T1B

House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

Legislation intensifies fears about Obama’s civilian national security force


The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.

Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.

The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.

Fears about Obama’s plans to create involuntary servitude were first stoked in July 2008, when Obama told a rally in Colorado Springs, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.

In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006.

“The bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service,” reports Fox.

R-Jack wrote:Wait,

So now are we going to compare EVERY sitting president to Hitler?

Kinda loses it's impact if that's the case.

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.

Pretty disturbing (to say the least) that a bill such as this would even be proposed, let alone passed by a vote of ... 321-105.

That's not a typo?

Fuck me, man.


Mandatory national service, other than a draft, is blatantly unconsitutional.

R-Jack wrote:Wait,

So now are we going to compare EVERY sitting president to Hitler?

Kinda loses it's impact if that's the case.

We? In your world pikkkel is a part of the "we?"

And yes I would say that to your face...
Bitch.

Sudden Sam wrote:Let's see...mandatory national service, whether it be in the military or in some other capacity...would markedly cut down on unemployment, youth crime, the complete lack of discipline among a huge number of kids, etc.

Seems to work pretty well in Israel.

Sounds like something that should have been instituted a loooong time ago and we wouldn't have the numbers of kids we do in jails and prisons. A minimum of two years sounds good. Might make everyone appreciate what we have here instead of taking it for granted. Can't see how anyone could find fault with such a plan.

Having lazy kids get off their asses and do something is a good idea. Lots of things are good ideas. They just shouldn't be done from the national level.

Sam, Jsc, a lot of unconstitutional things might sound good.

But wait until "someone" jams something unconstitutional on you that you don't think sounds so good.

You gonna sing happy songs then, too?


Straight up, there is NO constitutional authority by which the gov can force "youth" to serve.

Why do you hate freedom?


Get fucked.

Sudden Sam wrote:Let's see...mandatory national service, whether it be in the military or in some other capacity...would markedly cut down on unemployment, youth crime, the complete lack of discipline among a huge number of kids, etc.

Seems to work pretty well in Israel.

Sounds like something that should have been instituted a loooong time ago and we wouldn't have the numbers of kids we do in jails and prisons. A minimum of two years sounds good. Might make everyone appreciate what we have here instead of taking it for granted. Can't see how anyone could find fault with such a plan.

Good bye college sports.

Let's see I am a high school grad ready to go to college. Suddenly I am drafted into the trash clean up patrol for 8 mile in Detroit. I walk 10 miles a day cleaning trash from the streets. In two years I am going to be ready to step foot on campus at RICE ready to play football? RIIIIIIIIIGHT!

Forcing anyone to do anything is never a good idea. Any one with kids should know that.

This is nothing but a first class horrible idea. No doubt certain exceptions will be made and as soon as that happens it opens the door for race, class, background claims of discrimination.

How is this any different than the draft during the cold war ?

National Defense and security can have a very broad interpretation, which is why I assume they are classifying this under "Security", "Civil Defense" and the like.

I want to thank you by the way. I did end up becoming a waterboy for the National Guard. What was interesting is that not only did I swear an oath to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, but also to the Constitution of the United States. To my knowledge, legally - at least for now - the Virginia Defense Force is solely able to be used by the State of Virginia. But in meetings and what not they're talking about working with FEMA. Anyway it's really interesting and I'm very happy I'm doing something. Had to get an identification card at the DMV issued by the Governor and the Virginia Department of Military Affairs, and it's cool. They've put me in the S6 shop and will be training me to drive the Mobile Command Post. :D That never would have happened if you hadn't shared your knowledge and inspired me to do a little research. For that I'm grateful. I'll never be Audie Murphy, but I can get him some potable water and carry his gear.

mvscal wrote:National defense is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Federal government for starters.

Let me help you out you fucking moron.

'National defense is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the National government for starters.'

The Federal government is constitutionally mandated to have responsibility over everything.

Have you ever gotten anything right?

mvscal wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote: Can't see how anyone could find fault with such a plan.

What could possibly go wrong?



Yeah, you're a fucking idiot.

So's their Dear Leader

mvscal wrote: Involuntary servitutude is blatantly unconstitutional.

False. All the State has to do is 'convict' you of a 'crime.'

You might want to try and read the fucking thing before you spout off about it you Racist drone.

mvscal wrote:Why don't you go ahead and shove Section 1 of the 13th Amendment up your ass?

