Like I Said, I Already Volunteered
Posted by Prof | Filed under Propaganda Supplies, Take A Stand
We all saw this coming. We emailed and never got answered. We got condemned to voice-mail-hell when we called. Our Senators and Representatives have again failed to listen to us when we told them “NO!” They slapped the name of a soon-to-be-dead/should-have-drowned-already Democrat Party hero on the front of a bill designed to do nothing more than create an army loyal not the the Constitution, but to the president personally and passed it anyway.
Here is a list of who voted for it in the House, and here for the Senate. Please note: both parties helped pass this disgusting pile of effluvia.
Now for the rant…
I already volunteered. I stood up and took an oath, decades ago to be sure, but still I find myself bound by it. The Oath I took was to protect and defend the Constitution. Unlike the zombie-corps oath to follow Obama. If this government thinks, for one single bloody minute, that I will stand idly by while my kids are forced to “volunteer”, whether it be for high school credit, or before they can get a college loan, or even for a fun, fun three months at brainwashing camp, this government has broken faith and now in violation of the Constitution I swore to protect. This law will be giving taxpayer funds to groups specifically chosen by the government (The Party) but oddly, those goals of those groups are, at best, nebulous.
Please note that some of the strictures in this bill: volunteers cannot protest against proposed new laws, require that they limit their participation in the church of their choice.
Now, here is the kicker. Even if this adminstration isn’t planning on using this soon-to-be law to indocrinate our kids, the law is going to be on the books for some future administration to use that way.
This shall not be borne. Not by me, not by my kids. This isn’t volunteerism, it is serfdom.
Stand up.
Help Support Simon-Jester.org!
April 1st, 2009
Ehhhh… I’ll have to look at this more closely. At first brush, it seems to only forbid taking part in political protests, strikes, or religious activities as part of their work as serfs of the federal government. They can do all of these things in their off hours.
I also find it amusing that this becomes mandatory if, as AIG and Chrysler did, you take government money. The congress is really bending over backwards to make taking their “charity” as unpleasant and odious as possible.
April 1st, 2009
I note with shamefully little surprise that John McCain voted “YEA”.
I’m more disheartened, though, that my Representative and both my Senators did the same.
Any uh… *cough*… plans to sell stencils along with the t-shirts?
April 1st, 2009
Brian, if the govt can even attempt to place a 90% ex post facto tax, why should we even for a minute think that a difference will be made between on or off duty? The Big Three conducted biz as usual when they took their corporate jets to D.C. and now look where two of them are standing.
April 1st, 2009
After a lot of head scratching and trying to piece this bill together (most of it is just amending of existing code), the best I can do is agree with Brian. I take every opportunity to rip on Obama, but interpreted that way it’s a good thing – I don’t want this tax-funded thing to exist, but if it must it had better not go to supporting Sunday School or the local union.
More sinister is the administration’s open desire to assume control over all student loans, nation wide (WSJ)(NPR). It makes so much more sense now.
April 1st, 2009
Xenocles:
I think you probably have come to the right answer after working the problem. But I also think you forgot two variables: This administration is especially bad about it, but it is part of the culture of D.C. to a) reach for power in small but ever more invasive increments and b) once it has that power, it never gives it up.
If Himself wants kids to volunteer, fine. No problem. But paying someone for it means it is a job and losing that job means losing a paycheck. If Himself wants kids to do good things for their communities, again, fine. But shouldn’t the kids have some choice as to what that service is rather than be given a list of government-approved organizations?
Now, take your previous answer and divide it by the product of (a) and (b) and see if your equation balances.
April 1st, 2009
Why, of course, Prof. That’s why I reject the premise entirely. Education grants in exchange for service are one thing (I took one myself.) but eligibility for a loan? With interest? Seems a bit much.
My main concern was that it’s not good for our cause to react to misinformation. The Gateway Pundit link provided even went so far as to say that volunteers couldn’t even go to church, which is a complete fabrication. All it does is make it easy for people to dismiss us.
April 1st, 2009
Think of it as a two-stage process. Step one: limit forms of expression contingent on the acceptance of funds from the government. Step two: make it impossible to avoid accepting funds from the government.
“Funds” could be interpreted as anything as far afield as federal medical insurance, Social Security checks, GM warranty service, food stamps, participation in public education, or tax refunds.
I am loyal to my country, but I will not swear fealty.
April 1st, 2009
2 of my 3 (TX) voted against this- the other is probably going to run for governor. Don’t think we won’t remember this.
I’m not sure how this will play out. I have a lot of experience with coerced ‘volunteers’. This may die from pure passive-aggressive non-compliance, if the penalties are not too severe.
