Charles Rangel Thinks He Owns You (Updated)

If Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel gets his way, everyone in America will be the government's slave for two years.  He doesn't call it "slavery."  He calls it a "draft."  But if you look closely at what he's demanding, it's not just military service.  It's all-purpose involuntary servitude:

WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.  . . . .

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

So Charles Rangel's position is:

1.  Everyone in America should be forced by law to work for the government (or for someone approved by the government) for two years -- either for no pay or for minimal pay.

2.  The two years of work should be demanded, not due to any national emergency of any kind, but as a political stunt to influence national policy.

3.  In service of this political stunt, people should be forced to do whatever the government dictates -- even work that could be done by private employers like hospitals, seaports and airports.

In other words, Democrat Charles Rangel advocates two years of involuntary servitude -- also known as slavery -- for every adult in America. 

Serve two years of your adult life in slavery, and then you'll be freed to do what you want with your own life.  (Maybe -- until Rangel comes up with his next political stunt that demands that your freedom be sacrificed!)

Democrat Charles Rangel thinks he owns you.  It's not enough that he rakes off your tax money from every paycheck.  He feels perfectly entitled to demand that you drop whatever you are doing anywhere in America -- studying for college, learning a trade, launching a small business, starting a family -- so you can instead devote two full years of your life to promote Charles Rangel's political agenda.

Rangel doesn't care what plans anyone may have made for their own life as an adult in the land of the free.  His message is:  "Welcome to adulthood. Now do whatever the government tells you to."

Of course he's trying to make it sound positive.  You'll be "serving" this "great republic!" 

Mind you, the government telling grown men and women what kind of work they will or will not be permitted to do -- and for what compensation, if any -- is exactly the opposite of what made this republic great.

But you'll be "serving" in "hospitals!" or maybe "seaports!" or maybe "airports!"

Hey, America's farmers could use a little help!  We always have a shortage of farm workers, remember?  Rangel will have the perfect solution.

Under Charles Rangel's plan, America's youth will happily
sing songs while toiling on behalf of the "great republic."

Who knows?  Maybe you'll even be allowed to "serve" the Congress of this great republic and polish Charlie Rangel's shoes!

See, central planners in the government know better than you do what are good uses of your time.

It's communism lite.  It's the two-years-of-your-life plan.  Big Brother will tell you what types of work are worthy and unworthy.

Want to work in a hospital for little or no pay?  O.K.!  Want to work at your uncle's hardware store for a fair wage instead?  Or at your dad's veterinary clinic?  Not O.K.

Want to work at an airport doing whatever the government says?  O.K.  Want to get married and start your family?  Nope.  Want to start your career as an auto mechanic, or hair stylist, or librarian?  Not O.K.  What do you think this is -- a free country? 

Want to help discover a cure for cancer?  What are you, a wise guy?

Want to be a teacher's aide?  Big Brother says O.K.  Want to just stay in college and work toward your degree?  No way, buster.  Put those plans on hold.

And if you won't cooperate with our plan for the first two years of your adult life, we could always send you to "camp."

Welcome to Charles Rangel's Great Republic Re-Education Camp

And the beauty of it is -- we don't even have a good reason to threaten your freedoms!  We just want to pull off a political stunt! (And some of us want cheap labor for our "seaports" and "hospitals" and "schools" and maybe our "fields."  Talk about pork!  If we control that much free labor and can steer it toward our political pals . . . .  The mind boggles!)  As far as we're concerned, any excuse -- no matter how thin -- will do!

Does Charles Rangel actually want all of America's youth serving in the military in order to save the country from a hostile enemy?  No!  He wants out of Iraq; not deeper in.  He calls the whole battle in Iraq "fraudulent."  He doesn't even believe there is such a thing as terrorism -- he says it's "discriminatory" to call anyone a terrorist! 

Yet Rangel says he's very "serious" about reinstating the "draft."  Rangel's idea is not to draft soldiers to fight the war on terror or any other war, but instead to take all of America's young adults hostage and occupy them with whatever busywork the government can concoct (schools! seaports! airports! hospitals!) simply to achieve a political objective.

Why, Roosevelt thought he needed a national emergency to take away the freedom of Japanese Americans during World War II.  But with Charles Rangel -- emergency-shmergency!  We, the mighty Democratic Leaders of the Great Republic, aren't even sure where we would put all of you!  Nonetheless, if we say so, you will report and you will cooperate.

You didn't know it, but you are the government's all-purpose, any-excuse-will-do slaves.

Now stand by and await Charlie Rangel's orders.