Because, unlike you, I don't hate the Constitution.

Sudden Sam wrote:You don't think the tradeoff in getting thugs off the street (at least for two years) is worthwhile?

Tell me you're kidding.

And you may pull your head and the head of your black cock de jure out of your ass anytime. 20,000 shit posts is enough.

Sudden Sam wrote:... but something has got to be done.

This isn't something it's anything. Big diff.

mvscal wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote: Can't see how anyone could find fault with such a plan.

What could possibly go wrong?



Yeah, you're a fucking idiot.

Worked for me.

Sin,

mvscal wrote:Chimpy sponsored legislation requiring mandatory service?

You actually can't read and here I thought is was all the jizz on your eyes.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur ... .just.html

Bush's plan drew praise from the president's supporters and critics alike. Not only was he touting an idea that had renewed significance to all Americans; national service also promised to be the rare issue that would transcend partisan political squabbling. Indeed, on the nationwide tour he conducted following his State of the Union address, Bush promised as much, pledging in a speech delivered in Winston-Salem, N.C., "I look forward to working with Senator McCain and Senator Bayh of Indiana to get this legislation through the Congress."

Yet one year later, with Osama bin Laden still very much at large and war with Iraq looming, Bush's vision for national service is not much closer to realization than it was at the moment he proposed it. AmeriCorps went unauthorized for a fifth straight year. Bush's national service bill never even made it to the floor of Congress. And the effort to "sustain and extend" the spirit of national purpose and unity has largely fallen by the wayside. Bush himself implicitly admitted as much. Instead of the soaring patriotic rhetoric that accompanied its introduction in last year's speech, Freedom Corps received no more than a fleeting mention in this year's address. All of which raises a puzzling question: How is it that an issue championed by a popular wartime president, favored by the vast majority of Americans, and supported by both parties has floundered so badly?

Bush's bill, on the surface was to expand AmeriCorps and Freedom Corps. Not sure if there was language in it that would make it compulsory, I'd have to look that up.

You know won't get any straight or honest answer from Moving Sale. So far, he's full of shit.

I'll recant if the facts compel me to do so.

Well, like I said, Bush's proposals don't seem to indicate anything above and beyond volunteering. Some paid, some unpaid service.

Obama's plan and one the Dems have embraced for awhile is mandatory service. We know how they like "free money". Seems the so called "Southern Democrats" never really left the party as they appear to like "free labor" as well.

Sam,

Serious question. Who takes care of said 17 year olds bastard child while they serve their mandatory 2 years handing out clean needles to drug users?

Sam, you have got to be trolling here.

Lawmakers can't just ... make shit up ... that sounds good.
But then again, perhaps 321-105 proves me wrong ... errrr ...

We have a Constitution, a rule of LAW to follow.

Without that rule of law, we have NOTHING.

Can you grasp that?


If the "young thugs" are so oppressive to you that it's become unbearable, you've got three choices.


- seek to have the 13th amendment (which CLEARLY prohibits involutary servitude for citizens) changed

- move out of the country

- Luby's time

Sounds like sour grapes from the Right getting outflanked by a reactionary, knee-jerk Democratic Party.

Enjoy your log cabin in the woods, Kaczynski. Go cry about it on your blogs.

"Sour Grapes" does not apply here. The fable is an inappropriate analogy as long as the republican bill was merely to increase funding to volunteer organizations. At issue here is the mandatory requirement - is it constitutional ?

Tom In VA wrote: At issue here is the mandatory requirement - is it constitutional ?

"Executive Privilege" says that the President is now king.

Worried about the Constitution? If you're lucky, it's still swirling the bowl after being flushed down the shitter for the last 8 years. Just reach in and try to grab what's left of it.

Martyred wrote: it's still swirling the bowl after being flushed down the shitter for the last 8 years.

Christ, another one. Dude, the tug of war between the government and constitutional rights has been going on a lot fucking longer than "the last eight years".

Man, and I thought your hate for us was based on an educated opinion. I'm so disappointed.

Tom In VA wrote: Dude, the tug of war between the government and constitutional rights has been going on a lot fucking longer than "the last eight years".

The difference is, you people finally gave up.

There is no fight left in you. Hell, you'll send your own kids into the desert to get their limbs blown off and come home dragging colostomy bags...you think the American public will make a move on the government for some sales tax or income re-distribution scheme?

