Conscription: Liberal-Style

[Flanders]

Young Americans better watch out when the Washington Post floats trial balloons like this:

We should mandate military service for all Americans, men and women alike, when they turn 18. The idea is radical, unlikely and impractical — but it just might work.

I’m not going to rehash the traditional pros & cons about conscription. The question Americans should be asking is this: Am I being drafted to serve the country or the United Nations? Consider this before you answer. Once inducted I can be ordered to serve the UN. Take this to the bank: Serving the United Nations means acting against your country. That’s conscription: liberal-style.

More to the point. No young American with any brains wants to die in a foreign country fighting for the UN. Most are smart enough to see that proposed military interventions like Syria are not about defending America. Touchy-feely interventions are about advancing global government.

NOTE: Afghanistan and Iraq were originally seen as wars of self-defense as, indeed, they were. That perception, along with the public’s support, has eroded. Americans now see that Afghanistan and Iraq were transformed into nation-building. Also, Iraq was not a UN-sanctioned war and America won. The victory was short-lived. It lasted until Barack Taqiyya snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Afghanistan is a UN-sanctioned war and America is losing; not only losing but taking the blame. When Taqiyya pulls out nobody is going the blame the defeat on the United Nations.

Incidentally, Korea was a United Nations police action. Lefties want our troops out of there to be sure, but how many times did you hear them blame the United Nations for our troops stationed there 60 years after the police action ended? Answer: NEVER. Don’t get me wrong on this. President Truman did the right thing in stopping Communism in Korea. He was wrong in going through the UN to do it. Had the Korean War been fought with total victory as the objective Communist China would have a free people on its border instead of puppet North Korea as a buffer.

UCMJ

Years ago I suggested changing the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) so that no American can be punished for refusing to serve the UN. I even suggested that anyone thinking of enlisting should first get some kind of a legal document that says they can refuse to serve the UN.

It is my understanding that the US military can change the UCMJ without consulting Congress. Obviously, the current commander in chief would never agree to such a change. I’m not sure any of the Republican wannabes would make the necessary change. Let’s speculate and say the next president does give military people the protection from the United Nations they need.

Make the change so ironclad that military personnel so inclined will have every legal Right to refuse such an order and not be punished for refusing. In any event, Americans should only fight to defend their country against clearly-defined military threats like Islamic fundamentalism (think 9/11), and Communist expansion by force (think worldwide Communist domination), rather than being manipulated into jousting against philosophical threats. When Americans do go to war they should fight a total war, not Peace Without Victory war —— and to hell with the enemy’s feelings.

A simpler way to deal with the UCMJ is to withdraw from the UN and let those countries so full of hatred for the US stew in their own juices. You can bet they’ll think twice before attacking America after the UN goes belly up. It’s even possible they will be smart enough NOT to attack. Only countries with a death wish would attack America when they know that total war removes the Peace Without Victory option of regrouping and trying again.

Let’s take a look at he who is ethically challenged —— Charlie Rangel:

There’s no mass movement for mandatory service, but the idea has gained a diverse group of supporters, including retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y).

Save America: Restore the draft
By Dana Milbank, Published: November 29

Dana Milbank: Restore conscription, restore America - The Washington Post​

Rangel supporting the draft is no recommendation nor is his support new. Bob Unruh over at WND is a bit more precise than is Milbank over at the WAPO:

WND also has reported that U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18 to 42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”

His idea was to authorize “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”

Rangel’s plan specified that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”

“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 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title,” it specified.

It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps.

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote.

Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging
'2nd term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect'
Published: 04/13/2012 at 10:57 AM
BOB UNRUH

Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging​

I hate to ask about the kind of service Rangel wants performed by those “draftees” who do not go into the military.

Let’s go back to 2005 —— a really bad year for Rangel’s views on conscription —— with an excerpt from a column by the late Robert Novak (1931 - 2009):

Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who as a drafted soldier won the Bronze Star in Korea, is one of the very few members of Congress who advocate the draft. He does not hide his motive: a president would be politically unable to take a conscript army into wars such as Iraq.

