Slavery proponent Rahm Emanuel to be speaker

[cindy25]

this is not a joke, read about it below. this pondslime is going to be Speaker of the USA House of Representatives (not the Knesset)

makes me sick; he writes a book advocating slavery,(THE PLAN) ; the voters in his district have no brains, and now he is in line to be speaker

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11782.html

[mport1]

All politicians are proponents of slavery ;)

[electronicmaji]

http://www.readtheplan.com/index.html

I see nothing in this book about slavery. Its nothing more then some interventionist liberal bullspew; thats quite common from the like of Hillary Clinton and such.

Eitherway; inflamatory thread title is inflamatory and completely wrong.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

this is not a joke, read about it below. this pondslime is going to be Speaker of the USA House of Representatives (not the Knesset)

makes me sick; he writes a book advocating slavery,(THE PLAN) ; the voters in his district have no brains, and now he is in line to be speaker

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11782.html

You can enslave me, baby.

[HOLLYWOOD]

You can enslave me, baby.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/ssn1.jpg

[cindy25]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1483983,00.html

. "Emanuel, along with another former Clinton White House adviser, Bruce Reed, just released a book called The Plan that calls for universal national service"


universal national service is just another phrase for slavery. Sometimes the truth is inflamatory .

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=3719

Reject Draft Slavery
by Rep. Ron Paul

I oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms. The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of "national service," violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft.

The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense officials from both parties have repudiated it. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated, "The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable," while President William Clinton's Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that, "Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, upfront training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft."

However, the most important reason to oppose HR 163 is that a draft violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded. Former President Ronald Reagan eloquently expressed the moral case against the draft in the publication Human Events in 1979: "[Conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state – not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers – to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

Some say the 18-year old draftee "owes it" to his (or her, since HR 163 makes women eligible for the draft) country. Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50-year-old chickenhawk, who promotes war and places innocent young people in danger, owes more to the country than the 18-year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.

All drafts are unfair. All 18- and 19-year-olds are never drafted. By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.

Economic hardship is great in all wars. War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. The great tragedy of war is that it enables the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people. Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known.

But the real sacrifice comes with conscription – forcing a small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote. The draft encourages wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, wars that too often are not even declared by the Congress.

Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from home, which we have experienced often in the past century.

A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my colleagues join me in standing up for individual liberty by rejecting HR 163 and all attempts to bring back the draft.

Digg this!
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article

[electronicmaji]

National Service is quite common in most countries; even conservative ones. I would not call it slavery; and I'd prefer that there are peaceful alternatives for opt out. But in the case of maintaining a militarry it is not a entirely wrong idea. Frankly we don't need militaries in the first place so they miss the entire point. But I wouldn't call them supporters of slavery; thats just sensationalism.

[mediahasyou]

All politicians are proponents of slavery ;)

lol.

[cindy25]

its a form of involuntary servitude, and therefore unconstitutional. Congress shall make no law.... means NO LAW ... with regard to slavery or involuntary servitude.

and it is not common in most countries:
entire Commonwealth none except Singapore, Malaysia and Cyprus
W Europe - except for Germany , Austria , Greece and the Nordic Countries none
(and will be gone in a few years except Finland)
S America -either gone or not enforced
Japan, Philippines, Hong Kong - none

National service has no place in a free society. its just another stupid FDR nightmare , and belongs in the garbage heap of history.

[electronicmaji]

You're wrong. National Service is still used in the following nations.



* Austria (6 months)
* Bolivia (12 months)
* Brazil (9-12 months)
* Denmark (4-12 months)
* Ecuador (selective conscription)
* El Salvador (selective conscription)
* Estonia (8-11 months)
* Finland (6-12 months)
* Germany (9 months)
* Greece (12 months)
* Guatemala (12-24 months)
* Latvia
* Mexico (selective conscription)
* Moldavia (12 months)
* Mongolia (12 months)
* Norway
* Paraguay (12 months for Army, 24 months for Navy)
* Poland (9-12 months)
* Serbia (6 months)
* Switzerland
* Taiwan (selective conscription)
* Tunisia (12 months)
* Turkey (12 months)
* Ukraine (12 months)
* Uzbekistan (12 months)

* Azerbaijan
* Cambodia
* Colombia
* Cote d'Ivoire
* Eritrea
* Georgia
* Laos
* Madagascar
* Russia (12-18 months)

* Armenia
* Burkina Faso
* Congo (Democratic Republic)
* Cuba
* Equatorial Guinea
* Egypt
* Guinea
* Iran
* Israel
* Kazakhstan
* Kyrgyzstan
* Libya
* Mozambique
* North Korea
* Sao Tome and Principe
* Somalia
* Syria
* Sudan
* Tajikistan
* Thailand
* Turkmenistan
* Vietnam



Most countries in South America do continue conscription in fact it works wonders...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

A map of countries that still practice it.