Pass me whatever you're drinking, Tom.

Yes, Marty, and Elizabeth Taylor has only NOT been a hottie for 8 years.

Yes, the Constitution was trashed by Bush & Co.
And it was trashed before that for a very long time.

And that somehow justifies amp'ing up the trashing by a whole hell of a lot?



"Yeah, but Bush ..."


Good friggin' grief, man, it's like 2nd grade recess anymore.

poptart wrote:
And that somehow justifies amp'ing up the trashing by a whole hell of a lot?

No, just some ex post facto examination of when the machinery sputtered to a halt.

It isn't Bush, it isn't Obama, it's the fetishization of the office of POTUS. You people want a king...you crave a king.
You see weakness in a democratic model. You want a strong father.

Well, we had 'free labor' under the Constitution when it was ratified, so it's been "trashed" from the get go.

Martyred wrote: It isn't Bush, it isn't Obama, it's the fetishization of the office of POTUS. You people want a king...you crave a king.
You see weakness in a democratic model. You want a strong father.

Now that's deep. Profound too.

Tom In VA wrote:

Martyred wrote: It isn't Bush, it isn't Obama, it's the fetishization of the office of POTUS. You people want a king...you crave a king.
You see weakness in a democratic model. You want a strong father.

Now that's deep. Profound too.

and spot on...

Tom In VA wrote:

Martyred wrote: It isn't Bush, it isn't Obama, it's the fetishization of the office of POTUS. You people want a king...you crave a king.
You see weakness in a democratic model. You want a strong father.

Now that's deep. Profound too.

Tom, please don't feed the monkeys. The last thing we need is marty deciding what we want.

The Obama Administration may be inconsequential looking back at it historically, regardless of the outrages on the average taxpayer.

What you may have here, I believe, is your American Weimar Years.
A miasma of hostility, discontent and resentment exploding in violence in, what...1 year? 5 years? 10 years?.
I'd like to draw a closer parallel to the current situation than inter war Germany, but I can't.

I don't think he's deciding I think he's making an observation, and he's not alone either.

This "Cult of Personality" thing we have going on, the propensity to attach everything that happens to a decision made by the President, a severe lack of awareness and knowledge of the Constitution's separation of powers, is absolutely phenomenal and not limited to one political philosophy.

How quick are Republicans / Conservatives to praise Reagan, deride Clinton ?
How quick are Democrats / Leftists to praise Clinton, Obama, and deride Reagan ?

It always seems to center on one guy getting credit or blame. Further, we have a congress that seems to abdicate to the office - so they don't have to be held accountable and can enjoy the gluttony and lifestyle they enjoy by being reelected.

I think Marty raises a very profound observation, and this we can count on from Marty. Marty isn't blinded by emotional patriotic sentiment, political idealogy (he's a wannabe anarchist), although knowing his taste in hottie threads and what not, he's probably blind if the nuns were right.

Now let me see if I can find that submit button.

:D

War Wagon wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Martyred wrote: It isn't Bush, it isn't Obama, it's the fetishization of the office of POTUS. You people want a king...you crave a king.
You see weakness in a democratic model. You want a strong father.

Now that's deep. Profound too.

Tom, please don't feed the monkeys. The last thing we need is marty deciding what we want.

There's no reason for you to be upset at me, but I admire your instinct to "circle the wagons".

Martyred wrote:I'd like to draw a closer parallel to the current situation than inter war Germany, but I can't.

Look across the pond, dude. We're not alone in this "discontent and resentment". In fact, I recall reading about some issues along those lines occurring in Germany right now. Much to your satisfaction, guess who they're blaming again - among others.

Tom In VA wrote: Much to your satisfaction, guess who they're blaming again - among others.

To my satisfaction, they should be blaming Neo-Liberals and internationalist bankster scum.

Martyred wrote: Neo-Liberals and internationalist bankster scum.

Oh are those the new euphamisms for them today ?

Left Seater wrote: Good bye college sports.

Let's see I am a high school grad ready to go to college. Suddenly I am drafted into the trash clean up patrol for 8 mile in Detroit. I walk 10 miles a day cleaning trash from the streets. In two years I am going to be ready to step foot on campus at RICE ready to play football? RIIIIIIIIIGHT!

I'm going to disagree. I think they could easily loaf for a couple of years and hit the ground running with the Rice football team. They're not that good. :P