hypocritexposer
Well-known member
We've all seen the videos of Rahm and Obama talking about a "Civilian Force". If not here they are
Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infowars.com%2Frahm-emanuel-and-obamas-civilian-security-force%2F&feature=player_embedded
Rahm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhQ_lEiaNT8&feature=related
Rahm's book "The Plan:Big Ideas for America"
Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist "this is not a draft," but go on to write of young men and women, "the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service." They also warn, "ome Republicans will squeal about individual freedom," ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service.
Now here is the bill that is the start of that "Force"
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
Comments at another blog (this is a Veteran's blog, and he is very fair and balanced, a great site IMO)
http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/hr-1388-the-beginning-of-the-brown-shirt-brigades/
Comments on the Bill by Rep. Michele Bachmann, a second-term conservative Republican congresswoman from Minnesota
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news139.htm
Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infowars.com%2Frahm-emanuel-and-obamas-civilian-security-force%2F&feature=player_embedded
Rahm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhQ_lEiaNT8&feature=related
Rahm's book "The Plan:Big Ideas for America"
Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist "this is not a draft," but go on to write of young men and women, "the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service." They also warn, "
Now here is the bill that is the start of that "Force"
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
Comments at another blog (this is a Veteran's blog, and he is very fair and balanced, a great site IMO)
On March 18, the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 321-105 (a bi-partisan vote) HR1388- The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (The GIVE Act). And somehow this isn’t making big news the way it should.
Let me start with something easy. The bill includes several changes to the wording in US Code (which makes up all of our laws) in order to make the language a little more nicer sounding. Because of this, you’re not really sure of what it’s doing unless you flip back and forth between the text of H.R. 1388 and the various USC sections, which are equally as dense. They do things like changing camps to campuses, some examples:
(C) in paragraph (3)–
(i) by striking ‘superintendent’ and inserting ‘campus director’; and
(ii) by striking ‘camp’ and inserting ‘campus’; and
‘(1) UNITS TO BE ASSIGNED TO CAMPUSES- ’;
(ii) by striking ‘in camps’ and inserting ‘in campuses’;
(iii) by striking ‘camp’ and inserting ‘campus’; and
(iv) by striking ‘in the camps’ and inserting ‘in the campuses’;
‘(3) ELIGIBLE SITE FOR CAMPUS- ’;
(ii) by striking ‘A camp may be located’ and inserting ‘A campus must be cost-effective and may, upon the completion of a feasibility study, be located’;
‘(e) Distribution of Units and Campuses- ’;
(B) by striking ‘camps are distributed’ and inserting ‘campuses are cost-effective and are distributed’; and
(C) by striking ‘rural areas’ and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ‘rural areas such that each Corps unit in a region can be easily deployed for disaster and emergency response to such region.’; (I read this as they want their ‘Camps’ distributed in ‘rural’ country…away from population centers)
SEC. 1508. AUTHORIZED BENEFITS FOR CORPS MEMBERS.
Section 158 (42 U.S.C. 12618) is amended–
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘National’ before ‘Civilian Community Corps’; and
(2) in subsection (c)–
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)–
(i) by inserting ‘National’ before ‘Civilian Community Corps’; and
(ii) by inserting before the colon the following: ‘, as the Director determines appropriate’;
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘Clothing’ and inserting ‘Uniforms’; and
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘Recreational services and supplies’ and inserting ‘Supplies’. (I read this section as the elimination of local or state volunteerism being eligible for benefits. Only National, as in determined by the new Socialist Party, counts)
Who is NOT eligible to “volunteer” and thus receive government loot?
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.
(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.
(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/hr-1388-the-beginning-of-the-brown-shirt-brigades/
Comments on the Bill by Rep. Michele Bachmann, a second-term conservative Republican congresswoman from Minnesota
“It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism,” Bachmann told host Sue Jeffers on KTLK-AM in Minneapolis during an interview April 3. “But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government. We had about 75,000 people involved in AmeriCorps before, this adds another 250,000 people, so more government employees – but what’s even more concerning about it is the focus is on young people.”
“The original language of the bill was mandatory service for government,” she continued. “Right now the language is voluntary, but just this last week a Democrat colleague introduced a bill to make this mandatory.
“I believe when is all said and done … there’s a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go and work in some of these politically correct forums.
“So it’s very concerning. It appears that there’s a philosophical agenda behind all of this. And especially if young people are mandated to go into this, as a parent I would have a very, very difficult time seeing my children do this. Again – a huge power grab and it’s at a cost of billions of dollars.”
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news139.htm