things:

1. That Congress makes the acceptance of ANY federal job or benefit (other than those that are rights) contingent on voluntarily sticking your name in the hat. Student loan, farm subsidies, food stamps -- ALL of it. The Democrats will NEVER go for that -- it will actually require too many of their voters to take responsibility.

2. You would have to come up with a plan so that there is no draft cut off at a young age, else someone just hold out until that age before applying for any federal beenfit or job. This would have the effect of making the draft something that would affect only the poor who cannot afford to wait until age 25 or 30 without taking a dime in federal hand outs. That means we WILL be drafting middle aged folks -- although probably not as infantry privates in their cases. But you have to answer the question -- what sort of "draft" duty would YOU assign a middle aged farmer? You going to make him work on the People's Collective Farm for two years?

Of course, you would still have the problem that our military is currently geared around volunteer professionals, not reluctant conscripts. That one factoid affects almost EVERYTHING about how the military operates, form pay and personnel issues to tactics and long term logistics!

Newbius said...

RE your point #1: The Federal Government currently makes eligibility for, and acceptance of, any Federal benefit by male citizens contingent upon registration for Selective Service. Note that registration is mandatory and not voluntary right now.

Also, it is interesting to discover that there exists some evidence that our current President only registered for Selective Service in 2008. I wonder how that one slipped through the cracks for a male citizen? If my experience with my two sons is any indication, Selective Service registration is must-have for federal student loans for college and they started getting reminders well prior to turning 18. As a matter of fact, I received notices prior to my 18th birthday too, and I am roughly the same age as PrezBO. Kind of makes you wonder if the Birthers are on to something...