Update:  Leading Democrats are already backpedaling fast on Rangel's call for compulsory national service -- this week anyway.  Do you trust your liberties to these people? 

Update 2:  A recurring theme from the left seems to be glee in the idea that people who oppose Rangel's compulsory national service plan must be "afraid" of the military draft.  The argument is ridiculous because the vast majority of those "drafted" would be working in places like hospitals, schools, airports, and wherever else Charles Rangel and his ilk owe someone a political favor.  My objection to Rangel's plan is that it is heavy-handed, totalitarian, arrogant, presumptuous, and completely at odds with the freedom that made this country great.

Update 3:  Another recurring theme from the left seems to be that, if we accept that we currently face a national emergency due to Islamic terrorism, we have to bring back the draft.  This assumes that a large drafted army is better suited to modern warfare than the well-trained, self-selected all-volunteer army we currently have.  Many military experts agree that we are far better off with our highly-motivated all-volunteer army.  Besides, it is obvious that Rangel's proposal is not well-tailored to address the needs of the war that Islamic terrorists are waging against us.  Rangel would assign millions of adults to two years of government-mandated busywork in places like schools and hospitals.  That is not how we will win this war, and it values our freedoms far too lightly.

Digg this

______________________________________________

More reaction to Rangel's proposal at Michelle Malkin, Don Surber, Gateway Pundit, Captain's Quarters, Blogmeister USA, ScrappleFace, Public Figures. . . Beware, Hot Air, Nasty Brutish & Short, The Moderate Voice ("Do some newly ascendant Democrats have a political death wish?"), Scared Monkeys, Sweetness & Light, Blue Crab Boulevard, TalkLeft and Wizbang

Comments

[Marc Thomson]

When I sought enlistment in the Air Force during Vietnam (1971), the recruiter told me every American citizen is expected by law to be ready to serve a mandatory two-years in government service, including the armed forces. Is this no longer true? I'm researching this, but if anyone has the facts -- let me know, please. (no opinions, please, I'm just looking for a government/legal citation on this)

[Lisa]

Israel demands two years of military service from each and every one of its citizens. This really builds character and fierce loyalty to the state of Israel - everyone is personally invested in the safety and security of the country. I think this is a noble idea. If you truly loved this country, you would not have a problem with this. Are you an American or a squatter?

[Keith]

Israel demands military service out of need; smaller population and greater threat in proximity to their borders. The US population between 18-24yrs is approximately 30 million. Assuming an even distribution across those years, any two years would be about 10 million citizens assuming you could only serve two years and then move on... sounds like a rather large Army. Not even sure if we have enough money to buy the each a gun without a huge tax increase.

As for being an American or squatter? Applying a standard that one must agree to forgo free will when there is no need (beyond providing the government cheap labor and politicians like Charley Rangel an wedge for mining votes) is more in line with a communist or fascist mindset.

[Jason]

Sheesh ... I am as left as you get ... I think the war is wrong ... but Charlie Rangel is, as one of the trackbackers above put it, a jackass.

Compulsory military service is not a 'noble idea.' It is involuntary servitude, plain and simple. It is, in my opinion, a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment (though the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise).

Rangel is a lunatic. Democrats bring shame on themselves by not condemning him in the strongest way imaginable.

[mekon111]

marc-

In 1971 the Selective Service law, otherwise known as "the draft" was still in effect so your recruiting office was correct. The draft was disbanded sometime around 1974-75. Being somewhat out of touch with the news of the day at the time, when I turned 18 in 1975 I tried to register for the draft and was sent a little post card by the Selective Service Administration saying they had gone out of business.

As far as Rangel's suggestion about reinstituting the draft, I suggest everyone refect seriously on the proposal rather than reacting negatively to the idea because it was evil Democrat Charles Rangel who suggested it. He is trying to make three points:

First, the current volunteer system unfairly places the burden of fighting and dying for the country on the poor and working class, especially African Americans and Hispanics. I do not know if this is, in fact, the case and would love to see some empirical data that breaks down the demographics of the armed services. However, I have a hard tme believing that it is a burden that is equally shared across communities and socio-economoic strata.

Second, it would be less likely that the US government would engage in wars of choice such as Iraq if law makers and citizens had a a direct stake in the conflict in terms of the possible sacrifice of life and/or limb of their immeidiate family. I doubt the reestablishment of some form of selective or national service would, by itself, produce Rangel's desired outcome. Both Germany and France had conscripted armies well before the First World War and that did not impede their march to mutual and senseless slaughter in the least.

