A stealth bill to make military service mandatory has been slithering through Congress unnoticed and will be discussed tomorrow, June 6. Time to mobilize.
H.R. 4752: Universal National Service Act of 2006
Introduced: Feb 14, 2006
Sponsor: Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
emphasis added
To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
There’s no mainstream news on this anywhere. None. zilch. A Democrat proposes mandatory service for everyone and it’s not deemed newworthy by meainstream media? The blogsphere has picked on it. Just in the past few hours too.
This noxious turd of a bill apparently will be discussed tomorrow,Wed. June 6. Let’s stop it.
And yes, a Democrat proposed it.
Hat tip to reader Daniel Rivera-Franqui.
Update: Sue say Rangel has been trying this for years…
[tags]HR 4752[/tags]
Mr. Rangel has been proposing this legislation since the war began (or before).
Let’s hope it doesn’t pass this time.
I for one hope this *does* pass. It would make several people that are too lazy to get up off their duff and do something finally speak up. No better way to get people active than to involve them, especially when its involuntary.
With a net that large, its obviously just a cry for help. If they really wanted to have this pass and stick around to help their cause, it would be limited to the 18 to 25 crowd thats not in college or secondary education.
One reason that anti-war sentiment has been less than overwhelming is because it’s a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight. With upper- and middle-class Americans not being taxed to support the war, and not having their children conscripted to fight it, there’s no incentive to oppose it. Put a Congressman’s son in harm’s way and Daddy may think twice before sending in the Army and the Marines if junior’s going to be a grunt on the ground.
There’s always the possibility that a larger army may encourage the neocons to more elaborate dreams: Iran, North Korea, maybe even France. But with the armed forces more representative of American society, I think it doubtful that middle-class Americans would sit back. Is it ethical to accept the slaughter of the indigent because they don’t have options? No, but it’s what’s happened, and I think Rangel’s bill would prevent that. Frankly, drafting the Bush twins and Paris Hilton might do them some good.
It will start a revolt for sure. But worse than Vietnam war. Already the
US is screwing over its people and murdering them. Now they want us to ‘serve’ them? I think not!!!
No benifits for GIs, the VA is bogus, as is the GI Bill, poor retirement, what more could ya ask for? Put money into defense contractors pockets while youth bleeds on some stinkin’ battlefield. NO WAY!
Which is why it’s predominantly the poor and minorities who serve in combat positions. That doesn’t bother you? Rangel’s view is that if we spread the burden, the middle class would be a lot more vocal about not sending troops to distant lands– and he’s right.
That’s pretty much the way it was back when I enlisted – to beat the draft, not, in the end, that it mattered – in ’71. I didn’t want to spend my life on a cattle ranch a hundred miles east of Nowhere, Eastern Oregon for a hundred bucks a month and found. Didn’t take long to learn I was little different than the black from The Bronx or Mexican of the barrios… saving my life, no doubt. The WRAPs (White Relatively Affluent People) beat the draft, and never enlisted.
I’m sure it’s just the way it is, somethings’l never change.
I’ve been a supporter of Rangel’s proposal all along – when the prissy little white boys – read Emerson, Lake and Palmer’s Lucky Man – start dying the WRAPs will stop sending their boys to war.