Never Again and Again
and Again and Again

click.jpg

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Required National Service Corps - How Can Such A Bill Pass The House Without Any Media Coverage?

UPDATED AT BOTTOM OF POST

H.R. 1388 passed the House and is on it's way to the Senate. It's language stipulates "Required National Service" and yet our media has had nothing to say about it.

People will be working for the government without any choice, and the media has nothing to say about it?

Arbeit macht frei” (Work makes {a person} free) the Nazis loved to say to the “volunteers” entering the labor camps.  America’s version is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act” (GIVE act). HR 1388 has already passed the House and is on its way to the Senate.

You can read the final version of the House bill here. The legislation is a long string of amendments to existing laws that make it almost impossible to understand. (Really. This legislation is incomprehensible. I challenge you to click on this link and try to read the bill.)

There appears to be little volunteerism and almost no education in the bill.  But there are a lot of make-work government jobs for doing God only knows what.

For example:

SEC. 122. NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS ELIGIBLE FOR PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.

‘(a) Required National Service Corps- The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps, as full- or part-time corps, including during the summer months, to address unmet educational, health, veteran, or environmental needs.

In case you missed it that says “required National Service Corps.”

And the authorized benefits for these "volunteers" reads a lot like the workers’ allotments for a “people’s republic” to me:

(a) In general
The Director shall provide for members of the Civilian Community Corps to receive benefits authorized by this section.

(b) Living allowance
The Director shall provide a living allowance to members of the Corps for the period during which such members are engaged in training or any activity on a Corps project. The Director shall establish the amount of the allowance at any amount not in excess of the amount equal to 100 percent of the poverty line that is applicable to a family of two (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 9902 (2) of this title.[1]

(c) Other authorized benefits
While receiving training or engaging in service projects as members of the Civilian Community Corps, members may be provided the following benefits:

(1) Allowances for travel expenses, personal expenses, and other expenses.
(2) Quarters.
(3) Subsistence.
(4) Transportation.
(5) Equipment.
(6) Clothing.
(7) Recreational services and supplies.
(8) Other services determined by the Director to be consistent with the purposes of the Program.

Does that read like a voluntary program for, say, cleaning up the neighborhood?  Or does it seem more like directions for funding a labor camp? 

That America’s young people are not up in arms at the very idea of this bill demonstrates how ill-informed, or brain washed, the graduates of our public education system have become. 

The Senate could vote on the bill today or tomorrow. You may want to contact your senator and see if you can help stop this monstrosity. If not, the People’s Republic takes its first baby step when the Senate passes HR 1388.



It's one thing to have a draft in a time of war. But, to require non-military related service smacks of government-enforced slavery to me.

As far as I'm concerned, this is more evidence that our current government is completely out of line with the American Tradition.

UPDATE: By the way, last night I saw a commercial on TV for an organization called CityYear.org, which asks young people to give a year of service to a local community/city. It was, quite obviously, a very well-funded organization, judging by the hig quality of the advertisement.

And yet, when I look at CityYear.org website, I find an organization, founded in 1988, which seems to be mostly doing work in Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston. But now, all of the sudden, they have a national ad campaign?

Clearly, dollars have been rolling in from somewhere. Far be it from me to cast wild aspersions, but I smell Soros in this.

Couple the CityYear project with the recent Obama Pledge Drive, and I believe we may be seeing an effort by the Obamanation to soften people up for the idea of Required National Service.

If anyone knows anything more about CityYear.org, please let us know.

UPDATE: Epaminondas and Midnight Rider have both read the bill and tell me that it does NOT stipulate a "required national service".

Instead, what the bill says, in very convoluted language, is that certain government monies will be available to corporations, adademic institutions, and/or individuals, which can then, in turn, be paid back through community service.

This is still evidence of a frightening government encroachment into our lives. A maxim to remember is, the more the government gives you, the more the government OWNS you.

We, as a nation, need to stop sucking the government teat. It's fucking pathetic.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the state can "require" service that is called slavery.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:27:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Yep.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:54:00 pm  
Blogger Ashan said...

