Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
US Military Draft Creeps Closer - Ron Paul and I Defy Senators "Barackcuda" Obama and "Just-Bomb-It" McCain Gaze ye at the Face of Evil and know it for what it truly is. America, Have No Fear.by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Monday, July 21, 2008
After reading Jeremy West’s personal statement here and Heather Saarela’s piece here, I decided to post my personal statement on the Draft as well, followed by the latest on topic from the presidential candidates, and then a collection of quotations - one of which is a little extreme for me but posted anyways for the purpose of facilitating discussion.
I, Jake, the Champion of the Constitution, utterly reject the basis for and existence of laws that draft individuals to fight wars, including the concept of compulsory military service.
The military draft is no better than slavery, and furthermore is equivalent to forcing an individual to kill other individuals. Nowhere in the Constitution is there even the slightest basis to forcibly compel individuals to fight in wars, and per the 10th Amendment which states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" I am not constitutionally bound to obey any summons by the Selective Service.
Drafting males or females to join the military in non-combat roles is likewise morally wrong. Being an accomplice to forced aggression and murder is morally only marginally better than committing murder. This statement holds true whether the individual is a cook, mechanic, stationed in a peacekeeping role in the homeland, or a POW guard – all are helping in the war effort, and throughout history armies have always needed just as many or more support personnel.
Likewise, the event of an imminent physical invasion (or a multitude of terrorist attacks) is no justification for a draft either. People should be allowed to join the armed forces in a nation’s time of need of their own free will. In a truly free nation, it is my belief that there will be no need for a draft as We the People would gather to defend our freedoms from being stolen, our wealth plundered, our mother raped, our children killed, etc. ad nauseum. However, if such a case exists that We the People do not choose to fight for freedom, it is likely because we did not have this state of freedom to start with, and life without freedom not worth my death.
Here is my comment on pure pacifism, which I respect if that’s your thing, but I wholeheartedly do not agree with. Might certainly does not mean Right, but failing to defend yourself, your family and property from aggression is just plain stupid. And can anyone switch their frame of references to an Iraqi, Afghani, or Pakistani young man who lost his family to American bombs or invaders? In his place would you, too, take up an AK-47 in defense?
The idea of using young people between the ages of 18 and 21 as raw material or cannon fodder is likewise morally unacceptable. In today’s America, it is my view, as a young American, that these years are certainly not those of childhood, but for the wide majority of 18-21-year-old Americans, I charge they are still in their formative ‘self-seeking’ years. For those who have already gone to college, do you remember how your life changed before and after college? Were you mature enough to fight a brutal war or just mature enough to get helplessly drunk or high multiple times a week (and just hang out of course)? For that matter, it defies logic that a person is old enough to fight a war but not old enough to legally drink a goddamn beer.
The idea of a military draft holds the same precepts as most religions. The State is God (or Mithras, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monster, whoever) and as such commands utter obedience unto death from its Worshippers.
Furthermore, the carefully-termed lawyerish offerings such as the Montgomery GI bill which promise a paid education to the poor or thrifty in return for their bodily sacrifice in the name of national military service is a form of bribery or coercion to encourage enslavement and should be banned. Future soldiers should simply just be given higher compensation. After serving, our soldiers should have the right to choose what to do with their lives, as they may change their minds. The GI bill office should be closed as cost savings immediately after all soldiers who have been offered this benefit have either exercised it or have taken a cash bonus in lieu of the option.
Furthermore, all advertised, active recruiting for the military should be banned. Most of the TV ads and brochures I have seen glorify war and appeal to the young man or woman’s sense of nationalistic pride, vanity, need for glory or companionship, etc. I have never seen a brochure with a Marine being blown apart by an RPG, a scene of torture from Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Guantanamo, Cuba, or Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, or turning Iraqi and Afghani peasants' heads into bloody mist. American citizens know we have the Armed Forces, and true patriots do not need any damn advertising to tell us what is patriotic. Just post the pay rates, terms and conditions, and contact phone number online and be done with it, we will contact you. This will save money and free more soldiers to defend the borders (I mean ours, not Pakistan's). One day the empire is over and there is more freedom, my feeling is that more will be willing to serve.
Also, by no means am I against defending the country, and I will continue to respect the service of those who have or are serving in the military, even as I disrespect the new unAmerican ‘value’ of preemptive war. As a matter of fact, I hold that the State is responsible for providing the best-possible, fully-paid medical service for all war-related injuries, whether mental or physical. I hold that the State currently disrespects the ultimate sacrifice (death) and our wounded casualties by providing inadequate care. It is akin to throwing a totaled Mustang on a scrap heap instead of paying for a new transmission, doors and brakes. It is akin to flicking an ant into a pool to swim for itself after all its legs have been broken. The very last thing a soldier in a war zone or wounded veteran should have to worry about is his or her medical care will not be paid or provided. We the People do owe our soldiers this, and I would support entering this in the Constitution at the same time as we add an explicit amendment banning a military draft under any circumstances.
