THE "SECRETS" OF WORLD BANKERS
Starmail - 12. Okt, 15:11
A Voice for Children
12
Okt
2004
10
Okt
2004
The Draft is a Form of Slavery
We Must Reject an Army of Conscripts
The Draft is a Form of Slavery
By Rep. RON PAUL
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul10082004.html
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."
Click to subscribe to openmindandcodenews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openmindandcodenews/join
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.
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.
The Draft is a Form of Slavery
By Rep. RON PAUL
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul10082004.html
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."
Click to subscribe to openmindandcodenews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openmindandcodenews/join
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.
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.
Starmail - 10. Okt, 13:32
9
Okt
2004
8
Okt
2004
6
Okt
2004
4
Okt
2004
3
Okt
2004
Limiting federal courts' jurisdiction
From: Beth Wallace firefly@ados.com
Limited federal government. States rights paramount. County Courts. Constitutional Judicial Due Process. Insist on it. THIS IS WHERE YOU PROTECT AND EXCERCISE YOUR RIGHTS.... YOUR RIGHTS COME FROM CREATOR NOT A FEDERAL JUDGE OR REPRESENTATIVE - this is the WAR on the states, the soveriegn "state", the PEOPLE.
Subject: Limiting federal courts' jurisdiction
September 23, 2004
Congress will vote today to either affirm or rebuke the notion that federal judges are the supreme interpreters of the Constitution. That notion, according to Thomas Jefferson, is a "very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
Today, the U.S. House will either side with Jefferson, or with activists federal judges, when H.R. 2028 -- to limit federal court jurisdiction in issues relating to the Pledge of Allegiance -- comes up for a vote.
The primary issue is whether or not Congress has the authority to limit jurisdiction of federal courts. Congressman Steve Chabot, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, stated on September 15, 2004, "When the issue of limiting federal court jurisdiction was raised during the discussions of the Marriage Protection Act, our subcommittee held a hearing examining Congress's authority. Although there was a mixed opinion on whether Congress should exercise its authority, there was a consensus that Congress did, in fact, have the authority under Article III of the Constitution to determine what issues were heard by the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction and by the lower federal courts."
On July 20, 2004, we supported Congress's authority to limit federal court jurisdiction over questions arising under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act so that the 50 states can determine for themselves whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. Likewise, we support allowing the 50 states to determine for themselves how to decide cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Urge your U.S. representative to vote for H.R. 2028. It's past time to check the authority of federal judges and to support the authority of the 50 states to decide for themselves. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated just three days ago, "Judges have no more capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral."
To send your message, go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=6415756&type=CO
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
Limited federal government. States rights paramount. County Courts. Constitutional Judicial Due Process. Insist on it. THIS IS WHERE YOU PROTECT AND EXCERCISE YOUR RIGHTS.... YOUR RIGHTS COME FROM CREATOR NOT A FEDERAL JUDGE OR REPRESENTATIVE - this is the WAR on the states, the soveriegn "state", the PEOPLE.
Subject: Limiting federal courts' jurisdiction
September 23, 2004
Congress will vote today to either affirm or rebuke the notion that federal judges are the supreme interpreters of the Constitution. That notion, according to Thomas Jefferson, is a "very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
Today, the U.S. House will either side with Jefferson, or with activists federal judges, when H.R. 2028 -- to limit federal court jurisdiction in issues relating to the Pledge of Allegiance -- comes up for a vote.
The primary issue is whether or not Congress has the authority to limit jurisdiction of federal courts. Congressman Steve Chabot, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, stated on September 15, 2004, "When the issue of limiting federal court jurisdiction was raised during the discussions of the Marriage Protection Act, our subcommittee held a hearing examining Congress's authority. Although there was a mixed opinion on whether Congress should exercise its authority, there was a consensus that Congress did, in fact, have the authority under Article III of the Constitution to determine what issues were heard by the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction and by the lower federal courts."
On July 20, 2004, we supported Congress's authority to limit federal court jurisdiction over questions arising under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act so that the 50 states can determine for themselves whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. Likewise, we support allowing the 50 states to determine for themselves how to decide cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Urge your U.S. representative to vote for H.R. 2028. It's past time to check the authority of federal judges and to support the authority of the 50 states to decide for themselves. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated just three days ago, "Judges have no more capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral."
To send your message, go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=6415756&type=CO
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
Starmail - 3. Okt, 17:53