May 26, 2005
America's Recruiting Dilemma
By Robert Novak

America's recruiting dilemma - Robert Novak - Page 1​

Lay my suggested change to the UCMJ on Rangel and the rest of the leading Democrats today and you’ll hear so much caterwauling you’ll need earplugs to drown it out. Democrats oppose the war against terrorism when it means America defending itself unilaterally, while they don’t oppose Americans dying for the UN. If you don’t believe me just ask Charlie if he supported the UN-approved coalition in Afghanistan while he opposed the “unilateral” war in Iraq? Never mind. Don’t ask him. He will only recite the Left’s standard talking points: No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, blah, blah, blah.

To be fair to Rangel he always worried about the guys who did the actual fighting. I was never sure if he thinks foxholes dug for the United Nations in Korea were safer than the ones dug fighting the war against Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While seeking their party’s nomination for president in 2004 not one of the Democrats who were for the war in Iraq before they were against it ever included UN-approved military interventions, or UN peacekeeping missions, in their anti-war pronouncements. John Kerry’s comments were so cleverly worded he fooled himself into thinking he had scored brownie points with voters. I remember he said this in his acceptance speech:

And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation.

Text of John Kerry's Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention (washingtonpost.com)​

Most voters understood “. . . only when we have to.” would have been decided by the UN had Kerry won the election. Neither Kerry nor any other Democrat ever said otherwise.

Incidentally, UN-loving Kerry said the words America/Americans 88 times in his acceptance speech. That’s rather a lot coming from a traitor.

Purging military officers who are not loyal to the UN

There was a time when career military officers acknowledged up-front that defending the country is where the rubber meets the road for most Americans. That was before the purge. No matter. Presidents can sign UN treaties, senators can ratify them, international-minded judges can interpret them for the UN’s benefit, and talking heads can make it all sound wonderful. None of those things will con the majority of Americans into fighting for the UN —— draft or no draft.

Finally, Dana Milbank implies that instituting the draft will help solve the problems in Washington. He’s a liberal writing in the WAPO; so I’m sure he believes that the main problem is: There's not enough liberalism going around. Based on what I heard and read liberals believe that conscription will solve Washington’s problems by making more Americans available to serve the United Nations.

 

[HenryBHough]

Soon enough Americans will be conscripted to become doctors. Only way there'll be enough to go 'round as those who presently are in the profession retire, flee to other countries, or move on to a trade where they can earn a living.

 

[Flopper]

In 2013, there are approximately 90,000 UN peacekeepers serving around the world from 116 countries. The US provides only 82 of them, so the odds that any young recruit will be serving under the UN is pretty small.

List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/B]

 

[Flanders]

Soon enough Americans will be conscripted to become doctors. Only way there'll be enough to go 'round as those who presently are in the profession retire, flee to other countries, or move on to a trade where they can earn a living.

To HenryBHough: More than likely standards will be lowered so “doctors” can be rushed through medical schools in order to comply with the affirmative action program that is built into HillaryCare II.

In 2013, there are approximately 90,000 UN peacekeepers serving around the world from 116 countries. The US provides only 82 of them, so the odds that any young recruit will be serving under the UN is pretty small.

List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/B]

To Flopper: One is one too many. It just happens to be low at the present time. If anybody wants to serve the United Nations they are free to do so after they resign from the US military. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay military salaries to anybody serving the UN.

UN-controlled military interventions like Korea, Desert Storm, and Afghanistan are the danger. NOTHING this country’s military does should involve the UN. Not our self-defense, not humanitarian efforts, not peacekeeping especially when there is no peace to keep.

Incidentally, nothing the UN says has any weight. Not UN attempts to gain the authority to tax Americans through treaties, not UN designer-science, not UN attempts to control America’s technology, and certainly not the UN’s World Court and the ICC. UN law is Socialist law is International law.

Nor should anybody working for the United Nations have diplomatic immunity. Foreigners assigned to the United Nations by their governments should be attached to their embassies. In short, the UN is a private organization, a money-making enterprise, not a government and it should be treated as such.

Pass HR 1146 and the United Nations goes away.

 

[rdean]

I've always been pro draft. I think it's a good idea. Didn't hurt Elvis.