April 1st, 2009
I would like to believe that the restriction against demonstrating, etc., is only intended to prohibit such activities while “on duty”, or using one’s “office” or position with the Obama Jugend to encourage or discourage such activities, not to restrict the “volunteers” activities off-duty. (There is certainly precedent for that, in the military, for example.)
But when you have volunteers knocking on doors to convince people to support this dreck, it’s hard not to be suspicious.
As Sal says, I suspect this will be another expensive government boondoggle, due to lack of interest.
April 1st, 2009
Mr. Drang (May I call you Sturm?),
Does the bill say “on duty”? If the wording doesn’t restrict itself to on duty activities, then it isn’t so limited, no matter what common sense or reason might suggest. Lawyers live for that sort of fiddly legal point.
April 1st, 2009
“I stood up and took an oath, decades ago to be sure, but still I find myself bound by it. The Oath I took was to protect and defend the Constitution.”
As did I. I don’t remember seeing anything in my DD-214 that said that oath no longer applies.
April 2nd, 2009
The only real issue here is why so many Republicans voted for this bill. What is it about Republican or conservative ideology that would support this kind of thing?
April 2nd, 2009
Peter, I can only come up with one answer, but I’m not sure if I like it: FEAR.
They are afraid of not being in the halls of power, the circle of friends, the cocktail party circuit, whatever. Instead, they are giving in to peer pressure like a high school freshman. Just because they have a (R) behind their names, it doesn’t make them friends of ours.
This isn’t about the parties, it’s about our contract, our heritage, and what it means to be a citizen. Somehow, our hirelings in D.C. have forgotten for whom they work, forgotten what they are supposed to be doing, and forgotten that they are not rulers, but far too well paid civil servants who can be fired.
April 2nd, 2009
A thought experiment. If mandatory service is desirable, here’s a counterproposal. How much do you think Obama & Co. would like it?
Immediately after high school graduation, all American youths will go through basic training in one of the military branches. They don’t wanna? Tough. It’s mandatory. And don’t call it a draft! It’s less of one than ObamaServe, anyway. They can always wash out.
Oh, military virtues (oops, sorry, indoctrination) are not in synch with Obama’s politics? Fine, let’s split the difference. Half the indoctrination will be civilian, the other military.
April 2nd, 2009
“2 of my 3 (TX) voted against this- the other is probably going to run for governor. Don’t think we won’t remember this.”
My thoughts exactly. At least my district’s rep — Hall — voted Nay. At one time, up until this vote, I honestly believed that I could support Hutchinson in the primary against Perry for governor. Now? I’m just disgusted. First, Perry with the vaccine scandal, and now Hutchinson goes and blows it with her vote on the Obama Youth act. And there’s no way I’m going to vote “D”. So who do I support? Aaarrgghh!
April 2nd, 2009
Marlon, on the surface, I like the idea of every citizen having a basic knowledge of things taught in boot camp as well as a basic understanding of civics. However, I will NEVER stand by while my government tries to coerce, force, manipulate, shame, badger, or any other way require such training.
We are free citizens. Part of that freedom means that we CANNOT coerce service. I can have a combo of a used-car salesman and a snake-oil purveyor with the tenacity of a Mormon missionary be the one who comes to my door to talk to my kids about enlisting…but if they say “no”, even to the recruiter for my beloved USN, I’m going to show him the door.
A country that cannot find enough young men and women to defend it voluntarily has something wrong with it. Add in conscription, in ANY FORM, and that country must admit that it is no longer free. Yes, I understand that many countries around the globe require service of their young people. Some do it just to survive when surrounded by enemies, others because those governments want to control the population through intimidation and indoctrination. But not one of those governments has the same laws we do or the same rights enshrined in their founding documents. Yes, I actually also do know that THIS country used conscript soldiers for many years. Like I have said before though, the problems currently blighting the country didn’t spring forth overnight. We no longer use conscripts due to a host of reasons, the most basic one being this: a conscript will never love the country that put him in harm’s way the same way a volunteer will.
The price of freedom is that some will choose will stand in front of the Flag, to protect it with their bodies, while others will hide behind it.
April 2nd, 2009
Prediction: In case of an emergency, National Guard and military will be subordinate to the “volunteer” corps.
April 2nd, 2009
What happens if people refuse to “volunteer”? Besides the fact that forced volunteerism is nothing of a sort. But what are the consequences of refusal? Jail? Fines? I refuse to be forced into anything like this or have my children do something like this. I want my kids to WANT to volunteer…not do it because the gov’t mandates it. What is this Germany 1930s?
April 2nd, 2009
Shout it from the mountain tops!! This is fascist shit!