Welcome to the gulag. We tried our best to call attention BEFORE the election to the impending danger if The One and his Minions ever got into power. With illegally pumped up voter registration, the most dangerous and reckless cabal is decimating America's most precious asset - its hard-working middle class.

This doesn't bode well at all.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:57:00 pm  
Anonymous Raydog said...

What happens to the Parents that refuse to hand their children over to the reeducation camps?

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:06:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Raydog,
I've been wondering that, because I have two young children, and I certainly do not want them serving in Obama's National Service.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:10:00 pm  
Blogger Culturist John said...

The Civilian Community Corp (CCC) are meant to remind us of the Civilian Conservation Corps (widely known as the CCC) of the New Deal. These corps build a lot of your sidewalks and public forest trails between 1933 and 1942. The difference, of course, was that the New Deal's CCC was voluntary.

www.culturism.us

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:13:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Raydog & Pasto -- I think that's when it's going to get ugly. What are they going to do? Try to jail the parents will lead to violence. Try to forcibly take the kids will lead to violence. Try to fine the parents, who won't pay, then garnish wages etc, will lead to violence.

There is no good way out of this if it goes through.

Well, okay, maybe not everyone will lead to violence but certainly, you come & try to take my kid (currently 10 yr old) and things are not going to end well for someone.

The equation changes somewhat if they're talking about young adults who parents have no legal say over. But if my girls come to me say protect me they're coming for me well, again, it's not going to end well for someone.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the rub, er catch 22 . . .

"This is ILLEGAL under the constitution's 13th amendment. Conscription was eliminated with the draft.

Amendment XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."


So, here we have legistlation for MANDATORY volunteer service. Think about that for a minute. If it's deemed legally MANDATORY, then refusal to participate is effectively breaking the law, at which point you can be punished for this crime with MANDATORY VOLUNTEER SERVICE.

Better brush up on yer high school german . .. Verstehen Sie das? Ja wohl, mein Führer?

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:33:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Yeah this is going to set up all kinds of Constitutional ugliness. You're not breaking the law if the law is unconstitutional to begin with but it's going to take money to fight it OR someone is going to hvae to start screaming very quickly.

For the law to be legally enforcable they would have to amend the Constitution and I can't see the states going along with this so easy.

We've been saying it Obama has no idea what he is setting himself up for.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:52:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Oh it wouldn't surprise me to see Soros money in this.

Culturist John -- the other BIG difference between this CCC & the one of the 30's is that, although it wasn't much, for working for the one in the 30's you were paid.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am flabbergasted... this is the most marxist/communist bill to have passed yet. Un-friggin-believable that someone, anyone would have conceived of this, much less to have voted for it. It is so reminiscent of the Nazis and the Soviet youth corps.

Is there a voting record anywhere on this? It would be interesting to know who actually voted for this.

This is absolutely disgusting and makes me ill to think of how we are diving head first into a marxist state with nary a dissenting voice in government or media.

This is not the works of Obama by himself. If he truly knew of and believed in what he was speaking about, you would think that by now after years of campaigning and many months since the election he would not need a teleprompter to tell him what to say. Is he not that smart or brilliant?

I fear for the future our young people have to face. I am too old to be retrained and will probably be denied medical care and shuffled off to a soylent green factory somewhere because I refused to 'volunteer'. Do not think for a minute that this is not a real possibility. Is there any mention in this bill for those that refuse to 'volunteer'. Think about it... and you think it can't happen in America? Think again... the master plan has been approved.

If one cannot discern that there is a conspiracy afoot to turn America into a marxist country... then you are either politically naive or are so embedded with this administration you cannot see the forest due to the trees being in the way.

God Bless America

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:04:00 pm  
Blogger heroyalwhyness said...

The most significant recent judicial exploration of the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment reaffirms a narrow definition of involuntary servitude under federal statues.

In United States v. Kozminski (1988), the Supreme Court unanimously decided that private employers of two mentally retarded men, forced to labor in squalid conditions, violated statutes based on the Thirteenth amendment. Controversy in the Court focused on the criteria used to determine the existence of involuntary servitude. The opinion of the Court stated that involuntary servitude is compulsory servitude by the use of physical restraint or injury, or by the use of threat of coercion through legal process.