 

[Flopper]

Most major UN sanctioned military interventions such as Korea, Desert Storm, and Afghanistan have been at the request of the US. In fact, many UN interventions, have been promoted by the US in keeping with US foreign policy. The US uses the UN to sell US foreign policy to world.

 

[1CAVCCO15MED]

So...the Korean War was a Communist plot to get us to fight Communism. Down the rabbit hole we go. The so called right wing is such a bunch of obedient sheep. Actually more like a pig. There is nothing they won't swallow as long as it is from their masters. Obey. Believe. Do exactly what we say. You will be permitted to sneer and wiggle your eyebrows but only on command. You will rise up when you are commanded with your little pop guns and they will let you run wild killing liberals and all the others you have been trained to hate for a while until you do enough stupidity and atrocity and you have proven how stupid it is for you to have any power at all and then they will put you down. Then the new masters will take your guns.

 

[Flanders]

Most major UN sanctioned military interventions such as Korea, Desert Storm, and Afghanistan have been at the request of the US. In fact, many UN interventions, have been promoted by the US in keeping with US foreign policy.

To Flopper: No argument there. After President Truman did the right thing in Korea it was American global government traitors who empowered the UN in ways he never intended.

The US uses the UN to sell US foreign policy to world.

To Flopper: Selling global government to Third World countries expecting huge benefits from First World taxation is not much of a sell.

So...the Korean War was a Communist plot to get us to fight Communism. Down the rabbit hole we go. The so called right wing is such a bunch of obedient sheep. Actually more like a pig. There is nothing they won't swallow as long as it is from their masters. Obey. Believe. Do exactly what we say. You will be permitted to sneer and wiggle your eyebrows but only on command. You will rise up when you are commanded with your little pop guns and they will let you run wild killing liberals and all the others you have been trained to hate for a while until you do enough stupidity and atrocity and you have proven how stupid it is for you to have any power at all and then they will put you down. Then the new masters will take your guns.

To 1CAVCCO15MED: What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Flopper]

Most major UN sanctioned military interventions such as Korea, Desert Storm, and Afghanistan have been at the request of the US. In fact, many UN interventions, have been promoted by the US in keeping with US foreign policy.

To Flopper: No argument there. After President Truman did the right thing in Korea it was American global government traitors who empowered the UN in ways he never intended.

The US uses the UN to sell US foreign policy to world.

To Flopper: Selling global government to Third World countries expecting huge benefits from First World taxation is not much of a sell.

So...the Korean War was a Communist plot to get us to fight Communism. Down the rabbit hole we go. The so called right wing is such a bunch of obedient sheep. Actually more like a pig. There is nothing they won't swallow as long as it is from their masters. Obey. Believe. Do exactly what we say. You will be permitted to sneer and wiggle your eyebrows but only on command. You will rise up when you are commanded with your little pop guns and they will let you run wild killing liberals and all the others you have been trained to hate for a while until you do enough stupidity and atrocity and you have proven how stupid it is for you to have any power at all and then they will put you down. Then the new masters will take your guns.

To 1CAVCCO15MED: What the hell are you talking about?

The State Dept. uses the UN to further US foreign policy. We been doing it since the UN was founded. We've supported a lot of humanitarian actions but most of our actions in the UN are self serving, the same as other members.

 

[Flanders]

The State Dept. uses the UN to further US foreign policy.

To Flopper: No it doesn’t. The State Department furthers the policy of a small minority of elitists trying to establish a global government administered by the United Nations. I suspect that people like you believe that surrendering America’s sovereignty to the UN should be US foreign policy.

I’ve posted messages on that topic in the past. I know that you read one such thread, but you still go on and on as though the UN is a good thing. In this thread you talk about foreign policy as though that justifies membership in the UN. At least have the courage to defend the United Nations for what it is.

There is so much proof available I could post pages and pages to make my case. Regardless of the mountain of evidence those of us who talk about the New World Order present in less than glowing terms we are faced with people like you who defend the United Nations by pretending there is no movement for global government. It’s either that or get hit with the conspiracy-theory-defense liberals love so dearly.

Here’s a few of my favorites proofs ——not for you —— but for anyone who is new to the topic:

From none other than kingpin globalist David Rockefeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.”