Although I am overall a peaceful individual, I do NOT renounce defending my person against a military draft, which I view as unconstitutional enslavement, by any means necessary, including lethal force. However I hope and fully expect that nonviolent, passive disobedience against the State will be more advantageous.
Individuals should have the freedom to… okay, that’s enough from me. This is coming from someone who privately gave serious thought to applying to West Point while in high school, and to enlisting after 9/11. What do you think of this statement Reader?
Now for the Barackcuda, so eloquent yet so weasel-like and so dangerous. I challenge you, Reader, to send me an unequivocal statement from Obama stating he will not enact the Selective Service under any circumstances. I find your candidate a little hard to pin down, but I think I got the roach, so to speak, right here. (You can also read about his preemptive-war-against-Pakistan policy here)
Anderson Cooper: "Senator Obama, should women register for Selective Service?"
Barack Obama: "...I think that if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do."
So "boys" and Obama's girls, the statement is a slimy one from a great politician, but the "obligations" there is the same utter slavery to the State I refer to above. Obama will use you as raw material, as a sacrifice to the State, make no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Whatever happened to asking his two daughters (aged 10 and 7 by the way) if they are OK with dying in or supporting war? Just so Daddy can win a point off McCain in a debate and get all his fame, paycheck, and prestige? I am sure the Barackcuda could pressure them into it if he had to. Am I out of line comparing Obama to Hitler? See Reagan's quote below and read The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans. And I remind you, Reader, Obama is a millionaire of aristocratic descent who has served the country as a politician, who has served himself as a lawyer, and such hypocrisy!, a constitutional law professor. HE chose to NOT serve in our country’s military for ANY period of time. Well, at the end of the day, he has to increase the armed forces by 100,000 as he has pledged on his website somehow, right? The website continues:
[I] "will restore the ethic of public service to the agenda of today's youth, whether it be serving their local communities in such roles as teachers or first responders, or serving in the military to keep our nation free and safe."
Again a little tricky, but how praytell, does one "restore the ethic of… serving in the military?" With emotional, charismatic, nationalistic speeches, I’ll wager. Hitler was really good at that as well. Obviously, Obama’s statements mean he will promote the recruitment of individuals to fight in tempting locales such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – how? by brainwashing? In a free republic, it’s obviously that public service would be admired without encouragement or a restoration of ethics needed from a President, or is it? See the speech from Webster below. I challenge you, capital-D-Democrats, defend your candidate. I treated him callously, I know, but if you keep reading you will maybe understand my frame of reference better.
Time to give myself a softball. Here is John McCain, circa June 25, 2008.
When pressed, McCain said: "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III."
I dunno, Jonny. How about three terrorist bombs going off simultaneously in Long Beach, Galveston, and Boston? Or Iran cutting off the Straits of Hormuz? Or if we really, really need to surge into Iran after surging in Iraq, then surging in Afghanstan, surging in Iraq for seven more years… Also, we have a lot of wars left to fight in our War on Terror, right? North Korea is ripe for the pickings, I heard Tibet has some terrorists too, and its obviously we need to wipe both Israel and the Gaza Strip off the map as they obviously both use Terrorist tactics too. Terror, Terror, Terror, I am quivering in my boxers, Jonny. And the Basque in Spain, the FARC guerillas in South America, the Serbs are thinking about genocide again, and someone has GOT to be using Terror in Darfur and/or Somalia so let’s get our butts down there – oh wait, forgot I think Nigeria and Congo have the most Terror action right now – or East Timor, or...
McCain’s comment about needing a draft to support WWIII is addressed above in my personal statement. I warn the Reader, such a war is closer than ever with imperialistic leaders with mindsets like McBama! Heather Saarela's article also has an interesting Huffington Post link.
Quotes from Ron Paul’s must-read The Revolution: A Manifesto, pages 55-58;
Republican Senator Robert Taft said that the draft was "far more typical of totalitarian nations than of democratic nations. It is absolutely opposed to the principles of individual liberty, which have always been considered a part of American democracy."
Military conscription, said Ronald Reagan in 1979, "rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state… That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."
Reagan in 1980:
I oppose registration for the draft… because I believe the security of freedom can best be achieved by security through freedom. The all-voluntary force is based on the sound and historic American principle of voluntary commitment to defense of freedom… The United States of America believes a free people do not have to be coerced in defending their country or their values and that the principle of freedom is the best and only foundation upon which a defense of freedom can be made. My vision of a secure America is based on my belief that freedom calls forth the best in the human spirit and that the defense of freedom can and will best be made out of love of country, a love that needs no coercion. Out of such a love, a real security will develop, because in the final analysis, the free human heart and spirit are the best and most reliable defense.
