Thursday, November 6, 2008

Yes we can -- draft your ass

You know, I warn, and I warn, and I warn, and I warn, but nobody listens. Don't know what I'm talking about? Read on ...

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, President-Elect Obama's choice for chief of staff in his incoming administration, is co-author of a book, The Plan, that calls for, among other things, compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25. The following excerpt is from pages 61-62 of the 2006 book:

It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.

Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist "this is not a draft," but go on to write of young men and women, "the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service." They also warn, "[s]ome Republicans will squeal about individual freedom," ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service.

As chief of staff, Emanuel will not be in a position to directly introduce public policy, but his enthusiasm for compulsory service, combined with Barack Obama's own plan to require high school students to perform 50 hours of government-approved service, suggest an unfortunate direction for the new administration.



Blogger Hypnagogue said...

Ignore the "draft" aspect for a moment. They are proposing a reserve army of 32 million people, trained to take orders from DHS, not DoD, in the event of an emergency. This is larger than any other reserve force in human history.

November 6, 2008 1:07 PM  
Blogger J.D. Tuccille said...

I wasn't even thinking of that, but you're right. That would be quite a force to have trained and at the government's command.

Even assuming a lot of resistance and get-along-to-go-along, that could be a problem ...

November 6, 2008 6:39 PM  
Blogger Scaramouche said...

They're going to take kids and force them to learn how to cope with a disaster?

That's sure to work out well.


November 6, 2008 11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL, seeing freepers wet their pants is a beautiful thing!

November 7, 2008 9:51 AM  
Blogger ran said...

They aren't drafting just freepers.

November 7, 2008 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They're going to take kids and force them to learn how to cope with a disaster?

That's sure to work out well."

Yeah, much better to just do nothing and let disasters happen WITHOUT people being prepared for them.

That's sure to work out well.


November 7, 2008 12:10 PM  
Blogger Jonathan said...

The point anonymous idiot is at that volunteer work should be volunteer. Don't you want to have the right to chose your own path in life? And let me say this again, this is just my theory. I think the whole CSF idea is a Dem idea to subvert the 2nd amendment. Their argument will be that the CSF is a "well-regulated miltia". Therefore, no one needs to personally own a gun. I wish someone would investigate this because I think that is the real goal. Not to create brownshirts.

November 7, 2008 12:19 PM  
Blogger Fjandr said...

While I am opposed to compulsory national service, Jonathan brings up an interesting issue.

If that were the goal of gun control activists, it may well backfire should compulsory service be implemented. Since all members of society would be part of the "well-regulated militia" all would positively fall into the class of people whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.

November 7, 2008 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree with Fjandr.

Democrats who espouse gun control have said that no-one needs to own a gun, no-one has the right to own a gun, and only the government has the right to keep and bear arms, or to decide who can. I say, my government doesn't have the right to deny me a means of self-defense.

The Founders knew full well that a government unresponsive to the demands of the governed might one day need to be forcibly deconstructed. The only way to do that is armed insurrection by the citizens. Which worked out well for the Revolutionary War.

But by denying gun ownership, conscripting students, and indoctrinating them, this plan will go far towards ensuring a Democratic Party stranglehold on American politics for decades to come.

If you thought Obama would simply reverse the travesties of law perpetrated in the last decade, just wait until you see the new Constitution he and his friends devise... and believe me, you won't like it.

You think Russia's bad? Or the EU? Government 2.0 is now in beta in the U.S.A., and it has more bugs and unintended side-effects than we can yet imagine.

November 7, 2008 3:17 PM  
Blogger kentuckybiblegunclinger said...

Lots of good points. When Accorn becomes the primary agency for the community defense force and receives their AK 47s isnt that when society breaks down?

November 7, 2008 6:32 PM  
Blogger Hypnagogue said...

I don't mean to sound rude, but I think you are all missing the point. When you have 32 million trained "civil defense" agents, you don't need to take away anyone's guns, and you don't need to arm ACORN with AK47s.

All you need to give them is a phone number to call, and clear instructions of exactly what sort of "civil disorder" to be alert to during the present "emergency".

The ninjas will serve you at 2AM and drag you and your spouse from your house, hoodwinked. Your computer and your personal papers will be confiscated as evidence -- and they will find the evidence they are looking for. Your children will be taken into custody, and educated on how evil their parents are, how Glorious Leader has shone mercy on them and has taken them into His Busom. Your neighbors might ask, "what ever happened to so-and-so?" and the answer will be a quick shake of the head.

One round of M855 to the back of the head, and that's all there is.

November 8, 2008 6:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a 21 year old male, and would have no qualms whatsoever in serving the country that has given me the innumerable freedoms that I have. If my age group saw the difficulties that accompanied sustaining this nation, they may be more apt to have a bit more pride. Learning how to sustain human life in the case of a national disaster may take a slight precedence over surfing the wide world of facebook.