Third, the health of the nation as a republic depends upon the willingness of its citizens to contribute to the common good through a period of national service. There is nothing inherently communist or totalitarian about this idea, Gina. Indeed, it is one of the core beliefs of a strand of Western political thought called "civic republicanism" (that's small "r" republicanism)that was widely shared by the Founding Fathers. The benefits of national service, as Lisa points out, are several: 1)shared sacrifice for the good of the nation; 2)enhancement of the character of our citizens as they personally expereince the shared fate of their selves and the nation; and 3)and the greatest defense any nation can have, the equal responsibility and shared committment of the citizenry to lay their lives on the line for their country.

Libertarians hate this idea because they view it as an intrusion upon individual liberty and choice. Well, it is. But the whole point of national service is that citizens have a moral obligation to something greater than their own self-interest.

[Keith]

There may not be anything communist or totalitarian about citizens contributing for the common good through national service, but that changes when the service is a condition of citizenship. Even if this were a good idea, 1) How do we plan to pay for the 10 million citizens who will be employed at any one time 2) Since we will have 10 million citizens forced into service, what do the career military types plan to do for a living, or are we planning to keep all of the career military types PLUS the 5 illion new recruits each year (for a total of 10 million since the new recruits will be in place for 2 years).

[Nancy Irving]

I really can't get over this. Does this mean you're going to burn your draft-card, like some 60s hippie?

What if Bush keeps us in Iraq until '09, and McCain is elected, and *he* keeps us in Iraq until who knows when? The services are already stretched thin, and their recruiting is way down. What happens when the war you believe needs to be fought, doesn't have enough volunteer troops to fight it?

[Richie Tomas]

Forget for a moment that Charles Rangel called for the military draft to be reinstated.

How serious is the threat of Islamic terrorism to the United States?

Many supporters of the Iraq war say it is very serious and that this could be a long war lasting decades.

Right now the U.S. military is sending its soldiers, including reserve units, back to Iraq for second and third tours.

One can argue the merits of a volunteer versus a conscripted army but if this will indeed by a long war, and President Bush is serious about winning the Iraq war, a military draft is inevitable.

[john yochum]

it is my most humble opinion, that we are heading headlong into a second revelotionary confligration. when wiill we come to reason? that term limits must be put in place, so criminals such as these cannot establish a foot hold within the goverment!
no more than 2 terms in any office for any one position, a pocket watch, and a hearty hand shake for those who have forfilled their political asperations.
our forefathers and mothers would be getting very angry at this point.

[Shane Vincent]

While I oppose a draft of any sort (and I believe that the 13th amendment was adopted in part due to popular resentment to Lincoln's draft), there reason there is a shortage of people in the military in not because people don't want to be in the military.

There is a misconception. During WWII, less qualified people were accepted into the military than are accepted now. This isn't a slur on the people who served, it's just that the military had more relaxed rules than they currently do.

While the current military is stretched it's kept small because senior policy people (like Rumsfield) want a small military. From what I have been told, you cannot go active duty from the National Guard as an officer until you are a Major, so there isn't a shortage there (otherwise there wouldn't be such a restriction).

So what about the shortage of enlisted personnel? Once again, while the military wants more people to join, they are hampered by senior policy idiots who want a small military and would rather spend money on stuff that doesn't exist (and maybe never will).

There are contracts given to companies that never wrote commercial software, contracts given to companies to develop new rpg interception systems (rather than buying the one that Israel developed and tested) and other questionable products, meanwhile claiming that there isn't money for body armor, or personnel.

That's stupid.

But Rangel's proposal is insane. It puts people's lives at risk, I do not want some person forced to run around with live ammo and a grudge against authority. People will die if a draft goes into effect. Of course I doubt Rangel has a real conception of what people think, but heck a disconnect from reality is a requirement to be a successful politician.

[RipplingBeast]

Most of you guys sound like this development was unexpected.

You lack a healthy paranoia, possess a startlingly weak grasp of history, and suffer from the delusion that government isn't the avowed deadly enemy of all freedom-loving people everywhere.

It's frightening, really, because you are the steers that run fastest and longest and trample the most innocent when someone yells, "Stampede!"

[Thought Criminal]

The Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Charlie-boy is gonna need to repeal THAT obstacle, first...

[D T]

I am all for the Draft being reinstated. It WILL curtail umpopular Warsa and it will institute a national pride on having served. It will benefit the nation as a whole rather a few. I served and I am proud of it.

[Charles Perry]

Kommrad Rangel should do his two years of service first. Digging manure out of my barn at minimum wage and then tell everyone about his experience!