Disputing a concurring opinion, the majority declared that compulsion by psychological coercion is not involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment.

Page 383 The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Edwin Meese III

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:12:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

"In its current form, the legislation does not include a mandate requiring service."
HERE

Full text of bill HERE

I don't like it much, and it EASILY can be a nose under the tent, but I can't find any required service.

Am I wrong?
Plz take a look everyone

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:37:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

via Atlas: MANDATORY "VOLUNTEERISM" ARMY PASSES THE SENATE

Republicans voting for it:

Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME] Aye
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME] Aye

Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY] Abstain

Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:34:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

I've been looking throughthis thing bit by bit since I first put it up late last week and Epa is right. In THIS bill these is no mandating of volunteering. There is plenty of onerous stuff not to like in it, and it could open other doors, but this bill itself does not mandate national service.

As for Atlas. . .

Atlas Shrugs used to be one of my favorite blogs. Used to be. Now I can barely stand to read it anymore. If I stop there once a week it's alot.

To me she is suffering from what Epa described as ODS. And it's a shame because when she's right she is dead on. But when she's charging off into the birth certificate debate or the Manchurian Candidate type issue it clouds the very good work she does. For example in the piece referenced here she brings up House Amendment 49 which, if true (no reason to doubt it) is right on a violation of the First Amendment.

Yet in the very same article she states "It is a bill that has reverse discrimination all over it as it is NOT designed for middle-class Americans to benefit from" and then 2 paragraphs later references her own House Passes Mandatoy National Service Bill. And even calls this article Mandatory volunteerism.

Well, either it is mandatory or it is exclusionary. Can't be both.

Or when going after the birth cert thing again, she cites a source who is now claiming the CIA is in on all this.

Read this post:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/barack-hussein-birth-announcement-forgery-the-fraud-goes-on.html

then follow this link in the post:

"This is an interesting post, though this does not express tacit or implied support for other positions on that site."

Anyway, sorry about the venting. I know alot of folks will not be happy with me for stating what I just did. Too bad. I used to love Atlas but she is becoming the National Enquirer of Conservative blogs. And none of this has anyting to do with VB or BNP etc.

Your mileage may vary.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:34:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I recently read a comment by a print journalist that the "Internet needs a good editor."

Atlas never stops working, it seems. It is too bad that some may be put off by her "venting" because her reporting is really, really good. She could do with a good editor, as could a number of "citizen journalist" blogs.

IBA is interesting because its opinion pieces are never presented as "news" and its news is well-sourced.

But when you are doing so much of your own research, as Atlas is, it is hard, I imagine, to separate what seem to be inescapable conclusions about what you are reporting from the reporting itself.

Ro

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:58:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Oh I take NOTHING away from the amount of work she does. And her reporting is first rate.

But she has this intense hatred for Obama that seems, to me, to sometimes cloud her judgement on what she's reporting on.

Her venting I don't mind I do it myself as everyone knows. But when she lets unverifiable stuff go through because it will make him look bad it affects the body of the work as a whole.

He looks bad enough as is without having to ue questionable material.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:27:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Pam has a picture in her head of what Obama HAS TO BE. This bill DID have mandatory service as part of it, but it was stripped out (and how much would you like to know WHO GOT THAT DONE?).

Pam ran to assume, in this case, that the picture in her head fit the facts as she knew them ..PRECISELY what Dan Rather did with the Bush guard memo.

She also got wrong that the Senate voted and Snowe and Collins voted for it. Only the house voted.

It's hard to hold back when there is an utter AVALANCHE of news going on (Taepodong -2 anyone ? Not even mentioned today here) ..I've never seen more hard news cascading even in a war.. and these sons of bitches have already demonstrated that they want something other than what the 'old white guys' came up with in 1789.

Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:10:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Epa -- my comments were not directed at that article itself, but a general feeling I've gotten from Pam as a whole for the past year or so. Her entire blog has -- TO ME -- taken on a different tone I don't care for. And because of it I tend to double check everything she writes myself if I plan on linking to it here.

As for TD-2 I hit that here yesterday (Pyongyang Ups the Ante) and got zero response on it. Seems like no one is paying attention to that too much when we're threatening to shoot the thing down, Korea's rattling sabre back and residents in Japan are ready to play duck and cover from falling debris.