“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting 1991

BBC's Disinfo Piece: "Bilderberg mystery: Why do people believe in cabals?" - The Vigilant Citizen​

Next

Walter Cronkite (1916 - 2009) and this telling excerpt from his acceptance speech. Move the cursor to 7:50 to hear Hillary Clinton agree with the old Socialist:

It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace.

To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=inu9vKXsrFA]World Federalist Association - Walter Cronkite, NWO, WTF - YouTube[/ame]​

Next

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott for the Clintons came out of the closet in a 1992 Time Magazine article:

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

37 Quotes on the New World Order, the Coming One-world Government and One-World Religion | Conspiracy Theories​

Move the cursor to 1:00 to hear Strobe Talbott’s voice:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=heegk07026I]Walter Cronkite receives "Global Governance Award" from WFA - YouTube[/ame]​

Next

The current US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has no love for America’s sovereignty:

. . . Kurtz calls Power “a patriot’s nightmare — a woman determined to subordinate America’s national sovereignty” to her own vision of how the world ought to work and what global role the US ought to play.

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power
April 6, 2011 | Modified: March 16, 2012 at 7:26 am
Neil Hrab

The ugly truth about Obama advisor Samantha Power | WashingtonExaminer.com​

XXXXX​

April 5, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Samantha Power’s Power
On the ideology of an Obama adviser
By STANLEY KURTZ

Samantha Power?s Power | National Review Online​

Bottom line: The American people never gave those people, or the State Department, permission to give away something they do not own. AMERICA’S INDEPENDENCE

We've supported a lot of humanitarian actions but most of our actions in the UN are self serving,

To Flopper: You got that right. Everything serves the global government traitors.

the same as other members.

To Flopper: Wrong. They are in it for what they can get out of our “foreign policy.” The minute the largesse stops flowing to their ruling classes they will be gone faster than Hillary Clinton can say “Human Rights.”

 

[namvet]

I've always been pro draft. I think it's a good idea. Didn't hurt Elvis.

Elvis had a brain and IQ level to pass pre induction. this shit for brains generation can't find its ass with both hands. no. no draft

 

[Flopper]

The State Dept. uses the UN to further US foreign policy.

To Flopper: No it doesn’t. The State Department furthers the policy of a small minority of elitists trying to establish a global government administered by the United Nations. I suspect that people like you believe that surrendering America’s sovereignty to the UN should be US foreign policy.

I’ve posted messages on that topic in the past. I know that you read one such thread, but you still go on and on as though the UN is a good thing. In this thread you talk about foreign policy as though that justifies membership in the UN. At least have the courage to defend the United Nations for what it is.

There is so much proof available I could post pages and pages to make my case. Regardless of the mountain of evidence those of us who talk about the New World Order present in less than glowing terms we are faced with people like you who defend the United Nations by pretending there is no movement for global government. It’s either that or get hit with the conspiracy-theory-defense liberals love so dearly.

Here’s a few of my favorites proofs ——not for you —— but for anyone who is new to the topic:

From none other than kingpin globalist David Rockefeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.”

“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting 1991

BBC's Disinfo Piece: "Bilderberg mystery: Why do people believe in cabals?" - The Vigilant Citizen​

Next

Walter Cronkite (1916 - 2009) and this telling excerpt from his acceptance speech. Move the cursor to 7:50 to hear Hillary Clinton agree with the old Socialist:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=inu9vKXsrFA]World Federalist Association - Walter Cronkite, NWO, WTF - YouTube[/ame]​

Next

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott for the Clintons came out of the closet in a 1992 Time Magazine article:



Move the cursor to 1:00 to hear Strobe Talbott’s voice:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=heegk07026I]Walter Cronkite receives "Global Governance Award" from WFA - YouTube[/ame]​

Next

The current US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has no love for America’s sovereignty:



Bottom line: The American people never gave those people, or the State Department, permission to give away something they do not own. AMERICA’S INDEPENDENCE

We've supported a lot of humanitarian actions but most of our actions in the UN are self serving,

To Flopper: You got that right. Everything serves the global government traitors.

the same as other members.

To Flopper: Wrong. They are in it for what they can get out of our “foreign policy.” The minute the largesse stops flowing to their ruling classes they will be gone faster than Hillary Clinton can say “Human Rights.”