November 8, 2008 4:36 PM  
Blogger J.D. Tuccille said...


I commend anybody -- especially a 21-year-old -- who wants to perform service in some way. But what's wrong with simply volunteering?

And what should the penalty be for those who don't want to serve -- or who do want to serve but, as a matter of principle, refuse to do so under government direction?

November 8, 2008 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good luck in making the best of it, guys. But please, don't spend all your time debating on the internet; spend some of it debating and developing in the real world also.

And FYI: Here in Norway, every male is required to serve 12 months military, or 18 months civilian service. Girls may volunteer. In later years, many recruits are being thrown out, but still a large portion of the population have completed service. Some move on to international operations (like ISAF). That don't mean we take orders blindly.

(Yeah, I know; You are 100x more people than us, you inhabit most of a continent, you have a somewhat dirty political/military history, and you have a pretty different mentality than us. Plus, you've never been neighbors to a super-power, and never been invaded by a foreign nation (well, at least not in the last couple generations))

Most of you are good, (somewhat) honest and interesting people. You are letting a small minority manipulate you. Don't fight over Creationism/Evolution. Teach the kids all versions, and what you think; then they'll think something better than you. Please teach your upcoming generation to think freely. Their future depends on it. Think long-term; Not for yourself, but for the ones that comes after you. Help make them better than yourself.

I hope you are able to clean house and once again become that shining beacon deserving of the worlds respect.


November 11, 2008 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Chief Mack said...

Yet another sign of the Left's complete break with the real world.

I am a current military member, recalled 2x since 9/11, including one tour in Iraq. Based on my 15 years experience and being a senior enlisted NCO, no one wants the pool of misfits and malcontents that this program would create.

Traineers for this program would be confronted mostly with rebellious and unmotivated young men and women, hostile to any attempted training. These conscripts don't even have to openly rebel and subject themselves to possible legal consequences; they only have to do a really half-assed job at any task assigned. This is precisely why most leaders in the military shudder at the thought of compulsary military service.

The ability to function well in adverse conditions as a TEAM requires constant training and faith in fellow team members. It is ludicrous on its face to think that this organization could do anything other than waste its members time and cost the taxpayers enormously in money and lost productivity.

A far better idea is to expand the National Guard program. You could even go so far as to create a parallel civilian component that could not be used for military purposes. People could voluntarily enlist in this civilian component in exchange for scholarships, vocational training, and pay in the form of weekend drills and 2 weeks annual training.

Under this model, the civlian National Guard could replace the military version for disaster relief, undergo regional-specific training (does Illinois need hurricane recovery training?), and be subject to individual Governors' control, not the President's.

This force would far more likely perform well when needed, even if significantly smaller in terms of manpower, than Emmanuel's proposal. Plus, it would likely be enormously cheaper, AND not infringe on our civil liberties.

November 12, 2008 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree completely with Mack. Requiring 18-25 year olds to complete such training would infringe upon the freedom of those individuals. A recent hurricane along the Texas gulf coast prompted my state's governor to deploy more than 5,000 national guard troops to the area. These people volunteered for such duties and were trained to handle these situations, and in my opinion in conjunction with local law enforcement this was more than enough!

I do see this from more of a personal perspective because I am within this age bracket, and dont get me wrong I would glady defend my country and liberty if a draft were ever instated, but I will not sit through some arbitrary classes and undergo grueling, painstaking training unless the country absolutely needs me to. Call me crazy but it is border line socialism.

November 12, 2008 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel your slightly jumping the gun here...I also feel your completely moron...And need to get laid...

Your little website...It's going to change the world, it isn't going to effect anything.


Do your research before you start slamming the new man.

March 23, 2009 11:23 AM  
Blogger Paula said...

I like the idea of compusory service. We need to evolve into a country that develops its youth in such a manner that we accept the responsibility that comes with freedom....Oh an I just love our new administration, it's about time that the right realized that the left is fullof smart, successful people that just want to do the right thing

April 6, 2009 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Chief Mack, and would like to add the most important detail.
The constitution doesn't allow "Involuntary Servitude", and that is the law. They can sweeten it's name, but that is what it is!
If it were voluntary, it would work much better to have those with the attitude to do this.
To mandate, means to throw kids that may have health issues, mental issues and bad attitudes into the mix, and that won't work.
I know other countries may do this, but this is America and our first duty is to the constitution and the protection thereof, even if we disagree. We must have a foundation first to go by.

April 8, 2009 8:34 PM  
Blogger Ziv Zulander said...

Paula, you're holding contradictory ideas in your head and you need to stop. Freedom != mandatory. By your very statement you lend credence to the idea that people on the Left hold smug attitudes that they and only they can decide what to do for the everyone else. That the majority can't raise their own children. Wrong!

April 13, 2009 9:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home