"Citizenship is not an entitlement program". That's such a dangerous ideology.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by burdturgler.

OK, This guy's voice is anoying and it's hard to take him seriously but he's right!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

The guy who made this video proves the old "takes one to know one" saying.

Think they chopped this video up enough? How much is taken out of context?

Obama better reel this fucktard in. Simple, I would rather die holding the Constitution and a gun then serve in the "Peoples army".

I'm going to Godwin this too. He walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, and his rhetoric is very much like Nazism.

I wonder how many people would by into this. Just like Israel, send the youngsters off to die.

*promote

This deserves some face time.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, February 7th, 2009 12:28pm PST - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

He needs to think more along the lines of conservation corps, or other things for our own infrastructure and not "defense"... and we would most likely be better served improving the public education system than forcing people to work.

Aren't RE and BO from the same chicago political machine?

they think alike.

hmm, well... the video makes three points: 1. 13th amendment vs compulsory civil service, 2. "terrorist list" vs 2nd amendment, and 3. "crisis times" vs selfish opportunism

first off, this video screed, imho, deliberately attempts to strip much of the context from these issues

1. this c-span interview is from august 2006, and perhaps wrongly attributes "involuntary servitude" to the issue of civil service (e.g. butler v. perry)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

2. this emanuel speech took place at a brady center event in may 2007, and is more of a democratic "stump" speech in favor of *reinvigorating* the purpose of the brady bill... whereas i think most of us would support banning *suspected terrorists* from the right to bear arms, the emanuel speech says *nothing* about the *real* problem with these "terrorist lists* ... i.e. the inefficient screening process leading to, imho, bloated lists

3. this wsj interview is at least current, but almost completely stripped of its context, i.e. extraordinary challenges test the mettle of those challenged, *not* crisis necessarily gives gov't the *excuse* to strip civil liberties

To follow on from Diogenes:

1. The relevant section from the case law cited:

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.

That's right, the constitution and the Supreme Court both recognize that individuals have an inherent duty to the state which protects and provides for them.

2. Here's what Rahm is actually proposing:

Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.

3. Here's how Obama interprets the means of national service:

President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

4. If enacted, which seems unlikely, the United States would quickly become a totalitarian state much like:

Brazil
Denmark
Finalnd
Germany
Greece
Switzerland

All of which have compulsory national service.

aaronfr you forgot several other countries. But I think we know who they are.

>> ^lantern53:
Aren't RE and BO from the same chicago political machine?
they think alike.


that is so psychologically ignorant, it's ridiculous.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
aaronfr you forgot several other countries. But I think we know who they are.


Sweden had a mandatory military service for people aged 18-25 until just recently. Why'd they stop? Because they haven't been at war in almost 200 years and the military is nothing but a money hole.

That some totalitarian states have mandatory military service doesn't automatically make it a bad system, as I'm sure you know. There are up- and downsides to it of course, but it's nothing like the annoying, early 20-something brat in this video tries to make it out to be with his nasal whining.

At this point in time, mandatory service equals compulsory brainwashing.

>> ^rougy:
At this point in time, mandatory service equals compulsory brainwashing.


Perhaps I would agree if we were talking about mandatory military service, which is clearly not what has been proposed. And even on that point, the experience with the draft during Vietnam actually shows the opposite, rather than becoming brainwashed, both those inside and outside of the military establishment resisted the principles being put forth.

If you don't listen to the whiney guy interspersed with clips of Rahm, nothing Rahm says is particularly striking.

I suppose a properly primed person hears "Citizenship is not an entitlement program" and thinks we're talking about compulsory service or a loss of citizenship, I'm hearing that citizenship means you should feel at least some obligation to do something for the country you're living in.

Not obligated in the legal sense, but the moral sense.

Maybe that is dangerous, but how is that different from a culture of "individual responsibility?" Or has that always meant "I can tell everyone else to fuck off if I want to"?

Unfortunately i don't think the video works anymore...