House Representative Daniel Webster, 1814:
"Where is it written in the Constitution – in what article or section is it contained – that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?
In granting Congress the power to raise armies, the people have granted all the means which are ordinary and usual, and which are consistent with the liberties and security of the people themselves, and they have granted no others… a free government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism [this is a tactless act - Jake], at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man…
I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from substance of a free government.
Congress having, by the Constitution, a power to raise armies, the Secretary [of War] contends that no restraint is to be imposed on the exercise of this power, except such as expressly stated in the written letter of the instrument. In other words, that Congress may execute its powers, by any means it chooses, unless such means are particularly prohibited. But the general nature and object of the Constitution impose as rigid a restriction on the means of exercising power as could be done by the most explicit injunctions. It is the first principle to be applied to such a case, that no construction shall be admitted which impairs the general nature and character of the instrument. A free constitution of government is to be construed upon free principles, and every branch of its provisions is to receive such an interpretation as is full of its general spirit. No means are to be taken by implication which would strike us absurdly if expressed. And what would have been more absurd than for this Constitution to have said that to secure the great blessings of liberty it gave to government uncontrolled power of military conscription? Yet such is the absurdity which it is made to exhibit, under the commentary of the Secretary of War."
Paul comments Webster was strongly pro-central government. And the Doctor himself, 2008:
"Young people are not raw material to be employed by the political class on behalf of whatever fashionable political, military, or social cause catches its fancy. In a free society, their lives are not the playthings of government."
And this mysterious unknown source, circa 1986, just read the content with an open mind as I have and take it for what its worth:
"Few efforts of human behavior modification are more remarkable or more effective than that of the socio-military institution known as the draft. A primary purpose of a draft or other such institution is to instill, by intimidation, in the young males of a society the uncritical conviction that the government is omnipotent.
Even more interesting is the process by which a young man's parents, who purportedly love him, can be induced to send him off to war to his death.
The draft (Selective Service, etc.) is an institution of compulsory collective sacrifice and slavery, devised by the middle-aged and elderly for the purpose of pressing the young into doing the public dirty work. It further serves to make the youth as guilty as the elders, thus making criticism of the elders by the youth less likely (Generational Stabilizer).
It is marketed and sold to the public under the label of "patriotic = national" service.
To secure the draft, individual brainwashing/programming and both the family unit and the peer group must be engaged and brought under control.
Father - The man of the household must be housebroken to ensure that junior will grow up with the right social training and attitudes. The advertising media, etc., are engaged to see to it that father-to-be is pussy-whipped before or by the time he is married. He is taught that he either conforms to the social notch cut out for him or his sex life will be hobbled and his tender companionship will be zero. He is made to see that women demand security more than logical, principled, or honorable behavior.
By the time his son must go to war, father (with jelly for a backbone) will slam a gun into junior's hand before father will risk the censure of his peers, or make a hypocrite of himself by crossing the investment he has in his own personal opinion or self-esteem. Junior will go to war or father will be embarrassed. So junior will go to war, the true purpose not withstanding.
Mother - The female element of human society is ruled by emotion first and logic second. In the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins, fantasy prevails, maternal instinct dominates so that the child comes first and the future comes second. A woman with a newborn baby is too starry-eyed to see a wealthy man's cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor. A woman must, however, be conditioned to accept the transition to "reality" when it comes, or sooner.
As the transition becomes more difficult to manage, the family unit must be carefully disintegrated, and state-controlled public education and state-operated child-care centers must be become more common and legally enforced so as to begin the detachment of the child from the mother and father at an earlier age. Inoculation of behavioral drugs [Ritalin] can speed the transition for the child (mandatory). Caution: A woman's impulsive anger can override her fear. An irate woman's power must never be underestimated, and her power over a pussy-whipped husband must likewise never be underestimated. It got women the vote in 1920.
Junior - The emotional pressure for self-preservation during the time of war and the self-serving attitude of the common herd that have an option to avoid the battlefield - if junior can be persuaded to go - is all of the pressure finally necessary to propel Johnny off to war. Their quiet blackmailings of him are the threats: "No sacrifice, no friends; no glory, no girlfriends."
Sister - And what about junior's sister? She is given all the good things of life by her father, and taught to expect the same from her future husband regardless of the price.
Cattle - Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same."
Do you reject the Draft or like the article? Give this article a Thumbs Up so I know!
In Liberty,
Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
www.campaignforliberty.com
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.
We the People versus the Might of the US Government Published: March 2, 2008 What do the experiences of SAS trooper Ben Griffin, Hope Steffey, and Jose Padilla all have in common? They show the Might of Government is overwhelming Right. We the People want Justice!