By the way, when & where was it in the original bill? I've been looking at it since Friday and never saw it. And who DID kill it?

Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:48:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

Found this in my email when I got home.

Fellow Bloggers,

The DeMint Amendment was substituted for a similar amendment from Senator David Vitter. Shortly after the email update that we sent out earlier today, the Vitter Amendment was struck down by a vote of 53-43.

To further break this vote down, 53 Democrats voted Nay. 41 Republicans voted Yay with 2 Democrats crossing over, Senators Byrd and Nelson.

One of these two scenarios is going to unfold. The Senate would adopt the Mikulski amended version of the bill. After that, it will go to conference where the Foxx amendment will most likely be struck. Should that happen, we will need to call for the defeat of the bill in its entirety. We will keep you posted.

The other scenario is that the Senate will adopt H.R. 1388 as amended. That would then be sent back to the House where they could vote to simply accept the Senate amendments. This is the more likely outcome. Both of these scenarios would remove any amendment similar to the Foxx amendment.

For Liberty,
Bill Wilson
President, Americans for Limited Government
http://netrightnation.com

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:31:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Epa,
What am I missing?

The full text of the bill you linked to is the same as I link to in the main body of my post.

Here's the link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=rh&nid=t0%3Arh%3A516

And, here's what it reads:

For example:

SEC. 122. NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS ELIGIBLE FOR PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.

‘(a) Required National Service Corps- The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps, as full- or part-time corps, including during the summer months, to address unmet educational, health, veteran, or environmental needs.

Friday, March 27, 2009 1:19:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

What does "Required National Service Corps" mean to you?

What am I misunderstanding?

Friday, March 27, 2009 1:20:00 am  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Pasto the way I read that is if either an individual or an agency is receiving free money (grants) then they will have to support the National Service Corps. Sort of we're giving you money, you're going to help us out.

But I could be very wrong.

Friday, March 27, 2009 1:55:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

MR,
Perhaps. So, you're saying that educational institutions, businesses, and individuals can apply for assistance, of some sort, from the government, and in return, they will be required to do community service.

Is that it?

Could you point me to the language which makes you think this?

Of course, you know, that would be nothing like the Civilian National Security Force that Obama and Rahm Emanuel have spoken of in the past.

Friday, March 27, 2009 2:02:00 am  
Blogger midnight rider said...

You're right it's nothing like the National SECURITY force. That seems to be a different matter.

Anyway where it says

The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps,

sounds to me that, if you're a public school or such getting Federal funds then you're going to have to support this thing which may be why they refer specifically to even in summer a little later. Or by providing "subgrants" to programs within this thing.

Ok, so the spooky part is with the "campuses" etc COULD this be the precursor or ROTC if you will to that National Security Force? Which is also not mandatory but maybe even scarier?

And if at some point they make this mandatory AND get that NSF going whew boy this could get very weird.

Friday, March 27, 2009 2:12:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Wait a minute. If schools get grants, who is it that's going to do the required service? The teachers and administrators?

Friday, March 27, 2009 2:20:00 am  
Blogger midnight rider said...

That would be my understanding, but paid I would think, since they're salaried. Or maybe just providing the facilities or funds is enough and volunteers will be doing the service.

American Thinker was right it's hard to make heads or tails of this mess.

Same as a school opening it's doors to a summer basketball program but the coaches are volunteers.

Friday, March 27, 2009 2:29:00 am  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Pasto, I THINK -"Required National Service Corps" is part of the NAME of the abomination.

No service is REQUIRED of individuals not volunteering.

Obama et al are PURPOSEFULLY engaged in CONTROLLING the language. Orwell.

These people are WAY worse than we thought they were back in the early fall.

I have no doubt they want mandatory service in that bill, (and they see it as revenue recouped, AND and re-education) but right now, there i no mandatory service IN THE BILL required of individuals not volunteering.

This afternoon, WHO KNOWS?

These guys are DANGEROUS to the ideas of the founding fathers.

WHERE THE HELL IS O'REILLY ON THIS?
This isn't secular progressive sex with children is ok...this is way past that.

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:18:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home