April 2nd, 2009
Given no choice, I would strive to land the most vital, responsible job I could. On paper, I am awesome, so everyone would fall over themselves to get to me. Having done so, I would then do as little to progress whatever effort I am responsible for, and as much to retard same, as I possibly could. I would encourage others to do the same. Gum up the works. Make the experience as unpleasant and time-wasting as possible for everyone involved. Maybe they could make me show up, but they couldn’t make me not be a bastard.
I can say that now, at 37, but I know myself well enough to know I would have reacted the same way at 18.
April 2nd, 2009
“I stood up and took an oath, decades ago to be sure, but still I find myself bound by it. The Oath I took was to protect and defend the Constitution.”
“As did I. I don’t remember seeing anything in my DD-214 that said that oath no longer applies.”
Right you are. I would only add this: “… against all enemies, foreign or domestic.”
April 2nd, 2009
Please recall what The One said during his campaign. He wants to have a civilian corps as big as and as well equipped and funded as our military. That is what he wants. That is where he is going.
This “volunteer” outfit will be ACORN on steroids.
We must not worry about those who say we are over-reacting. To date, The One is managing major financial institutions and has appointed himself CEO of General Motors and is dictating what sorts of autos will be manufactured. His flunkies are talking about setting the salaries of all the CEOs in America. He is working to raise every American’s prices for everything he buys or uses. He is working to phase out our coal and oil industries and to replace them with wind and solar power.
We must fight this. If we lose, at least we will die as free men. As an old patriot said — if we don’t hang together, we will surely hang separately.
April 2nd, 2009
[...] I am Simon Jester » Blog Archive » Like I Said, I Already Volunteered [...]
April 2nd, 2009
This is conscripted child labor. No children of mine will be participating.
April 2nd, 2009
I also read (part of) this bill, and there’s another section that lists prohibited organizations. I agree; I don’t want the government running my church. But my interpretation of this is that if it meant “on duty”, it wouldn’t have listed prohibited organizations as well.
One could interpret “engage in religious instruction” as receiving as well as giving. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was used to discriminate against the religious. Wasn’t the country assured when the Civil Rights Act passed that “affirmative action” didn’t mean racial quotas? What matters isn’t what’s intended; what matters what the courts can do with what is written.
April 2nd, 2009
Prof
“a conscript will never love the country that put him in harm’s way the same way a volunteer will.”
Try telling that to all my drafted buddies that came home from Vietnam missing arms and legs. Try telling that to all the conscripts who are listed on “The Wall”. As a Vietnam vet, I resent the hell out your comment.
April 2nd, 2009
If the bill/code/whatever this piece of crap legislation limits the amount of time that you can spend in church, doesn’t that clearly run up against the 1st amendment?
Oh wait… that was just a stick used by the dems to bash Bush with. Best to conveniently leave it aside eh?
April 2nd, 2009
As for me, I’m volunteering for the local militia.
April 2nd, 2009
Prof,
I agree completely. That’s why the proposal was a thought experiment.
When the WWII draft was instituted, my understanding is that is wasn’t because there weren’t enough volunteers; there were too many. Boys, old men, and the crippled were all trying to get in, and a formal system was needed.
If a nation can’t get enough patriots willing to defend it from destruction, maybe it’s time for that country to go.
With all this said, Israel still manages to keep a liberal democracy going while requiring service from everyone capable. I absolutely oppose military conscription. However, if the feds are going to mandate “volunteerism”, allowing basic martial training as an option would, I think, provoke interesting responses from Obama and the ACORNites. But forcing conscripts into battle is another thing entirely.
April 2nd, 2009
This is the natural progression of things these days, if you’re gonna have fascism – whether or not they choose to acknowledge that it is fascism on so many fronts. I hate to remind you, but this “service” / “volunteerism” started under Bush Sr. and has been gaining steam ever since.
Whatever any of you do… Don’t get on the train!
April 2nd, 2009
This sort of crap will lead, inevitably, to a “Green Shirt Corps” just like Hitler and Stalin organized back in the day. As then, one will not gain access to the “nomenklatura” without checking the box for one’s resume. Sooner or later, the little “Shirts” will be trained to snoop out the “antis” and rat them out to the “managers.” It will not be pretty. If we don’t get this changed in the next election cycle we will have it forever.
April 2nd, 2009
“I also find it amusing that this becomes mandatory if, as AIG and Chrysler did, you take government money.”
Amusing? I remember in the 60′s when all schools were brought into line because they had accepted very little money in the school lunch program. All of us have in some way, fashion, or form been recepients of government money.
Oh, and my representative, Marion Berry (D-AR) was the only democrat to vote against this. Maybe he still has a little sanity left in him.
