May 03, 2009
McDermott wants your kids in mandatory public service

Our Congress with the help of Republicans is squeezing out private charity with paid "volunteers." They are paid - AmericaCorps - but called volunteers; it sound so good. What do they work on? What the politicians want; you have no say. And they tripled its funding.

But what if there aren't enough volunteers for paid "volunteer" service. Force! It might be unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude. But Jim McDermott (D, Washington) wants your children to serve his favorite causes.

Robert Knight at Townhall

... Mandatory national service has reemerged in HR 1442, the "Congressional Commission on Civil Service Act," sponsored by Washington Rep. Jim McDermott (D). [They link to HR 1444, not 1442.]

This free-standing bill, which directs the proposed commission to "enhance our Nation and the global community," reaches to kid-level, providing "the means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding and promoting service options for primary and secondary school students."

If you think this will be limited to public schools, you don't know the mindset driving this bus.

And if you're a sacrificial parent homeschooling or sending your children to a religious school so that they won't be engulfed by the public school MTV culture that has led 11-year-olds to "sextext" nude pictures to each other, you'll be out of luck. Your kid will need to go with the flow.

The McDermott bill requires the commission to study "[w]hether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed to ... overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds." Or, as riot icon Rodney King might say, "Can't we all be forced to get along?"

Of the face of it, mandatory civilian service violates the 13th Amendment's prohibition on involuntary servitude. During a national crisis, such as World War II, married men with children were given the choice: military service or work in a defense plant.  The Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to "raise and support armies" and to "provide and maintain a navy." It's one thing to allow for conscientious objection to a military draft; it's another to draft civilians to serve in politicians' pet projects absent an emergency.

The McDermott bill also charges the commission with examining "the need" for a federal, four-year college to train "future public sector leaders."

Think of it, an entire university churning out graduates with the same mentality as ACORN, which is to say they will view the nation as entirely secular and public, except the parts that are stubbornly and temporarily private.

H.R. 1444 Look for "required" and "mandatory:"

... (5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Posted by Ron Hebron at May 03, 2009 07:19 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Hey, we can call it the 'Obama Youth'! I think I've heard of something like this in history 101. Wasn't something like this tried before in the 1930's and 1940's somewhere, like Germany?

Posted by: Pete on May 3, 2009 07:36 AM
2. Don't laugh, he actually has some support for the idea in Congress, Rangle for one. After we get done downsizing the military through budget cuts and policy "adjustments" by the administration, they will probably have to restore the draft. Only for a gender equity and social justice modification, they will include both sexes and all orientations. My guess is that they will be allowed to form a union as well.

Posted by: Smokie on May 3, 2009 08:53 AM
3. Including a link to H.R. 1444: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act would have been helpful.

The bill that I'm reading establishes a commission to improve the effectiveness of civic service.

I don't see anything about mandatory.

Nor do I see anything that would make charity volunteer work and civic volunteer work mutually exclusive.

I'm curious: Why do you oppose civil society and civic duty?

Graduation requirements for the Seattle Public Schools includes 60 hours of "service learning". How is that any different from my son's Eagle Scout project?

While learning about your community by helping your neighbors isn't quite a civics and ethics curriculum, it's an improvement.

PS- "sextexting", MTV, and the decline of culture? Where were you growing up? The only difference now is near ubiquitous digital communication. Kids haven't changed, the technology did.

Posted by: Jason Osgood on May 3, 2009 09:01 AM
4. From H.R. 1444:

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

This is basically a civilian "draft" - but apparently without the lottery - everyone of the defined "draft" age would be required to participate. Sounds like an early form of serfdom.

How compelling is the government's case such that it believes that it must take away liberty and freedom?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 3, 2009 09:17 AM
5. Smokie posted:

Don't laugh, he actually has some support for the idea in Congress, Rangle for one

Of course Rangel supports this! I mean, if he actually PAID his taxes maybe we could pay a few more "volunteers"...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 3, 2009 09:18 AM
6. It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of [service and] sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
~Ayn Rand

Posted by: Stitch on May 3, 2009 09:21 AM
7. Hmm, Jason. This jumped out at me while scanning the proposed bill:

7) The need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders.

Just what the country needs. An indoctrinated, liberal public service class.

We wouldn't want to have folks who actually have real world experience running things.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 09:27 AM
8. SouthernRoots @ 4.

Good eye. I missed that. My bad.

I'm not on board with "mandatory". I can't really articulate why. Many countries have mandatory service, e.g. Israel. I'm good AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, military service, community service, etc. And I'm happy, as a taxpayer, to pay for it. But requiring it? Hmmm.

Well, this is a commission. There's an opportunity to weigh in.

Posted by: Jason Osgood on May 3, 2009 09:39 AM
9. Bill Cruchon @ 7.

Just what the country needs. An indoctrinated, liberal public service class.

Welcome to the club. Now you know how we liberals/progressives felt the prior 8 years. (Or 30, depending on how you're counting.)

For example, how do you feel about the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives?

Posted by: Jason Osgood on May 3, 2009 09:52 AM
10. Wingnutty?
So, you got what, a semantic argument with the word "volunteer"?
The national academies of West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy and
Merchant Marine Academy are what - examples of the 200 year ACORN conspiracy?

If your post is to be a case in point example of the thinking that results from not obtaining education about civic responsibility in a democratic society, congratulations! You've achieved your objective.

HR 1444 is nothing but a bill to authorize study of an issue by a forming a commission.

ps. AmeriCorps has had no impact on either my or my friends in our volunteer efforts or our charitable giving. If it has some impact on you, maybe you could devote a blog post to how it specifically impacts you.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 3, 2009 10:04 AM
11. Jason,

The Faith-Based office was a good idea; you have established programs already working in communities with ties to the neighborhood. Why not work closer with them to assist in their service, rather than setting up an entirely new parallel organization that does NOT have the connections?

And since the programs participating were prohibited from evangelizing, I don't see the big problem. Other than it was using - and thus, saving costs - faith-based facilities.

Oh, and it was voluntary, too...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 3, 2009 10:08 AM
12. Another window that gives us a glimpse at how liberals think. Sheer terror at "faith based" anything.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 10:30 AM
13. One thing I noticed so far in the discussion is the assumption that this proposal will actually be what they tell us it is. Comm on people... how often does a new program stay within it's bounds? Sure it's now a 'study'. But as you all know that is just the opening salvo... in order to range the target. All around us in big cities and small there are pet project boondogles that started out as a 'study'. And even built-in restrictions don't work. Quick.. name two programs whose 'sunset clause' was later gutted or ignored for whatever reason?
Hey if it's VOLUNTARY then just tell people where the need is and let them volunteer! Americans are very prone to help. Who fills sandbags during floods for example? Often there has to be a major effort to deal with too much help coming to a diaster scene! So let's volunteer and not let some self-serving public 'servant' declare himself the leader of such effort and stear it his way.

Posted by: Victor on May 3, 2009 11:14 AM
14. Americorps impacts every taxpayer in the US, because we pay for them. Triple the size of Americorps, triple the cost. Now if you are willing to wave any and all conflicts with government union employees to enhance services to the people, I could live with that. Examples, TA's at schools, janitors, coaches, Post office Employees, Road Maintenance Crews, public housing maintenance crews, bus drivers...all Government union positions that could be eliminated by Americorps "volunteers" at a fraction of the cost and no long term impact on Government pensions. Think of all the clerks that could be eliminated from Washington DC alone! We could probably eliminate 20% of the State workforce too.

Posted by: Smokie on May 3, 2009 11:15 AM
15. Bill - why do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Posted by: Crusader on May 3, 2009 11:43 AM
16. My kids are just babies at this point. If this become reality, I can guarantee that they will have to arrest me and forcibly take my kids into service. I will challenge this with the law and force if necessary.

Posted by: blindman on May 3, 2009 11:47 AM
17. Crusader,

Why does Bill's faith (have you been touched by his noodly appendage?) threaten you? Are you afraid of all who have faith in something? Or is it the fact he may have a faith different than yours that offends you?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 3, 2009 11:54 AM
18. I should probably point out that I'm OK with a military draft because the Constitution provides for it. But a civilian servitude program for kids is completely unconstitutional and I'd gladly exercise my 2nd amendment rights to defend my 13th amendment rights.

Posted by: blindman on May 3, 2009 11:56 AM
19. Wait a minute. All this time they've been telling us that Bush is Hitler, and now it's really the tolerant, diverse left.

Don't kids get enough forced indoctrination in the pubic schools?

Posted by: JoeBandMember on May 3, 2009 11:57 AM
20. @10

"The national academies of West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy and
Merchant Marine Academy are what - examples of the 200 year ACORN conspiracy?"

Nope. They are only voluntary for the first two years. The voluntary policy is in place to make it as easy as possible for cadets to leave. During first two years, especially the first, they do all they can to weed out cadets that don't have the skills and aren't completely 100% dedicated to succeeding as a military leader.

During the summer between your sophomore and junior years, you sign on the dotted line and if you leave, or are expelled, at any time between then and graduation, you are required to serve time as an enlisted person to square up your debt to Uncle Sam.

I was a cadet (from Washington) at USAFA, class of 2000.

Posted by: blindman on May 3, 2009 12:05 PM
21. McDermott isn't the only one who wants this, of course. Obama would love to have his "Obama YOuth" brigade via this. It is an outrage. If your rep wants this, CALL and complain. They will turn this into a brainwashing (oh, they won't CALL it that;, and they'll deny it) group so that everyone is obedient to their leftist ideology, and to make Janet Napolitano's job easier so she won't have so many "right-wing extremists" to look after.