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Great article. I would add as additional information the before the U.S. government instituted the first draft (during the Civil War and two years after the Confederate Government had done so, the federal government would order the state governments to provide volunteers. The states used various means to obey the order. Whether any state government employed the draft, I do not know, but I do know that in 1836, during the Second Seminole War, the governor of South Carolina announced that he would institute a draft if not enough men volunteered to fill the quota. As it turned out, the draft was not found necessary, but it may have been in other states.
McCain wants to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely and may also start a war with Iran. So it seems quite possible that he will have to resort to the draft to do that.
Obama seems less inclined to engage in unnecessary wars. But like many Democrats he seems to be obsessed with the idea of community service. Some Democrats like John Kerry and Charles Rangel have proposed mandatory service. As far as I know Obama has only proposed voluntary service. But I suspect the mandatory part is not far behind. The service proposed by Rangel is his Universal National Service Act. That bill would draft everyone between the ages of 18 and 42, male and female. That amounts to nearly 1/3 of the population. A few of those folks would be placed into military service, but the majority would go into civilian service. The exact nature of that service is not defined in Rangel's bill. The bill provides for penalties for not satisfactorily performing the service. The nature of the penalty is left up to the president, so we don't know what that would be. However, I do note that the current president is fond of torture.
Rangel's bill should be called the "Restoration Of Involuntary Servitude Act." That is exactly what his bill would do. It would make the American people servants of the government. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution which even hints that the government has the authority to create such a system. Moreover the 13th amendment specifically bans it.
But it seems this is slowly beginning to happen already as many schools now mandate some hours of community service as a requirement for graduation. I think the plan is that High school kids are too dumb to realize they are being enslaved. And they don't have voting rights yet so they can't throw out their en-slavers. So this is a foot in the door method for the ruling elite to gradually enslave the American people. To me the most disturbing thing is that many Democratic voters think this is a great idea: Hurray! Slap those chains on me!!
Its baffling to me that any freedom loving person would support such a plan.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-07-26 16:56:02
Just wanted to add in an email conversation with a reader who served previously in the Marines
R: I am 100% opposed to the draft. I, as a volunteer, do not want nor need someone next to me on the firing line that does not want to be there. They will be of poor quality in motivation and discipline. WWII was the exception. WWI was a crock of crap which we should never have been involved with.
J: Ban all active military recruiting.
R: Why? If we ban that organ of government from "speaking", then we must ban all of them from "speaking", including the few that are actually good. J: You have a good point, my point is why advertise? You don't see the IRS advertising for new accts, and they do just fine. I think using pictures and brochures with tanks, shiny aircrafts, and gung-ho campaigns like Army of One is unnecessary for, as you say, getting the right people. Plus the people recruiting can be made active - if every major town has 1 dude and most major cities a lot more than that, it might be pretty substantial. to make a better decision, it might be nice to know how much is spent by each branch on recruiting and how many recruiters (I have no idea)
J: Furthermore, the carefully-termed lawyerish offerings such as the Montgomery GI bill which promise a paid education to the poor or thrifty in return for their bodily sacrifice in the name of national military service is a form of bribery or coercion to encourage enslavement and should be banned."
R:This is the definition(s) of coercion: 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. 2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force. That would be a draft. Indeed it is a persons choice to join...the recruiter does not make someone sign the contract. Bribery implies direct corruption. The G.I. Bill is there for anyone wanting it. It is not compulsary. I personally see no reason to ban the G.I. bill. Even in the republic days of Rome, soldiers were given a parcel of land after 20 years of service. The soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine actually have to pay into the system to receive anything back. The G.I. bill can also go towards technical school. If that is the option for money for a poor kid...then why not? Voluntary enslavement in not enslavement.
J: Point taken on my poor choce of words (next time please just enter in the article html). However, counterpoint - if you are going to offer the benefit to all, and not every will take it up, basically those that dont take it up are turning down free $ since they dont want to spend time in a classroom. So whats wrong with my idea of just paying them more - than each soldier can decide what to do when they return - buy land, house, go to school, buy a car, etc. I just became aware that the pay for a US Army private in 2007 was $1301 per month. I am outraged at the piddlesome sum as we continue paying Haliburton, etc truck drivers double what the soldiers are making even those these drivers abide by no code, refuse deployment into combat areas, etc.?? If this is done than the entire GI Bill office personnel and work can be returned to the military for use in doing their job (similar to recruitment idea) I have also had some feedback from Vietnam vets who went to school on the GI Bill who were still in debt after college ended. So why not just pay the soldiers more $$$?
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
involuntary servitude = the draft, jury duty, public schools, those two words are absolutely clear to me.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