April 2nd, 2009
No, no, a thousand times no to any mandatory military training or service. I don’t want the time of a single NCO or officer wasted on such a thing. I don’t want a single person that doesn’t want to be in the Armed Forces to be serving alongside me or anyone else who has volunteered.
There is no good reason to force anyone into the Armed Forces – no “good” for the country or to try to make them more into something you’d like to see (a common argument I hear from folks on the Right – “draft ‘em! I say we teach ‘em what its like to…. yada yada yada.”).
The Armed Forces are the Nation’s war guardians – not an educational outfit or a finishing school.
April 2nd, 2009
Volunteer defined by dictionary.com
4. Law. a. a person whose actions are not founded on any legal obligation so to act.
b. a person who intrudes into a matter that does not concern him or her, as a person who pays the debt of another where he or she is neither legally nor morally bound to do so and has no interest to protect in making the payment.
They should not hide behind names that are 180 degrees different in meaning. Call it what it is and if it passes then it passes. It is the use of misdirection that gets my blood boiling.
April 2nd, 2009
When I turned 18, I was told that I had to register with the selective service, in order to be eligible for student aid (While my sisters did not have that same requirement).
Fight them from within, Monkey Wrench them at every opportunity.
April 2nd, 2009
Old Vet, I will give you an answer to that later, when I have time away from work. I just wanted you to know that what you said is not being ignored by anyone here.
April 2nd, 2009
In this bill I see the patern of legalize that has permeated the Obama camp since the campaign started. By statute the participants are prohibited from participating in groups that demonstrate, protest or advocate legislation, but participation itself caries implicit support of the “approved” activities. If “volunteers” are assigned to help work in a national healthcare supported role, then positive press (and you better believe there will be plenty of positive press of such a thing) would, itself, be an implicit endorsement of any legislation that would support further operations of the program. Funny that.
April 3rd, 2009
LTC John
Since you did not put retired after your name, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are too young to have any experience leading draftees in combat. I initially entered the Army as a draftee but ended up sticking around to see my job through the end. Little did I know until 1971 that I was on a fools errand. My qualifications to comment on your disrespect of conscripts? Sgt. Vietnam 1968,69,70,71. In combat, when the chips were down, nobody knows who is a volunteer and who is a draftee. Nobody cares. Every man stands on his own. Some regular army troops perform well, some don’t. Some draftees perform well, some don’t. Some West Point officers are a complete waste in combat. Some ROTC officer are true leaders of men. Lots of field grade types hide behind the wire.
If you had more historical perspective from WWII on, you would know that draftees have always performed in combat as well as “volunteers”. You misunderstand the difference between combat soldiers and garrison soldier. Volunteers are always better garrison soldiers than draftees. Draftees have no vested interest in sticking around to “get their ticket punched” and get promoted. Field grade officers and senior NCOs’ always get irritated by volunteers in garrison duty because that draftee is going to be the first to stand up and say “bull s**t”, this is a stupid way to do this”. In combat, that 19 year old drafted kid that tells the Capt that he is going to get everyone killed probably knows what he is talking about. He probably has more combat experience than the Capt. and if the Capt. is not so enamored of himself, he will know enough to listen to the PFC.
Those who have a bad attitude about draftees usually have the same prejudice against Reserve and National Guard troops. Even a novice at military history knows that NG and Reserve units, when deployed as a unit, do as well if not better than regular army units. Look it up. You will be really surprised at the history of WWII and Korea. You may not even know that there were quite a number of Reserve and NG units serving in Vietnam before 1969. They were great troops.
Vietnam was a war fought and lead by Sgt. E-5′s and 1st Lt. It wasn’t the draftees that abandoned the troops after 1969, it was the Colonels and Generals who disappeared from the battle field. Volunteers each and every one.
Myself and my soldiers, were treated like dirt when we came home from Vietnam. It did not matter if you were a draftee, a regular or a reserve. It was equal opportunity. Everyone got treated equally bad. Now to have somebody who is a LTC to tell me that he wouldn’t have his officers or NCOs’ wasting their time on draftees is just more than I can take. If I had a way back machine, I would like to drop you into Vietnam, say about Tet 1968, and let you tell the troops that you didn’t want to waste your time on the draftees. You would not make it home. The regular army troops would drop you for dishing their buddies who are draftees. “Not a finishing school”. Get over yourself.
April 3rd, 2009
If I have offended anyone on this blog, that was not my intention. I read a lot of blogs, including this one, but I have never once in all these years been tempted to post a reply. I just lurk. This time, some of you really hit my hot button. You stirred up a lot of old bad feelings. Never the less, my apologies for getting carried away. You are all patriots and intend no harm.