Posted on 06/03/2004 11:32:35 AM PDT by jmstein7
Republicans introduce bill to repeal Selective Service System, permanently end draft.
Many of the action items [on Congress.Org's SoapBox] seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort, or the "warhawks", as another soapbox poster put it.
In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:
D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1] D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3] D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI] D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1] D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14] D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7] D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23] D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18] D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5] D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7] D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8] D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC] D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13] D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
The details of these bills are here:
H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors
S.89 | Text
By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.
Details:
H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors
D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9] D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4] R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16] D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4] D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8] D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11] R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]
I'm really surprised reading through all of the other soapbox posts and letters that, from the tone of the messages, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.
This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President, keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...
I hope this information is found useful.
Contact: das@doit.wisc.edu
Have forwarded this to all in my email address book. Thanks.
I'd love to see the Dems put it in their party platform.
The snide comments and sneers from self-righteous libertarian paleo-FReepers shall commence in five... four... three... two... one.
NO!!! It's the evil Joooo loving Neocons and their Anti-Drug warriors who are trying to institute the draft so they can kill all of our White Anglo saxon gentiles and give zionism a stronger hold on the tyrannical US government. /Loserdopian Perspective
The liberals want to reinstate the draft in order to make the military weak and ineffective and filled with malcontents, dopeheads, losers, and liberals. They are only calling for a larger military because they don't believe that there are enough volunteers to fill the quotas but they forget that the all volunteer military was MUCH larger in the 1980's.
Wake up, people. This is an organized effort by the Democrats to spread the false rumor that PRESIDENT BUSH wants to reinstitute the draft. It is aimed at scaring soccer moms with sons, teenagers, and first time voters this year. They are starting rumors all over the country on blogs, message boards frequented by women, and on college campuses. It is going around in emails. Of course they never bother to mention that the two bills have been introduced by Democrats - most people are too stupid and gullible to check it out themselves. They are telling people that "bills have already been introduced in Congress to reinstitute the draft and Bush is going to sign them as soon as he is reelected." I have heard this rumor directly from three women I know and from a man who heard it from his wife.
Most people who join the military do it for parallel reasons, to learn a trade and/or to get an education (or money for an education) and because they believe that it is an honorable thing to do. The vast majority of them (as witnessed by the very, very few desertions) are fulfilling their obligation with honor even if it means putting their lives in danger.
Then we must let them know who is behind this. Be vocal, scream like the liberals scream.
The military population is equal to our country's population. Look at the dead, how many of them are black?
What is funny is that the anti-war left is now wringing their hands over two proposals in Congress concerning the draft. Only one problem...actually two...
There are only two "draft" proposals in the works in Congress according to Thomas Legislation, S89 and HR163. Both are for drafting those between 18 and 26 to serve a period of 2 years, barring exemptions for high school students and hardship/disability. Conscientious objectors can be exempt from combat duty. HR163 was submitted by Charles Rangel...a DEMOCRAT! S89 is was submitted by Senator Fritz Hollings...another DEMOCRAT!
58 posted on 05/24/2004 9:46:10 AM PDT by ravingnutter
Chickenhawks prefer to draft the current volunteers: "The Army announced Wednesday that it would require all soldiers bound for Iraq and Afghanistan to extend their active duty at least until their units have returned home from duty there, a move that could keep thousands of troops in the service for months longer than they expected over the next several years,"
Actually there are some things happening in Iraq that are little known. These liberal raised kids facing war and possible death are accepting Jesus by hundreds. They were baptizing them in Euphrates river (too dangerous and unsanitary), so they moved the baptizms to one of Sadaams former palaces with a pool.
I can't wait for them to come home to US and become republicans, thereby inciting their parents. It is a revival over there that is not being publicized by media either. God bless America.
Neo-cons are liberals, Ex-liberals. You can remove the liberal from their slavery. But its hard to remove the slavery from the liberal. i.e. neocons.
I already started a thread on the draft hoax being perpetrated by the Dems. If you go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1137275/posts
you can see the scare e-mail they are sending out. The woman who purported to forward it to me and everyone else at my company said she was horrified at the Bush administration's attempt to draft her son and others . . . .
Fortunately, I and another person here picked up quickly what was going on, and independently sent out follow up e-mails explaining that this story wasn't true, and in fact it is Democrats who introduced the draft bills.
I don't think so. I think they want to bring back the draft in the hopes it will energize anti-war protests. They are dreaming of their own glory days from the '60s.
"Only two"? What difference does it make - it is enough that one passes.
Some quotes from text of H. R. 163:
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.
[...]
(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.
[...]
SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;
(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and
(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.