[cindy25]

Poland is already free.
in most of South America bribery ( of either doctors or government officials) gets one out of it.
same in Thailand as shown below:


Monday, 7 April 2008

Army Conscription in Thailand.
Last week a few younger Thai guys I know traveled to Bangkok as they had to attend the draft for the Thai army. When you turn 21 years old you have to go into the draft to join the army for 2 years.

If you volunteer after you reach 18 you only have to do 6 – 18 months depending on your level of education.

Also you can be a student soldier for 3 years in years 10, 11, 12 at school and this will then give you and exemption.

Not many of the guys I know want to be in the army, especially in the south of Thailand where bombs are the normal everyday occurrence. So being Thailand there is a way to guarantee that you won’t be conscripted. How you ask? Well, simply like every thing else in Thailand you pay money.

Men travel to the villagers here in Isaan and talk to the boys who are coming up for conscription and ask if they want or don’t want to be in the army. A fee is then agreed on and when the date of there conscription comes they travel to Bangkok and meet the man, pay their get out of the army fee and just have to wait for all the paperwork to be done.

I am not making this up as my friend who just returned paid 17, 000 Thai Baht to be guaranteed he wouldn’t be conscripted. They write a small medical condition or something on his paperwork and he is excused. He arrived in Bangkok early and seen his parents for a few days and then on the day of his conscription met the man about 30 kms outside of Bangkok to pay his fee and then went to the place where all the medicals and paperwork was being conducted.

There were at least 1,000 people there and they only wanted 80 people to join out of the 1,000. That’s pretty good odds of not being conscripted. If you want to take a chance and not pay the fee; there is a tin that has red and black balls in it. You simply reach into the tin and pull out a ball. If you pull out a black ball you are excused from military service, if you pull out a red ball you are in the army for 2 years.

Even though the odds are incredibly good, many don’t want to take the chance of being drafted, so they just pay. One of the other guys I know only paid 10,000 Thai Baht so he got a bargain.

It is funny how nearly everything in Thailand relating to government bodies relates to money, I personally have never paid a bribe to an official form any department, I know of foreigners who have but I haven’t, yet!

So all this money being paid by prospective army draftees, it is lining the pockets of how many people, I have know idea. Whoever is receiving it must be living a pretty good lifestyle while the very people they are extorting it from, usually don’t have it to pay and get loans from unscrupulous loan sharks to pay the fees.

Well it is part and parcel of Thailand but it doesn’t affect me as I am not Thai. Also I really don’t care because if the Thai people really wanted to stop they would protest in mass numbers so they world media and Thai media couldn’t ignore it, but again that would be too much of an effort and it is easier to just say “Mai pen rai” and keep on living the same old lifestyle as usual.

Brunty.
Posted by Brunty at 22:27

http://isaanstyle.blogspot.com/2008/04/army-conscription-in-thailand.html


but my point is the constitution prohibits any form of involuntary servitude except for punishment of a crime. doesn't matter if every country does it. and look at those counties. most (not all but most) are loser countries no one would want to live in.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

this is not a joke, read about it below. this pondslime is going to be Speaker of the USA House of Representatives (not the Knesset)

makes me sick; he writes a book advocating slavery,(THE PLAN) ; the voters in his district have no brains, and now he is in line to be speaker

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11782.html

The truth is that the poor kids are the ones who end up serving while the rich ones are provided with clauses to avoid it. So, it is never a "national" service but a "poor" one.
In the game of politics it is always a battle of words. He or she who uses the right words while avoiding the use of the wrong ones will win.
Rather than let the truth be the truth which is the American way, why do we try to manipulate words like the Europeans? Does anyone think the lying 49% will ever be persuaded to see the truth of the other 51? Why do we keep using the shallow political spectrum of the Europeans? Don't we understand that our American political system is superior to their primitive ones? Americans were not manipulated to become citizens by a Nazi like use of a political science established through the complex usage of the dark cognizant sciences; rather, our Founding Fathers established us 100% as being citizens through the simple use of "natural law."
We do not have to become Americans again. We simply have to be Americans. What is going on here? Why are we behaving as primitive Europeans?

[Liberty Star]

That guy won't be speaker of House, Dems would have better sense than that. It would be a tragedy for American politics if that happened.

[electronicmaji]

Anyways, as long as cop outs for the rich dont exist I have no problem with conscription.

[cindy25]

then you don't care about the constitution, because no involuntary servitude is allowed as per the 13th amendment