Posted by: Michele on May 3, 2009 12:13 PM
22. Why does Bill's faith (have you been touched by his noodly appendage?) threaten you? Are you afraid of all who have faith in something? Or is it the fact he may have a faith different than yours that offends you?

The implication is that those who are without faith can't be moral, just, good people.

Posted by: Crusader on May 3, 2009 12:19 PM
23. Shanghai Dan @ 11.

The Faith-Based office was a good idea...

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. (I learned that in church.) Bush's OFBI is a case study for why church and state must be kept separate.

We progressives are disappointed that Obama kept the program, albeit with some "reforms". That either speaks to the power of pork (bribes) for Christian evangelicals or to his intrinsic "faith" in the status quo.

Bill Cruchon @ 12.

My faith is none of your business. Nor the government's.

What, exactly, was "faith" based about the OFBI? The "faith" that a conservative hegemony would last decades? The "faith" that might makes right? The "faith" that one person's beliefs trump every other set of beliefs?

How many jewish, muslim, presbyterian, catholic, etc. "faith" based organizations, anyone other than evangelicals, got some pork?

I'm not terribly grumpy that Team Bush rewarded their voters with pork. That's what politicians do. But don't confuse patronage with righteousness.

So rail against liberal/progressive versions of pork/patronage all you feel is needed. I'm sure you're shocked, shocked that such a thing would happen. But please drop the faux outrage and fainting spells.


Posted by: Jason Osgood on May 3, 2009 12:35 PM
24. Crusader,

Where is that implication made? I haven't seen Bill make that statement nor imply it. I haven't done it (would it shock you to learn I am a man of faith). I don't think anyone here has made that statement.

Athiests and people of faith can be moral, and they can be amoral. There is no guarantee either way...

On the contrary, the statement often made is that those of faith are somehow less intelligent, and less deserving of consideration in any and all discussion.

Jason,

That's pretty skimpy evidence you're presenting! In fact, a majority of Catholics, Jews, and many of the protestant churches SUPPORTED and continue to support Barack Obama. How does that jibe with the claim of "right wing evangelicals" being patronized?

Again, you're seeing ghosts where they're aren't any. But paranoia is often rampant on the Left!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 3, 2009 01:10 PM
25. well seeing how Comrade Obama has alotted twice as much funding for his Fascist youth program then he has for military funding should say it all..Let's see he has given how many billions in payment to the voter fraud and civilian intimidation group ACORN??? and they are being investigated by the FBI in how many states 13 last count?

you wanna see what Comrade Obama has in store just read "Rules for Radicals" he is following the game plan to a "T"

Instead of brown shirts they will be green shirts..100's of thousands of them with a budget twice that of our military....

yeah you wonder why Comrade Obama was gun salesman of the year....

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 01:46 PM
26. I really don't have a problem with this, of course I also didn't have a problem with the draft. I like the idea of young people serving a year or two doing something for their country, whether it is military, social, or faith based. It gets them out their, outside of their little cocoons and exposes them to all sorts of things they may not see. It would be nice for some conservative kids to serve in one of these groups and expose their ideas to the liberal dunderheads, rather then a bunch of liberal dunderheads just talking to each other.

Posted by: The Duke on May 3, 2009 02:08 PM
27. Indeed Dan I made no comment about my faith or lack thereof.

Man, some of these comments are downright creepy. I am so glad I departed from the left a long time ago. Wow.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 02:18 PM
28. In case some of you missed the memo, I emailed Patty Murray about this and she thinks it's a great idea. Sent a long (party generated) email extolling its virutes. Never answered any of the concerns I raised.
Welcome to the Fascist State.

Posted by: Paladin on May 3, 2009 02:20 PM
29. Paladin, are you referring to the woman who believes that Osama builds daycare facilities? They live in a world I am unfamiliar with.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 02:25 PM
30. Our Congress with the help of Republicans is squeezing out private charity with paid "volunteers." They are paid - AmericaCorps - but called volunteers; it sound so good. What do they work on? What the politicians want; you have no say. And they tripled its funding.

Damn... the military doesn't always do what I want. Should we cut their funding?

Likewise, I'm having an extremely hard time buying the "squeezing out private charity" argument. If you've worked for nonprofits and charities, there are two things that you quickly realize: charities are going to be understaffed and underfunded regardless, and young, eager college grads do not meet all the staffing demands of these organizations. What basis do you have for this argument?


But what if there aren't enough volunteers for paid "volunteer" service. Force! It might be unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude. But Jim McDermott (D, Washington) wants your children to serve his favorite causes.

No. This argument about "involuntary servitude" is false. Unless you are forced at gunpoint to earn a high school diploma, this is in no way involuntary, just as being required to take a course in civics or clap erasers during detention is "servitude".


And if you're a sacrificial parent homeschooling or sending your children to a religious school so that they won't be engulfed by the public school MTV culture that has led 11-year-olds to "sextext" nude pictures to each other, you'll be out of luck. Your kid will need to go with the flow.

What kind of twisted person would equate contributing to the community with "sexting"? That is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this argument. Assuming that religious or homeschooled students should be subject to different requirements is illogical.

Besides... I would propose that homeschooled and religious-schooled students could get any community service requirement done with their eyes closed.


The McDermott bill requires the commission to study "[w]hether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed to ... overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds." Or, as riot icon Rodney King might say, "Can't we all be forced to get along?"

So what you're saying is that civics education that includes an understanding of the importance of volunteerism shouldn't be promoted? I seriously don't know what you people want. On one hand, you seem to be lamenting the loose morals of a system, and on the other, you're loudly denouncing one thing that a school system SHOULD be doing: preparing future citizens to contribute to their community and country.


Of the face of it, mandatory civilian service violates the 13th Amendment's prohibition on involuntary servitude. During a national crisis, such as World War II, married men with children were given the choice: military service or work in a defense plant. � The Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to "raise and support armies" and to "provide and maintain a navy." It's one thing to allow for conscientious objection to a military draft; it's another to draft civilians to serve in politicians' pet projects absent an emergency.

This is a ludicrous apples-to-oranges argument. Again, until you are forced at gunpoint to receive a high school diploma, this is not "involuntary servitude".


The McDermott bill also charges the commission with examining "the need" for a federal, four-year college to train "future public sector leaders."

And? Even if you are the hardest of hardcore conservatives, there is a need to have SOME government. Likewise, there is a need for education for those nonprofits that would manage the social safety net in your conservative utopia. Do you think that they grow on trees?


Think of it, an entire university churning out graduates with the same mentality as ACORN, which is to say they will view the nation as entirely secular and public, except the parts that are stubbornly and temporarily private.

Again, absolutely false. Do you suppose that religious schools could not contribute to this? Right-leaning organizations?


@25: yeah you wonder why Comrade Obama was gun salesman of the year....

Because people want to shoot AmeriCorps volunteers? Come on.

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 02:33 PM
31. @26

The only problem with you not having "..a problem with this...[or]...the [military] draft" is that if this civilian program is mandatory, it directly violates the 13th amendment when the military draft is constitutional under Article 1, Section 8.

When something is in direct violation of the constitution, it doesn't really matter if you personally think it is OK, the constitution says otherwise and it is the supreme law of the land. If you want to see something like this, then by all means start the amendment process. But until we have an amendment, we should consider treasonous, all politicians who propose laws that any school kid can see is unconstitutional.

When we ignore the constitution we're invoking the rule of man rather than the rule of law. The great American experiment was to found a nation on laws and to rig it to protect the individual above pretty much everything else. If we abdicate our constitutional rights in some cases, we effectively abdicate them all because if the government can violate the 13th amendment, why couldn't it violate the 1st, or the 2nd, or any other portion of the constitution. What makes the 13th amendment less important than the other parts?

Posted by: blindman on May 3, 2009 02:40 PM
32. As a fellow hiker, walker, xc skier, bicylist, a national two (2) year mandatory service policy has been on and off discussions for the past 30 years after the draft was "undone" in the 70's

Is it a bad idea because of Jim McDermott or in principle?

To be an Eagle Scout one needs to have planned a community project amd completed it.

If you worked on any of the past political campaigns, you would have met high schoolers calling, doorbelling, sign waving et al for the candidates because they need X hours of community service to graduate.

Most colleges now require some type of community service

Even at Mary Washinton "There are many volunteer opportunities available to students through a wide variety of on-campus community service organizations"

http://www.umw.edu/osacs/volunteer/default.php

Which of you posters are willing to run against Jim McDermott in 2010 and have a written plan of what is wrong and how you recommend we correct it?

Which of you posters are willing to run against Greg Nickels in 2009 and have a written plan of what and wrong and how you plan to correct it?

Posted by: Green Lake on May 3, 2009 02:45 PM
33. Actually no Demoboy that is not what I meant at all

Comrade Obama was gun saleman of the year '08

Because he is a radical Marxist and hell bent on social justice...one only needs to look as far as his cabinat appointee's to see exactly how radical comrade Obama is...

His fascist youth group is just one of many ideas this treasonous so called liberal is forcing on my Republic

as for shooting so called "volunteers" I personally would start with ACORN then work my way from there but that's me

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 02:57 PM
34. @33: as for shooting so called "volunteers" I personally would start with ACORN then work my way from there but that's me

Man, I'd hate to be picking up garbage on the side of the road in YOUR neighborhood!

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 03:01 PM
35. in my neighborhood they use convicted criminals to pick up the garbage on the sides of roads...

ACORN are not volunteers they are a thuggish group who is rampant with fraud and criminal activists..who is part of Comrade Obama's propaganda machine....so shooting these pieces of anti-american crap would actually be patriotic.

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 03:07 PM
36. @35: Because there's nothing more patriotic than killing people that disagree with you? Terrific.

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 03:35 PM
37. Slavery Party Failed Abortion wrote:

Damn... the military doesn't always do what I want. Should we cut their funding?

So you want to go on record stating you've never asked for a cut in military funding? That we shouldn't fund the Iraq War? You never called for a cut in military spending?

Because there's nothing more patriotic than killing people that disagree with you?

Ask your pal Factless, or gopmustdie, or any one of the fascist Slavers who post here calling for extermination of the GOP, for elimination of conservatives...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 3, 2009 03:43 PM
38. see demoboy that is the difference between us you believe these so called volunteer groups are for american values and the way I see them is a direct threat to my nation and the way of life and liberty..

you see you belive in Comrade Obama's social justice mandate,you believe the Gov owes you something where as I believe you work for what you get and the Gov owes me nothing except to be free and protect our republic from the hijacking of this great American Nation by Marxists and the like.

it isn't as if I would actually go out and shoot a treasonous liberal "volunteer" it is just my opinion that if you are gunna start might as well be with ACORN

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 03:55 PM
39. "If you think this will be limited to public schools, you don't know the mindset driving this bus."

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Ron.

This is why I can't stand the left. They hammer us day after day with their relentless agenda.

The left has become a collection of mean, nasty, angry contol freaks.

I grew up in the 1960's. Leftists claimed they were all about freedom and escaping "the man" and "the pigs".

Now these very same people attempt to silence free speech on campuses and are pushing for a new "fairness doctrine" to silence free speech on the airwaves.

The left is now made up of screeching, angry, intolerant people. One dares not oppose them for fear that they will scream at you, and ultimately shun you because you don't agree with them. Anyone who has to work with these people knows exactly what I am talking about. If you are a conservative you are not allowed to have an opinion.

Liberals are not nice people. If they were nice people they would not be liberals.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 04:15 PM
40. @37: So you want to go on record stating you've never asked for a cut in military funding? That we shouldn't fund the Iraq War? You never called for a cut in military spending?

That's not my argument. My argument is that government operations are not micromanaged by the people directly. If you can pick and choose the projects that all AmeriCorps volunteers work on, then I should get to pick our military missions.


Ask your pal Factless, or gopmustdie, or any one of the fascist Slavers who post here calling for extermination of the GOP, for elimination of conservatives...

Political defeat != shooting people.


@38: see demoboy that is the difference between us you believe these so called volunteer groups are for american values and the way I see them is a direct threat to my nation and the way of life and liberty..

I would argue that volunteerism is a public good that makes the US a stronger country, and promoting it is not a bad thing in my book. As far as pay goes, most AmeriCorps volunteers don't have a pot to piss in... while it's "paid", most folks can get a job that makes more even with fewer qualifications. (Present economic situation notwithstanding.)

Then again, I quite frankly think that the military is underpaid as well, and is probably best considered "volunteer" in this same way! When you have families of enlisted folks on food stamps, and when private security companies hiring these folks on for much more pay, that suggests that there is a BIG difference in the pay and what the pay is worth.


you see you belive in Comrade Obama's social justice mandate,you believe the Gov owes you something where as I believe you work for what you get and the Gov owes me nothing except to be free and protect our republic from the hijacking of this great American Nation by Marxists and the like.

I don't believe that the "government" actually "owes" us anything. I believe that as a group of people in a nation, we need to support one another, or there is little purpose to call ourselves a "nation". I prefer to think that we have responsibilities to go along with our rights and freedoms. Otherwise, what really is the point? You might just as well move to Costa Rica or Iceland or Hong Kong or Hungary or wherever if all you care about is yourself.

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 04:25 PM
41. The "Greenshirts" will be policing neighborhoods reporting on Green infractions..next thing you know you are being fined or taxed for the so called offense...

they will be called on to do what ACORN does for comrade Obama already which is stage fake protests and propagada rallies...to form bus tours of peoples house's who dare challenge Comrade Obama......think this is BS just look at what happened to AIG...

Comrade Obama said on the campaign trail...

"Days of having thermostat @ 68 degrees are over days of driving a gas guzzling SUV are over"

Hmmmm he took over GM and wonder what they will produce???

Cap and Trade and Algores GW laws ..
hmmmmmm imagine that

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 04:26 PM
42. @39: So let me get this straight... you hate the fact that, according to you, all liberals don't want you to have an opinion, but apparently you simply hate and dismiss people because of their opinions.

Hello cognitive dissonance!

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 04:29 PM
43. Demoboy why does Gov need to be involved in volunteerism? why are they making it so people dont wanna volunteer or donate to charities?

I've been a volunteer for 20 years I am a FOE member and do lots of local charity...I was raised a scout then enlisted ....

The kind of Volunteering Comrade Obama speaks about has little to do with actually volunteering

And if you voted Marxist in '08 hate to break the news to ya but you believe in social justice ie:Communism/Marxism/Socialism/Nazism...and if you dont then you where duped and lied to by what Comrade Obama is all about..

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 04:34 PM
44. demo kid says this,

"I don't believe that the "government" actually "owes" us anything. I believe that as a group of people in a nation, we need to support one another, or there is little purpose to call ourselves a "nation"."

Could Marx have said it any better?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 04:34 PM
45. Instead of mouthing platitudes, how about defending the constitutionality of this bill ? Yeah, right tell me why and how you would start instead of backing up talking points...

Seems like the constitutionality of this legislative action needs to be verified. If there are doubts about it, there should be an investigation by an independent counsel and possible court action. I have nothing against Americorp, being in the Peace Corps once myself, but I don't see a clear mission statement for an expanded Americorp and an expanded mission.

Posted by: KS on May 3, 2009 04:38 PM
46. demo kid--name any place where "right wingers" have attempted to ban free speech.

I can come up with many examples where the left has attempted to ban free speech.

This is a test.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 04:45 PM
47. Slavery Party Failed Abortion,

That's not my argument. My argument is that government operations are not micromanaged by the people directly. If you can pick and choose the projects that all AmeriCorps volunteers work on, then I should get to pick our military missions.

I'd rather just eliminate AmeriCorps as it's out of scope of the Constitution. And I'd definitely not want AmeriCorps to be mandatory.

Political defeat != shooting people.

Yes. Loyalty squads eliminating people, demanding to see all Conservatives hung for treason. Those are definitely different from shooting people!

Face it, you are a fascist. Your politics is fascist. Your leader is a fascist. It is your way only, "diversity" of opinion is to be eliminated, anyone who thinks different should be exterminated, and the Government should answer only to you and your like-minded comrades regardless of what the Constitution says.

HOPE AND CHANGE! DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 3, 2009 04:56 PM
48. @43: What? How exactly do you leap from expanding AmeriCorps and requiring high school students to do volunteer service to "people dont wanna volunteer or donate to charities"?


@44: Marx, or pretty much anyone that gives a crap about their community. But hey, if you just want to chase kids off your lawn and never leave your little fiefdom, that's just fine by me. I actually like to improve the community that I live in and help my neighbors, thank you very much.


@45: "Investigations" would only be required if there was a reasonable question about its constitutionality. At this point, it just seems like typical conservative griping, not a substantive legal challenge. "Involuntary servitude" applies here just as much as it would in terms of mandating that students attend math class or do an internship, and you haven't shown otherwise.


@46: Irrelevant to this discussion. Besides, "banning free speech" is a loaded term, and you're simply going to redefine it to meet your definition. As to your supposed examples, many simply fall into the category of "Sh*t That's Just Not Going To Happen". Do you REALLY think that the Fairness Doctrine would be passed?

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 05:16 PM
49. That's what the average person that gets their news from the Seattle Times or NBC News doesn't comprehend.

The left wants to control what everyone thinks. They have done a mighty fine job of it. Political correctness is now the order of the day in the media and the public schools. What was once "Christmas Vacation" is now the politically correct "holiday break".

Not content to wage war on Christmas, the left now bashes Columbus Day, and Thanksgiving. It's what they love to do. It is what makes them happy.

Next it will be the Fourth of July. They have already passed laws preventing us from shooting off fireworks. It's what they do. Every year the left continues to take away our liberty. They never stop. It is what makes these nasty controlling people happy.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 05:20 PM
50. demoboy you cant have the words requiring and volunteering in same sentence....if it is required (mandatory) it cant be Volunteering

ummm IDK maybe because comrade Obama is no longer giving tax breaks to donations....and if you make something mandatory less people will actually volunteer seeing how that is an oxymoron

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 05:24 PM
51. @49: The left wants to control what everyone thinks. They have done a mighty fine job of it. Political correctness is now the order of the day in the media and the public schools. What was once "Christmas Vacation" is now the politically correct "holiday break".

What? You can feel free to call it whatever you like. Unless you can tell me of a time when police officers have asked you to stop celebrating Christmas, pardon me if I ignore your whining.


Not content to wage war on Christmas, the left now bashes Columbus Day, and Thanksgiving. It's what they love to do. It is what makes them happy.

So let's see... the left wants to "control what people think", but you're bashing them for having a different opinion than you. Again, cognitive dissonance much?

I mean, a tear REALLY comes to my eye when I hear about all these liberals that have been SO mean to you. Seriously! Makes me want to cry or something. Do you need a hug? It sounds like you're just depressed that no one pays attention to you at work.


Next it will be the Fourth of July. They have already passed laws preventing us from shooting off fireworks. It's what they do. Every year the left continues to take away our liberty. They never stop. It is what makes these nasty controlling people happy.

You know what I propose? That we be allowed to take guns out on the Fourth of July and shoot them up in the air as much as we want. I mean, how can we say that we're free when we can't do what folks in the Middle East do all the time?

(And yes. That's sarcasm.)

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 05:28 PM
52. @50: Pardon me if I don't find that ironic! First, you're decrying that AmeriCorps is not volunteering because these folks are getting paid, but then you're complaining because the tax breaks for charitable donations are being lowered for the richest donors, and they aren't getting the same economic benefit from it. Sorry, but if charity is affected by what someone else is going to pay you to donate, it isn't completely "charity".

Likewise, assuming that hordes of high-school students are going to "crowd out" other volunteers is sorely underestimating the amount of work that nonprofits and charities need to get done, and the amount that high school students could potentially do. Same with AmeriCorps. I have volunteered for a number of charities that would be more than happy to get in twice the volunteer labor for projects, and I don't think that's going to change in the near future.

As far as AmeriCorps goes, as I said... if you think these folks are making bank with this, you've got another thing coming. I'd argue that it is "volunteering" inasmuch as voluntarily foregoing the higher income they could make from, say, working at a Starbucks part-time.

Posted by: demo kid on May 3, 2009 05:42 PM
53. "But hey, if you just want to chase kids off your lawn and never leave your little fiefdom, that's just fine by me. I actually like to improve the community that I live in and help my neighbors, thank you very much."

Well, it just might interest you to know "demo kid" that my wife and I have a nice little neighborhood kid from China (his father is on some kind of exchange program from the UW, as much as I can understand) mow our front lawn. We appear to be the only people in this liberal area of Seattle that answered his telephone pole ad. The young kid is only 10. I have had to show him how to mow a lawn, and run a fertilizer spreader.

That's the way real life works, "demo kid".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 05:44 PM
54. Demoboy you are the poster child for Marxism...

How do you equate fireworks ban to firing guns openly? you have the reek of a fascist liberal

yes that was a plug for Jonah Goldbergs book

Liberal Truth or Liberal Fascism

Posted by: hellpig on May 3, 2009 05:54 PM
55. McDermott is evil. This is not news.

He also is one of 3 Congressman to vote to reinstate the draft.

Apparently he just likes involuntary servitude, regardless of if it's necessary or not.

Posted by: cliff on May 3, 2009 06:05 PM
56. Leftists lie about who they are.

They are socialists. They are Marxists. They are communists.

They are liars. The best way to identify a leftist is by how they lie. The left attracts lying, mean, nasty, controlling people.

It really isn't that hard to figure it out.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 3, 2009 06:07 PM
57. Slavery Party Failed Abortion,

Easy question: do you support mandatory public service?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 3, 2009 06:20 PM
58. McDimwitt's proposal has nothing to do with service. It has all to do about forced indoctrination.

Posted by: Saltherring on May 3, 2009 07:36 PM
59. Potentially small potatoes, but I implicitly do not trust this administration and they need to be questioned every step of the way. "Never let a crisis go to waste" is their mantra.

If they show obstructionist or obfuscation tactics, that should be noted and used against them in future forums and elections. Of course, they wouldn't feel the need to do so if they didn't have anything to hide.

Posted by: KS on May 3, 2009 08:21 PM
60. Mandatory service = slavery. No wonder it took Democrats so long to abandon slavery of blacks as well. This is the party that embraces control as their means to their ends.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 3, 2009 09:37 PM
61. @53: Point? How exactly is that whole story relevant?


@54: My point with the fireworks and guns comment is that it isn't as if fireworks are banned in certain jurisdictions for no reason whatsoever. Assuming that it's all about "liberal fascism" is ludicrous, just like saying that driving without headlights at night is exercising your personal rights to do whatever the damn well you please.


@55: Again, no proof that this is "involuntary servitude".


@56: Blah, blah, blah. Why don't you actually try making a point? Seems like you've gone from "get off my lawn!" to complete and incoherent rambling.


@57: Easy question: do you support mandatory public service?

Show me where this is "mandatory". The only forms of "mandatory" public service are jury duty and the draft, and that is not going to change. Getting your panties in a twist about a committee report is ludicrous.


@58: McDimwitt's proposal has nothing to do with service. It has all to do about forced indoctrination.

"Forced indoctrination"? I'd assume that they wouldn't be taping the students eyelids open and force-feeding them information from big screen TVs. Likewise, there's no evidence that a high school student wouldn't be able to fulfill whatever requirements working at a church soup kitchen or on a Boy Scout service project or whatever.


@59. Potentially small potatoes, but I implicitly do not trust this administration and they need to be questioned every step of the way. "Never let a crisis go to waste" is their mantra.

So sayeth the conservative. After dealing with Bush's over-the-top photo ops for eight years, I find that to be a touch hypocritical.


If they show obstructionist or obfuscation tactics, that should be noted and used against them in future forums and elections. Of course, they wouldn't feel the need to do so if they didn't have anything to hide.

"Obstructionist or obfuscation tactics" is politics, sorry to say. Your side does it, so does mine.


@60: Mandatory service = slavery. No wonder it took Democrats so long to abandon slavery of blacks as well. This is the party that embraces control as their means to their ends.

Conservatives certainly love to throw around that word without knowing a damn bit about what it actually means. Still, you haven't shown that this is "slavery". You've just shown that you're simply a master of hyperbole.

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 12:44 AM
62. Hyperbole is just the slow corrosive process of collectivist philosophy viewed from afar. Slavery and Reeducation camps were a bit much. WWII Era Fascism was too obvious and unnaceptable to the common man.

Today's collectivist wears her Fascism with a smiley face. And she views mandatory service programs as just a benign benefit to her fellow man. Even as the programs expands year after year, it will all be justified and encouraged through manipulation of pop culture voice.

What's not to like, will become what's not to accept, and then what's not to question.

Those who really understand metaphysics, human psychology and philosophy know that ultimately humans will never be successfully motivated by force, even to whatever smiley face degree it is watered down.

Close your web browser kid, your due down at the Americorp Camp-us for your "opportunity to help out" and "do your part." ;-)

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 4, 2009 01:54 AM
63. OUCH! that felt like it hurt Demoboy....you have just been schooled

very nicely done Jeff B

Posted by: hellpig on May 4, 2009 02:03 AM
64. @62: Damn! You're rapidly moving from objections based on concerns about constitutionality to... errrr... breaking out the tinfoil from the pantry and making an extra big hat.

You haven't shown that volunteering is motivated by force here, or even that it could be a mandatory obligation for the general public. And for someone to equate contributing to the community to be "fascism"? Well, why don't you just go whole hog and say that patriotism is fascism? Or that being a soldier, firefighter or police officer is supporting fascism?

You're ludicrous.


@63: "Schooled" by what, exactly? He's rambling.

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 02:34 AM
65. Don't forget that the left isn't merely satisfied with their K-12 taxpayer funded indoctrination camps and the colleges and universities they run. They also want mandatory government funded daycare and preschool. Now apparently they want forced government service. Actually one might call it forced community organizing. Aren't these creeps charming?

Also note that the lefts' designated mouthpiece on this particular thread "demo kid" won't discuss how the left squashes free speech. He claims that is "irrelevant". It's not "irrelevant" to any discussion here, "demo kid" it is revealing.

The left threatens our liberties day after day. They are besides themselves with glee because a Supreme Court vacancy will give them an even greater ability to take the life and liberty of unborn children.

These are not nice people. How much evidence do people need to see before they have had enough?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 06:32 AM
66. They can come and get my family.

Posted by: TacomaBlizzard on May 4, 2009 06:57 AM
67. Excellent response, Bill C @ 65. Yes, just another opportunity to turn impressionable young people into mindless, rotobotic, jack-booted leftists like dimo kid.

The left's tactic of gaining control of schools has succeeded beyond even their collective dreams, in that a major faction of our dumbed-down population is willingly swapping it's liberties for a few crumbs of welfare and a promise they won't have to perform any real work.

Posted by: Saltherring on May 4, 2009 07:29 AM
68. It won't come to that TacomaBlizzard. People I talk to who have traditionally voted Democrat for years are sick of Obama and the Democrats already. They are finally starting to figure these people out.

This nut wants us to buy $60,000 little electric cars which will cost a fortune to re-charge every day. Or alternatively live in crowded cities and ride public transit filled with the criminals the left refuses to put in jail. There is not one single transit pushing liberal that would dare take his wife out on the town for dinner on public transit. Most of them would be afraid to ride a bus from downtown to Capitol Hill during broad daylight.

Once people figure out what these controlling nutcases are all about they will never gain power over us again.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 07:47 AM
69. Demo kid: Re-read the comment at #4 with the exerpts from HR 1444, and then try to claim again that the mandatory aspects have not been shown here. Sheesh!

Posted by: katomar on May 4, 2009 07:52 AM
70. I quoted HR 1444 (it's not 1442 as the text says) in the main item and highlighted the words mandatory and requirement.

Posted by: Ron Hebron on May 4, 2009 07:58 AM
71. Slavery Party Failed Abortion wrote:

Show me where this is "mandatory". The only forms of "mandatory" public service are jury duty and the draft, and that is not going to change. Getting your panties in a twist about a committee report is ludicrous.

First off, that's a nice dodge of the question, which was:

do you support mandatory public service?

If you don't want to answer, just say so...

But to answer your objection to the question, please see the original entry by Ron Hebron where he quotes part of the bill:

H.R. 1444 Look for "required" and "mandatory:"


... (5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.


(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

Now, when you say things like mandatory, required, expected it pretty much means what I asked. Are you honest enough with yourself to answer the question:

Do you support mandatory public service?

It's a simple, yes or no question. Or you can take the coward's way out - again - and dodge the question (but I believe that would indicate some level of comfort with mandatory public service, indicating a yes).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 4, 2009 08:07 AM
72. A more revealing question for lefties such as "demo kid" might be "do you support public brainwashing"?

After all, isn't that what the left, with their public schools, and blubbering leftist media do every day?

It's day after day of global warming,(oh wait, now it's "climate change"), and "green" this and that to the point of absurdity. You can't get away from it. Every year we have to read endlessly about events "for women" with their cute little illustrations showing oh-so-smart busy 30-something women. Imagine the uproar from the left if someone dared to promote an event "for men"?

The left hammers us with their agenda every single day. I think a lot of people have finally had enough of it.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 08:28 AM
73. #72, Bill, you hit it squarely on the head. congrats!

Posted by: Pete on May 4, 2009 08:34 AM
74.
Question for the Kid, Do you support the draft? Do you know why Nixon abolished it? This bill is a new conscription, but it's still conscription. There's no reason for the government to force our youth in to the military, or in to forced community activism. Both are wrong.

What's not yet defined in this bill is what the implementation of mandatory would entail. In other school districts in the country, mandatory service means a choice between a HS diploma or not. Not really a choice at all.

Note that proponents claim absolute right to the moral high ground of their service programs, even if the service is aimed at something less beneficial like political activism.

Apparently those who hold their own lives and goals as their their own highest value and a pursuit of their happiness as a right, have a lesser moral platform. But those who advocate for mandatory service never explain how it is that they arrive at their absolute moral high ground, because they know that many would not accept their platitudes.

What's left unsaid is that mandatory service programs are thought to provide some sense of self worth by assisting others. This is the code of self sacrifice. No one actually believes that one can attain pride and happiness by serving others, because pride and happiness are the results of our own achievements. And it's definitely not your achievement if someone tells you that your service is mandatory, or else.

Pride doesn't come by suspending one's own goals and pursuits for the benefit of a self sacrificing program designed with some bureaucracy's definition of what one must value as important. Especially for those who are in a rush to better themselves with their own dreams and goals. In a more civil society, some may choose to serve, and some may not, and that choice will be reserved to the individual, and not the government.

And anything can be justified by false claims that self worth is determined by some mandated service. But mandatory service isn't aimed at bettering the student, but instead getting them accustomed to the philosophy of self sacrifice which is the core component of philosophies that organize the collective instead of supporting the individual.

There are signs over the entrances of the Nazi concentration camps: "Arbeit Macht Frei" People will submit to anything if you give them a slogan. Americorp's is "Your World, Your Chance to Make It Better." And I am sure that those who are forced to serve will indeed view it as "Their Chance," and not Jim McDermott's.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 4, 2009 09:31 AM
75. @72 Bill - no "demo kid" would say it's not brainwashing. That teaching kids everyday about America's past(and present) evil-doing is showing the 100% accurate portrayal of history.

Posted by: Crusader on May 4, 2009 09:45 AM
76. Yup "demo kid" would probably be squarely in the "America has always been evil" camp.

No conservative historian that I am familiar with would say that America's past is not without its warts.

What demo kid and the left want is for children to believe that America and in particular capitalism has been a force for evil.

Do they present a balanced view? Of course they don't. They are leftists.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 10:08 AM
77. You know, the only way Conservatives and Conservative principles are going to influence government policies is if Conservative arguments can be presented about relevant issues in a coherent fashion.

HR 1444 is a bill to establish a Commission to produce a study.

HR 1444 cannot in anyway mandate involuntary servitude.

HR 1444 cannot in anyway destroy volunteerism for charitable institutions.

Calling it LIBERAL, MARXIST, FASCIST, et al is.... well only name calling, which is an appropriate tactic for small school children.

Those of you that believe this bill to commission a study is the beginning of the end of world do yourselves a disservice with the hyperbole.
A reasoned response that motivate others to call for the bill not being passed is required IF you intend to amass a political call to action with a prayer of being effective.

Otherwise this is simply spleen venting.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 10:43 AM
78. @65: Forced government service? Where? You haven't shown that there's a law that forces people to do government service. And discussions about free speech are irrelevant here because this thread isn't about free speech. Start up one on the public blog, and I'll be more than happy to run circles around you there.


@66: I'll note the roving squads of AmeriCorps volunteers to collect them immediately. :)


@67: "Mindless" people would just be throwing insults without arguments to back them up.


@68: "Figuring these people out"? Obama still has high numbers in the polls, even despite increasingly painful and desperate efforts by right-wingnuts to tear him down. Sure, what goes up must come down, but there is hardly a mass movement against him at this point. With electric cars, you're just pulling facts out of... wherever you pull random, nonsensical things from. And in terms of public transit... I completely agree with you! Having homeless shelters with regular routes around the city does not make for a safe and efficient transit system. But cutting transit funding doesn't quite solve that problem.


@69: This is a bill about a study, and Ron H. was suggesting that students from high school would be required to complete public service requirements for graduation. Do I see anywhere that service would be mandatory, or that people would be thrown in jail if they didn't comply? Nope.


@71: This isn't a dodge to your question, since your question is irrelevant. Again, this is a *report*, and no one is suggesting that this would be accomplished in any way aside from supporting volunteer programs and promoting requirements for high school graduation. Do I see "mandatory" on anything that would actually, you know, MAKE it mandatory? But to answer your question: aside from jury duty, the draft during times of declared war, and probably a few other limited circumstances that I can't recall right now, I don't support an unenforceable mandatory volunteer service requirement for all citizens. I don't think that anyone actually would, and I can't think of an example right now where any country or state actually does require this outside of obligatory military service. I also don't exactly see how you envision that this mandatory universal service could be enforced with this legislation. You haven't shown anything here.


@72: "Brainwashing"? We're talking about public service here, not political activities. How exactly do you amalgamate teaching in inner city schools or working for a homeless shelter with "indoctrination"? And I'm beginning to think, Bill, that you're just a sad and bitter man that's disappointed that no one is throwing a party for him.


@74: Again, from above, I support the draft, but only in times of severe need. For example, conscription during the Vietnam War was a travesty, and was the wrong choice to make. I can see that in the cases of countries like Norway and Israel, there are some benefits to mandatory military service, but I don't think that this outweighs the costs.

One thing that you write here is quite interesting: "What's not yet defined in this bill is what the implementation of mandatory would entail." The entire argument of the right-wingnuts on this board is based on something that DOESN'T EXIST. This bill doesn't make volunteerism a requirement for all citizens, but y'all are screaming like the jack-boots are on your front porch. Likewise, I'd encourage you to point out the sections that state that wholly leftist "political activism" is encouraged. This is stark mad, screaming, raving paranoia at best.

Now, in terms of all of your grand arguments about personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, all that... well, I don't disagree with you. Folks that are mandated by the court to a sentence of community service aren't necessarily getting anything out of it; they're fulfilling requirements. Thinking that every high school student would go out and be happier through mandate is silly.

But this isn't about forcing students into service! It's about giving students an understanding of the role of volunteerism and public service as part of an education in civics. If you beleive that education in civics is an important part of education, why wouldn't this be an important part of that? Supporting AmeriCorps isn't about forcing people into service, it's about providing a meager level of support to people that want to make a sacrifice and do some good in the world.

And finally, screw you, you nasty little prick. As much as I can respect a reasonable debate, even with wingnut conservatives, comparing AmeriCorps with a concentration camp is not just sick, it's pathetic and cowardly and an insult to people that actually do want to make the world a better place. My advice to you, if you ever want to make the world a better place? Leave it as fast as possible.


@75-76: Wrapped up in another conservative canard, eh? Explain to me where "evil-doing" comes into play with public service. I think that you need to look at everything with a critical eye, of course... unlike many folks on the right that seem to enjoy being force-fed their opinions. And I have yet to see a nuanced opinion on this site, or rather, any opinion that doesn't seem to come straight from the likes of Rush Limbaugh's posterior.


@77: Dude, you'd think that their spleens would be completely empty from all the venting! Not to mention their livers, given the amount of bile they spew. :)

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 11:02 AM
79. Obama signs mandatory service in to law.

And finally, screw you, you nasty little prick. ... My advice to you, if you ever want to make the world a better place? Leave it as fast as possible.

Yep, that's not at all nasty. I recall up @ comment 40 you noted that political defeat does not equal shooting people. But I guess it does equal wishing people would shoot themselves. What a healthy, calm and reasoned response.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 4, 2009 11:21 AM
80. @ Jeff B.,

Godwin's Law: "Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."

And AmeriCorps was established in 1993 (16 years ago!!), can you or anyone cite ONE instance of its being used like the Hitler Youth with concentration camps?

Really!!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 11:44 AM
81. Too many peeps discount any comments made about Germany and the National Socialist Party.

There are enough parallels that we should at very least be vigilant as to what's next.

Other than that, don't you just love how libs want to do charity with other peeps time and money?

Posted by: Sam Adams on May 4, 2009 11:56 AM
82. @81 Sam Adams on May 4, 2009 11:56 AM,

Too MANY parallels???
Name them.
Then, compare and contrast those parallels with the Boy Scouts.

I'm not discounting any comments about Nazis. I am asking that people be specific. Because if you are correct, the tie needs to be made - so that we can ALL be vigilant.
If you are just blowing smoke, ... well then it is apparently obvious and Godwin's applies.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 12:15 PM
83. The point is that I question the image of Americorps to be an apolitical and unbiased volunteer organization with purely charitable goals just like I question the German Nazis who said that work would free the Jews. But whip whatever outrage suits your cause while denouncing commenters here for being outraged at the proposal of mandatory service. Tu Quoque.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 4, 2009 12:16 PM
84. @83 Jeff B. on May 4, 2009 12:16 PM,
Ok, so you question the image AmeriCorps.
But with 16 years of evidence available to you, your not inquisitive enough to find a single example of your point?

That's reasonable, but it sure looks like there are no examples. Your point. Your call.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 12:22 PM
85. I guess my position would depend on what the service requirement was (or with whom). I'm not opposed to the idea of saying that every youth is required to perform a year of civic-service - such exposure can offer a real growth-opportunity for young adults. That said: there needs to be some wide latitude given to what comprises 'civic-service', and participation in political and religious organizations should not be excluded (maybe it should be written that the org MUST BE a 501c?).

Posted by: ArthurH on May 4, 2009 12:24 PM
86. @79: I recall up @ comment 40 you noted that political defeat does not equal shooting people. But I guess it does equal wishing people would shoot themselves. What a healthy, calm and reasoned response.

YOU'RE the fool equating AmeriCorps to Nazism. If you really do feel that's the case (and I sure as hell that this is just foolish hyperbole on your part), you're a waste product.

Now, I can respect folks that have a difference in opinion. I've been diplomatic in my language up to this point. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone that would be dim enough to compare kids interested in helping their community with a fascist bunch of thugs is a piece of garbage.

But hey... I didn't say anything about how you would do it. And since you're a selfish piece of crap, I doubt that you'd do it anyway! :)


@81: There are enough parallels that we should at very least be vigilant as to what's next.

WHAT parallels?? Put your tinfoil hat back on.


@82: The point is that I question the image of Americorps to be an apolitical and unbiased volunteer organization with purely charitable goals just like I question the German Nazis who said that work would free the Jews.

The fact that you can't tell the difference is why you're a repugnant piece of crap.

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 12:28 PM
87. @83: And what exactly are you using "tu quoque" in reference to? I don't think that means what you think it means.

@85: Sounds perfect! I absolutely agree.

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 12:31 PM
88. We Americans are confused by certain technical terms. We have never studyied the historical/philosophical meanings of words like socialism, communism or nazisim. We just remember that Hitler was a bad man. Therefore: Eliminate all references to those politically technical terms. Just call it Tyranny. End of confusion.

Posted by: ljm on May 4, 2009 12:53 PM
89. With the Boy Scouts on the outs with their stand on gays and with the Girl Scouts encouraging capitalism via cookie sales it is clear we can no longer trust these once useful organizations to help shape the youth of America. A mandatory national service program seems the best alternative to instill the correct values in America's young.

Once the youth corps takes shape something needs to be done about organized religion, which has totally archaic ideas about morality. Maybe McDermott could tackle this next.

Posted by: oregonjon on May 4, 2009 12:59 PM
90. "And finally, screw you, you nasty little prick." - "demo kid" at #78

Why oh why does it always come to this when you attempt to have a conversation with leftists?

The childishness of the left is truly something to behold.

These clearly are not the people we want to have running the country, folks. And right now, they are.

"Demo kid" is, as I have strongly hinted in the past, likely a paid Democrat Party operative.

The swearing, the name calling, the personal insults. All so very predictable.

Shutting down debate is what the modern left is all about. They do it in the public schools they control and they want to do it on the public airwaves as well. It is who these scary people are. The left always operates the same way. It doesn't matter if it is the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or the United States. They crush dissent, banish religion,(does the annual war on Christmas sound familiar?), and make the population miserable while they continue to live in luxury. The great leftist success story has never been written.

Once again. The left attracts a certain kind of very unpleasant individual, like for example "demo kid". Controlling, mean, cowardly people who never have the courage to use thier own names or even a valid e-mail address. They reveal their true nature over and over here on Sound Politics as "demo kid" has just done. They tend to begin debate in a civil manner. In the end they resort to type nearly ever single time.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 01:13 PM
91. Oh no. Please tell me I am making up this comment from "demo kid" at #86:

"Now, I can respect folks that have a difference in opinion. I've been diplomatic in my language up to this point. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone that would be dim enough to compare kids interested in helping their community with a fascist bunch of thugs is a piece of garbage."

I guess calling someone a "nasty little prick" is considered diplomatic language in the freakish world of the modern left.

I love it when these swell folks step in their own poop.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 01:23 PM
92.
A mandatory national service program seems the best alternative to instill the correct values in America's young...Once the youth corps takes shape something needs to be done about organized religion, which has totally archaic ideas about morality. Maybe McDermott could tackle this next. Posted by: oregonjon

Sieg Heil!!
Spoken like a true Hitlerite OregonJon.

Posted by: Arbeit Macht Frei on May 4, 2009 01:33 PM
93. Bill C, D-kid just harms his own argument and position by this kind of outburst. He brings NO ONE over to his side that may have been on the fence--on the contrary, he pushes them to the other side.

Also, his statement that you quoted at #91 is also a ridiculous comment--"...anyone that would be dim enough to compare kids interested in helping their community with a fascist bunch of thugs is a piece of garbage." No one was comparing KIDS with "a fascist bunch of thugs", the comparison was to the people likely to be directing and potentially indoctrinating those kids...

Posted by: Bill H on May 4, 2009 01:38 PM
94. @90: Why oh why does it always come to this when you attempt to have a conversation with leftists?

Don't get sanctimonious... you fellows are hardly polite. Still, I was responding to someone who had the gall to compare the Hitler Youth to kids teaching in inner city schools. Don't pretend that this is a civil and respectful conversation on your side.


"Demo kid" is, as I have strongly hinted in the past, likely a paid Democrat Party operative.

Hardly. This is just for fun. :)


Shutting down debate is what the modern left is all about.

@91: I guess calling someone a "nasty little prick" is considered diplomatic language in the freakish world of the modern left.

Sorry? Here I am, making my points, and what do I get in return? Blah... blah... blah... Marxism! Blah... blah... blah... fascism! Blah... blah... blah... liberals! You aren't making arguments! You're repeating the same broken record: a standard conservative mantra over and over and over again, without proof, without any iota of independent thought. It's ironic that you're saying that I'm "trying to shut down debate" when I seem to be the only one debating here!

And then, some idiot insults hardworking folks that I know personally, who sacrifice their time and their energy, by comparing them to Nazis? Pu-leeze. Anyone that would do that hasn't got a clue, and deserves being called a LOT worse.

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 01:44 PM
95. typical dumbo-kid, nobody here is "force-fed" their opinions.

Posted by: Crusader on May 4, 2009 01:50 PM
96. I dislike the term "mandantory" but I do feel we might have a better appreciation of our own country and what it can offer if we were to all heed the speech of JFK..." ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Posted by: dooly on May 4, 2009 01:56 PM
97. Yes "demo kid" you generally try to make your points with me by repeating the inane comment, "stay off my lawn!".

Is that what passes for intelligent political discourse in leftist circles?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 02:04 PM
98. dooly, I agree in principle with what you say.

JFK however is not running the country and wouldn't recognize his own party had he survived.

A mind-numbed army of government funded leftist community activists is not exactly what JFK meant when he uttered those words back in 1961.

The best thing anyone can do for this country is to do what Americans have always done best. Innovate, invent, become entrepreneurs, improve the quality of life for everyone. Liberals aren't capable of understanding this.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 02:16 PM
99. @95: typical dumbo-kid, nobody here is "force-fed" their opinions.

So then, where exactly do you get them? Where do you break ranks with your fellow (u)SP-ers? Or are you just a ditto-head? And why do you assume that all liberals are force-fed theirs?


@97: Ask Shanghai Dan what passes for intelligent political discourse in right-wing circles. Likewise, yelling "get off my lawn!" is pretty much all you do here.


@98: The best thing anyone can do for this country is to do what Americans have always done best. Innovate, invent, become entrepreneurs, improve the quality of life for everyone. Liberals aren't capable of understanding this.

You haven't shown that public service and innovation are mutually exclusive. Not to mention that JFK was the President that STARTED the Peace Corps...

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 02:33 PM
100. If Arbeit Macht Frei in post #92 is any indication this is not the forum for irony.

Posted by: oregonjon on May 4, 2009 02:58 PM
101. Your right "demo kid". Public service and innovation built Grand Coulee Dam. That dam irrigates the arrid eastern portion of the state and provides renewable hydroelectric power. That is something of substance. An army of community organizers produces nothing other than misplaced "anger" which the left can't live without.

Grand Coulee Dam was built because both Democratic and Republican politicians of our grandfathers' generation believed in progress. Republicans still do. Democrats are now the party of "can't". We "can't" build nuclear plants, we "can't" drill for our own oil, we "can't" build refinaries. We can, however build $60,000 stupid little electric cars that will cost everyone a fortune to recharge every 100 miles. And we can if Obama and the left have their way pay $6.00 a gallon for gas.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 02:58 PM
102. As i noted earlier in this thread, it would help Conservatives if we made relevant points.

Demo kid may or may not be a liberal, but except when he is suckered in to stuff, his arguments on points have been rather good.

This post:
- Makes arguments about which are never supported.
- Makes an argument which is a stretch that is never supported.
- Misidentifies HB 1444 as HB 1442.

And the very first comment introduces the Hitler analogy.

If we hope to persuade others towards a more Conservative approach, we should pay closer attention to what we argue about and how we argue it.
Merely labeling every Democrat sponsored piece of legislation FASCIST, LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, MARXIST..., and predicting it will lead to the end of the world not only is unlikely to win converts, it is more likely to repel thinking people.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 03:02 PM
103. shut up, non-believers.

My intelligence is so keen that I understand all the nuances of the the Obama-jugen. oops, I mean Americorps. It's no different than when Kennedy forced us all to do something for our country.

HOPE!! CHANGE!! HEIL!!

Posted by: dan on May 4, 2009 03:05 PM
104. @101: An army of community organizers produces nothing other than misplaced "anger" which the left can't live without.

Where exactly do you get THAT notion? I'm wracking my brain, trying to figure out how teaching or working at a homeless shelter "produces nothing other than misplaced anger".

@102: Well, I prefer "trying to address dirty tricks and distractions" to "suckered into stuff". But thank you.

@103: So what exactly does THAT accomplish?

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 03:10 PM
105. "Merely labeling every Democrat sponsored piece of legislation FASCIST, LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, MARXIST..., and predicting it will lead to the end of the world not only is unlikely to win converts, it is more likely to repel thinking people."

It might also expose leftist trolls...

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 03:10 PM
106. There is a lot of stuff going on in the state and country to only have one post every two days.

Excellent, excellent post, Ron.

Posted by: swatter on May 4, 2009 03:24 PM
107. @105 Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 03:10 PM,

Maybe we should spend just a little more time winning thinking people to the correct solutions and a little less time exposing leftist trolls.
As i recall, the leftist trolls have been dominating politics in the state of Washington for ...ever, and the Democrats just acquired a super majority in their Senate caucus. So, more than 1 in 2 people you encounter are 'leftists'.

You want to change that? Or cry over spilled milk?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 03:26 PM
108. And how MikeBoyScout do you propose changing the fact that "more than 1 in 2 people you encounter are 'leftists'"

I don't want to "cry over spilled milk" any more than you do. It might help you to read posts more carefully before commenting.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 03:38 PM
109. Given that Baghdad Jim is a ranking member of the majority party in the House and that same party controls the Senate and Executive branch, maybe it would be worthwhile to identify how HB 1444 should be amended so that in the likely event the proposal is passed and signed in to law. If we focused our efforts in this regard MAYBE it could produce results that would lead to acceptable and unbiased recommendations. Simply wailing about it will bring nothing.

And don't forget, national standards (mandates!) with insufficient funding and the threat of removing existing funding for local education was brought to us by 'conservative' G. W. Bush, a Republican House and capitulation with Sen Kennedy. Remember No Child Left Behind???

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 03:39 PM
110. 2109: I never thought I'd see the day a rational conservative got on this site.

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 03:47 PM
111. @108 Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 03:38 PM,

I propose we offer much more constructive and actionable criticism than howling epithets and making comparisons to straw (NAZI, SOCIALIST, MARXIST, LIBERAL) labels.
The choir doesn't need to be converted, and there is no need for a Conservative Glee Club.

FYI... Any person that works with or employees 'young' people and immigrants knows that the immigrant knows much more about civics in this country than the 'lucky' kids going to our schools. And as my moniker implies, community service mandated for my Eagle didn't turn me in to a Stalin loving liberal. Why the hell shouldn't every kid do a project for his community? Wouldn't a commission that reported out that the BSA Eagle Scout project approach is the model be a good thing? I think so, but i'm rather biased towards the BSA.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 03:48 PM
112. MikeBoyScout I think you are a phony leftist troll. Prove me wrong. Tell us who you really are.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 03:55 PM
113. @ 112 Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 03:55 PM,

You can label me in whatever way you want, but i'll say it again - Conservatives are in the minority in this state, and until we engage issues beyond simply howling epithets, we'll remain in the minority.

I'll stand or fall on the strength of the facts against my arguments.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 04:01 PM
114. Slavery Party Failed Abortion,

Now that the Obamassiah has signed into law the start of this mandatory service, I can assume you'll be calling for a change in law?

Do you condemn your Obamassiah - and the Slavery Party in general - for this unconstitutional intrusion of our rights?

Or do you want to add a lot more qualifications to give you wiggle room where once again you can claim your Obamassiah has nothing that stinks?

HOPE AND CHANGE! DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 4, 2009 04:10 PM
115. I say then that Scouting should be mandatory for all school age boys. It's already federally funded and the bureaucracy is in place.

Can you imagine, Mike, all the youth in this country in their Eagle Scout uniforms?

Personally, I'd rather see that than the alternative that's being proposed.

Posted by: dan on May 4, 2009 04:10 PM
116. "And as my moniker implies, community service mandated for my Eagle didn't turn me in to a Stalin loving liberal."

No conservative in my experience would ever make such a comment.

You are a liberal liar.

What is wrong with you people?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 04:10 PM
117. Hey no problem. Force my kids in to the program. Just don't come crying to me when they sabotage the program in redress for forcing them into it in the first place. You CAN blame me when I file a lawsuit for violating the consitutional rights of me and my child. I would love to collect a ton of money off of this.

As with many of Mr. McDermott's outlandish ideas, chances are it won't get off the ground or will be shot down once again for being unconstitutional.

To MikeBoyScout -

I think you make a fair point. To answer your question in regards to "why shouldn't every kid do a project for his community?" I don't disagree with kids contributing to their community. In fact many school/church/organization programs take kids out on community projects all the time - with the parents/childs consent of course. Where I disagree is forcing servitude and not allowing any choice for the child or parent.

Forced/Involuntary servitude was banned by the 13th Amendment of the Constitution which states:
"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."

Posted by: DJ on May 4, 2009 04:15 PM
118. I really enjoy the defense of imposed government programs.
Let's try this since Bush is the excuse to impose values on everyone else and because Hitler is correctly used to point out the desire to impose has loaded consequences lets try this.

Before we are all muslim or killed.

Lets reduce government way back in scale so that the word No is the overriding doctrine.

No No No No No - The widespread elimination of much of government and the programs because every program started good intention and now we are at the point of Elian Gonzalezing all kids. Because this forced working will only grow to the point of relocating the kids for years at at time into what is believed the best for their lives to the point of stealing children far beyond the original intent of local 'service'.

These government programs lack any guiding principles of life or accountability.

After all some dictators in here are excited to slaughter religion as well after imposing the forced greenshirting of all Americans.

Right here we have the unleashing of threats to personal liberty and freedom that is far above yelling fire when there is none.

Incredible.

Admit it you want to kill us all.


Posted by: Col. Hogan on May 4, 2009 04:18 PM
119. Imagine the outcry from the left had Bush mentioned mandatory government service.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 04:24 PM
120. @114: Now that the Obamassiah has signed into law the start of this mandatory service, I can assume you'll be calling for a change in law?

Point to me the place where it has been made mandatory by federal law.


@115: And how exactly would you go about doing THAT? You're essentially arguing for what all the conservatives on here have JUST argued against.


@116: You're so quick to call people that don't follow your beliefs "liars". Who exactly is telling whom to shut up now?


@117: Again, there is NO "forced servitude". Explain how making this, say, a requirement for high school graduation is forced servitude.


@118: Admit it you want to kill us all.

Okay... chill out. We're talking about volunteerism, and you're talking about "imposing values" and "slaughtering religion". How exactly do you make THAT jump?

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 04:36 PM
121. Did MikeBoyScout slink away? Well of course he did.

He's one of those liberal creeps that call talk shows every day pretending to be conservatives.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 04:40 PM
122. Are "demo kid" and "MikeBoyScout" the same person?

I'll shut up and let you faithful readers decide...

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 04:51 PM
123. dk - re #115 scouting

Isn't irony ironic?

I hope you didn't wet yourself just thinking about the possibility.

Posted by: dan on May 4, 2009 05:21 PM
124. Proves once more, for all to see, that the Democrats have been drinking their own bathwater again.

Remember when they said Bush was Hitler?

Now they're trying out for the part.

Posted by: JoeBandMember on May 4, 2009 05:55 PM
125. "Are "demo kid" and "MikeBoyScout" the same person?"

Well of course they are. The left advances their agenda by brainwashing children and lying to adults.

Most readers here already understand that the left is populated with angry, controlling, mean spirited people.

This thread only serves to confirm it.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 05:58 PM
126. @ Bill Cruchon, you were busy while i was packing, you wrote over several posts:
"No conservative in my experience would ever make such a comment.
You are a liberal liar"
"Did MikeBoyScout slink away? Well of course he did.
He's one of those liberal creeps that call talk shows every day pretending to be conservatives."
"I'll shut up ...."

Yes, Bill Cruchon, please shut up.
All you bring to this thread is name calling.

Gotta plane to catch. Good Luck with HR 1444!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 05:58 PM
127. Yeah, he was packing something, for trip the wrong way on the Hershey Highway.

Posted by: JoeBandMember on May 4, 2009 06:03 PM
128. @ JoeBandMember on May 4, 2009 06:03 PM,
Way to keep it classy!!! LOL!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 4, 2009 06:09 PM
129. MikeBoyScout is exactly what I said he is. A phony. Is he the same liberal troll as "demo kid"? Who the heck knows. Honesty isn't exactly a liberal value.

Geez, what a bunch of goofy nuts.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 06:09 PM
130. Corrupt Democrat Leadership in WA State
By Janis Kristiansen
Thursday, April 24, 2009

Since NO ONE in the press is going to report this, I will. I just got off the phone with my husband, State Rep. Dan Kristiansen (washingtonvotes.org/Legislator.aspx?ID=1534).

In summary, this is what he said.

At the beginning of session this year, the Democrats in control in the House changed the rules and eliminated the 24 hour rule from when the budget is introduced to when it can be voted upon. In the past, the budgets were rolled out for review, and no vote on any budget could happen until at LEAST 24 hours had passed, giving time for the minority party (read Republicans) to review the budget, and make an intelligent vote on it. Not this session. A budget can be introduced and voted upon, all in the same hour, giving the minority party literally no time to read it.

This morning, April 24, three days before the end of session, the Democrats announced that NO amendments to the capitol budget could be introduced (most amendments are offered by the opposing party, usually) after 3 pm today. Guess when the Democrats released the capitol budget today, for the Republicans to get a first review of it? At 3:25pm, 25 minutes after cut-off for any amendments to be offered. So, for the Republicans, NO amendments can be offered because the Democrats released the operating budget for the Republicans to see 25 minutes after the deadline for amendments to be accepted.

This is CORRUPT.

The story is not over. The operating budget, separate from the capitol budget, was emailed to the Republicans this morning at 1:30 AM, early in the morning. It is several hundred pages. The Democrats then said NO amendments were going to be allowed to the capitol budget after 12 noon today. So, in the middle of the night the Democrats release the capitol budget, and then announce no amendments are allowed after 12 noon, AND they are voting on this budget this afternoon.

This is the corrupt nature of the Democrats in control.

How are Republicans supposed to vote yes or no on these budgets, hundreds of pages long, that spend approximately $34 billion dollars each biennium, when they are given no time to review it, or offer even hurried amendments to it? The Democrats realize they have almost a super majority; so in essence, it's OK to ignore the Republicans during the budget process.

Please email this article to everyone you know in WA. The 5,000 people who came to the Tea Party in Olympia, myself included, and who participated in one of the 30 tea parties across our state, need to know this is the level of corruption in the Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives in WA.

Rep. Dan said this Operating Budget offered sets our state up for an approximate $10 billion shortfall in the 2011 biennium. This is outrageous! Where is self-restraint? Where is responsibility? Where is the good stewardship of taxpayer dollars?

Posted by: annette on May 4, 2009 06:31 PM
131. This is how Democrats and the left play politics, annette.

They don't want to have a level playing field. Democrats only bring that up when they lose an election.

George Bush made the most fatal mistake in 2001 that any Republican can make. A decent, honest man, he tried to be nice to the Democrats. You can't be nice to Democrats who live to beat the living daylights out of our side by any means necessary.

Bush may as well just have laid his head down on the chopping block and let the Democrats sever his head. Isn't that what eventually happened?

The left isn't nice. They are controlling, nasty, angry people that live to tell us all how to live our lives. The left is a sinkhole for negative pessimistic people. The left is where those angry,unhappy people go. They love to make the rest of us miserable.

Poor George Bush probably came to that conclusion eventually.

As conservative Republicans we need to understand who we are up against. And have no illusions.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 07:05 PM
132. While I am at it, I think we Republicans should stop trying to attract "moderates".

What in the world does a "moderate" believe?

"Oh well, they just want to get along with everyone and not offend." Translation...they don't have any core beliefs.

I have yet to find a "moderate" that is able to define his or her political beliefs in any manner that can be comprehended. That includes some the leaders of our state Republican Party.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 07:31 PM
133. And that also includes the global warming believing, politically correct candidate Republicans ran in 2008.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 07:37 PM
134. Indeed, if we Republicans become the party that embraces "moderates" we are doomed to extinction.

The inclusion of "moderates" is exactly what the left wants the Republican Party to do. They know that a confused, aimless party that can't even make a stand about human life is ready for the killing.

As Republicans we need to stand for our principles. This garbage about being a party of the "big tent" is leftist nonsense.

If we are the party of the "big tent" it is because we believe in what most Americans believe. We don't want to kill the innocent unborn. We don't want more taxes. We don't want government to tell us what cars to drive. We want to drill for our own oil, we want to build nuclear facilities.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 08:12 PM
135. Needs clarification:
89. Once the youth corps takes shape something needs to be done about organized religion, which has totally archaic ideas about morality. Maybe McDermott could tackle this next.
Posted by: oregonjon on May 4, 2009 12:59 PM

A great example of a threat to civilization.
I thought Obama was going to unite us.

What 'NEEDS' to be done? Someone help out...WHAT!!? Would help us decide how to be ready to defend our fellow citizens against your choice. Leftists never want to put anything to a vote just impose, dictate, sue. What Really NEEDS to be done?? Constant windmilling at scapegoats by the left.

Can you imagine the freakout if any rational person said something 'needs' to be done about the obvious solutions to problems?

Oh wait that is what we see all over nowadays a freakout if the left disagrees with anything and wants to impose 'mandatory volunteering'!

Posted by: Col. Hogan on May 4, 2009 09:26 PM
136. Why does the Republican Party ignore these simple truths--We don't want to kill the innocent unborn. We don't want more taxes. We don't want government to tell us what cars to drive. We want to drill for our own oil, we want to develop nuclear energy.


Instead we let the left and "crunchy cons" such as Micheal Medved browbeat us into embracing the global warming hoax and fielding John McCain, a candidate that believed every lie that comes out of Al Gore's mouth.

We have to grow a spine. Right now. We must stop letting the left dictate our political agenda.

The Democrats are the party of "can't". We "can't" drill for oil. We "can't" build nuclear plants. We "can't" build new oil refinaries. We "can't" manufacture the cars and trucks that Americans want because Obama wants us to buy $60,000 little electric cars (the charging of which will blow our electric bills through the stratosphere), and pay $6.00 a gallon for gas.

We can take back this country.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 4, 2009 09:31 PM
137. Mandatory national service is a violation of individual rights. The only way your rights can be violated is through the initiation of force against you. When an someone tries to violate your rights through force or fraud, it is justly regarded as a crime. It is doubly vicious if the government violates your rights because the one and only purpose of government is to protect your rights.

We owe nothing to other individuals but respect for their rights. These rights do not include drafting us for any purpose whatsoever or mooching off us for any purpose whatsoever. Rights are not entitlements to goods or services; this would entail enslaving others that would provide these goods and services. Rights pertain to our freedom of action in a social context.

We are free to do anything we want as long as we do not violate the rights of others. We have a right to life but not a right to the support of that life at the expense of others. We have the right to the liberty to think and write what we want but others do not have to listen to us or provide the printing press or computer for us. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness but no guarantee we will find it and definitely no one must dedicate their life to making you happy.

Ayn Rand described the racket Obama and McDermott are running in the Fountainhead:

"...listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice--run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if ever you hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it's your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself--that will be the man that is not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you."

Posted by: Bill K. on May 4, 2009 10:18 PM
138. The Republicans will not be able to take back this country until they become more articulate in communication and able to connect to the people. They must stop being the "Country club" majority party because the Bush's, et.al. are out of touch and unable to connect. They have to be clever and outsmart the drive-by liberal media and stop being too nice and call a spade a spade.

But most of all, they have to get back to their principles and demonstrate it to the voters - small government, accountability and likeability. They need to carry on the tradition of Jack Kemp, who was able to connect with the common people and adhere to conservative principles. Mike Huckabee has some of that ability - Bobby Jindal will eventually be a good candidate. The jury is out on Mitt Romney, although his knowledge of the economy might resonate well if the economy is not any better by 2012. Mike Pence and Eric Cantor are good for the party leadership. The old Bush holdovers; Boehner and McConnell should be replaced by more energetic Republicans. Finally, the grassroots campaign need to be emulate previous campaigns by Dean and Obama in 2004 & 2008 to give the opposition a fighting chance.

Posted by: KS on May 4, 2009 10:30 PM
139. I leave for a while, and the tinfoil hat brigade comes out in force with the namecalling! And no, I'm not a sock puppet.


@130: How is this relevant?


@137: Mandatory national service is a violation of individual rights. The only way your rights can be violated is through the initiation of force against you. When an someone tries to violate your rights through force or fraud, it is justly regarded as a crime. It is doubly vicious if the government violates your rights because the one and only purpose of government is to protect your rights.

Yet again... where is this "mandatory" service imposed by force?


@138: Absolutely right with the likability and communication! Not something that the Republicans have right now.

Posted by: demo kid on May 4, 2009 10:48 PM
140. By definition, if the 'volunteer' service is mandatory, then anybody who refuses will have to be forced to comply. That is where the force comes in.

And here is how they get around the whole pesky constitutional ban on slavery:

Make it a crime to refuse, on par with the way it was a crime to refuse to comply with the draft (for Vietnam, etc). