A couple of weeks ago, while listening to the self-proclaimed Doctor of Democracy, the poster-boy for all the well-to-do drug addicts in the oxcycontin crowd, I was fascinated by a statement this chicken hawk-banner wavin' neo-con made to a caller when he said, in effect, that all the talk about the upcoming draft was just that, talk.
Well now, dumbass, if that's the case, why are there two bills, one in the Senate and one in the House, in committee? Is Congress just floating a trial balloon? Have we had the focus groups yet to see how this will play in Peoria? It should warm you that the Universal National Service Act of 2003, as it's called, is not just a bill for the military draft, but an entirely new call to service, complete national service by the youth in this country. These bills will conscribe anyone between the ages of 18 and 26, I repeat . . . ANYONE, male and female, for a period of two years to either military or more Orwellian "national service." The goal of the bill is straightforward and direct: "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, 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." I feel safe already.
Gee, what do suppose "other purposes" could mean? One can only imagine. I can only wonder what the German people of the '30s would think, or do you gather they may still be asleep at the wheel?
And just like we have grown accustomed to here in the good 'ol U.S. of A, I'm certain the government will find a way to come up with a great slogan, cool propaganda posters and some fancy three letter program moniker, just as was done during WWII. This way, five years from now, proud moms and dads all over the country can proclaim as they show off their pics of Junior, "My baby! He's/She's with the (insert the letters of your choice here) roundin' up dissidents and shippin' 'em off to Mississippi. We're just so glad their protecting our freedom!"
I hear Pol Pot went right after the folks who wore eyeglasses.
Just like Prego, it's in there, along with a whole lot more. Section 2 states, "It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act." Now, if it is so, that such an obligation is for "every citizen" and "every other person residing" in the US, does that mean that non-citizens, such as the children of immigrants, legal or otherwise, will be forced to serve? That's not to say that the provisions of these bills should only be for Americans, quite the opposite. Rather it appears the attempt here is to create a multicultural state police force, certain to come complete with "politically correct" enforcement. In civilian capacity, service will be determined upon the whims of one man, the President of the United States of Some Other Planet (see Section 4). Has to be from another planet because I certainly stopped recognizing the one we're on a long time ago.
Another interesting part of this bill is that, maybe it's me, but I cannot find any provision for paying the new members of the (insert the letters of your choice here). Can we assume that the fine young youth of this country will gladly provide their service for free, or will there be needed a fancy and tasty carrot dangled by the President? A shiny penny for the youth, such as a college education, a new car, or a share in the ill-gotten gains of asset forfeiture, so that their service is more palatable to freedom, theirs and the country's? Interesting questions indeed.
Is it conceivable that people who exercise their God-given right to speak will be silenced? Will people who exercise their God-given right to own a gun for self-preservation be asked to give them up? After all, with the safety and security that a new national service corps would provide, wouldn't the ownership and possession of a firearm for personal security be unnecessary? What could or would happen to you if you refused to surrender your piece?
Yet with all that can be said about and envisioned by such a bill, all the ramifications that one could predict, and all of the future stories and interviews one can imagine the perky little Katie Couric doing on the Today Show, one doesn't have to use the same amount of brain power to imagine what the likes of Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, or Lysander Spooner might think. Or for that matter, Marx or Lenin.
But the general public knows less about George W. Bush or John F. Kerry than they do about Scott Peterson or Michael Jackson. So they really have no idea how far either man might go in implementing such a bill, or even care. As for the results of such a bill, well let's just say that most people have no idea of the past, so how are they supposed to view their future? Goober patriots all over the land, who are better suited to parrot their masters than to oppose them, will be quick with the "better them than me" comments. All to their own eventual peril one day? The future holds the same for them as any one of us. They will one day understand what many of us already know, but for them it will be too late. Their knowledge will be obtained at the business end of a gun.