Your post reminds me of the John Birch Society campaign of the 50's and 60's, pamphlets and billboards warning Americans of the horror of world government.

I usually don't reply to the "get out of the UN topics" because it simply will not happen. There is no way of knowing what the ramifications would be it the US dropped out, something neither party wants to deal with.

 

[NLT]

I think its a good idea maybe get a few thugs off the street and teach them to be worthwhile. Being in the Military was the best thing that ever happened to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conscription: Liberal-Style

Neo-con nattering, nothing more.

 

[Flanders]

Your post reminds me of the John Birch Society campaign of the 50's and 60's, pamphlets and billboards warning Americans of the horror of world government.

I usually don't reply to the "get out of the UN topics" because it simply will not happen. There is no way of knowing what the ramifications would be it the US dropped out, something neither party wants to deal with.

To Flopper: Pointing a finger at the John Birch Society from 60 years ago! Get real. Can’t you find a better way than that to sellout your country to the UN without actually saying why you want to do it. If nothing else you’re as consistent as Barack Taqiyya & Company. Sneaks to the very end.

 

[bianco]

Aah, conscription...mandatory military service...the forcing of citizens into the military.

Lovely. No shortage of cannon-fodder for more stoopid and useless wars.

There must be no exceptions...or there'll be riots/protests/abuse of politicians and the President never seen before.
"One in, all in" it must be.
All young women forced into the military, no exceptions...'barbies', 'Muslim women', the "I'm pretty" 'babes' who talked the cop into just giving them a warning for a traffic violation, students, models, tv presenters, 'Wall St types', all races, all creeds.
Anyone who thinks that only young White Christian men will be conscripted is in for a rude shock.

 

[Flopper]

Your post reminds me of the John Birch Society campaign of the 50's and 60's, pamphlets and billboards warning Americans of the horror of world government.

I usually don't reply to the "get out of the UN topics" because it simply will not happen. There is no way of knowing what the ramifications would be it the US dropped out, something neither party wants to deal with.

To Flopper: Pointing a finger at the John Birch Society from 60 years ago! Get real. Can’t you find a better way than that to sellout your country to the UN without actually saying why you want to do it. If nothing else you’re as consistent as Barack Taqiyya & Company. Sneaks to the very end.

Since you seem to be well versed on this subject, what do you think the global impact would be if the US withdrew from the UN?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your post reminds me of the John Birch Society campaign of the 50's and 60's, pamphlets and billboards warning Americans of the horror of world government.

I usually don't reply to the "get out of the UN topics" because it simply will not happen. There is no way of knowing what the ramifications would be it the US dropped out, something neither party wants to deal with.

To Flopper: Pointing a finger at the John Birch Society from 60 years ago! Get real. Can’t you find a better way than that to sellout your country to the UN without actually saying why you want to do it. If nothing else you’re as consistent as Barack Taqiyya & Company. Sneaks to the very end.

When reactionaries on the far right stop making references to the Dems as anti Civil Rights in 1964 and that the Southern Strategy did not happen, I imagine that comments about the JBS etc might end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your post reminds me of the John Birch Society campaign of the 50's and 60's, pamphlets and billboards warning Americans of the horror of world government.

I usually don't reply to the "get out of the UN topics" because it simply will not happen. There is no way of knowing what the ramifications would be it the US dropped out, something neither party wants to deal with.

To Flopper: Pointing a finger at the John Birch Society from 60 years ago! Get real. Can’t you find a better way than that to sellout your country to the UN without actually saying why you want to do it. If nothing else you’re as consistent as Barack Taqiyya & Company. Sneaks to the very end.

Since you seem to be well versed on this subject, what do you think the global impact would be if the US withdrew from the UN?

Since you becoming a Martian is more likely than the US withdrawing from the UN, let's move along to the OP.

 

[Flanders]

Since you seem to be well versed on this subject, what do you think the global impact would be if the US withdrew from the UN?

To Flopper: Still the sneak aren’t you? Instead of asking questions you tell me what impact America’s lost sovereignty will have on the world. More importantly, tell me what impact it will have on Americans.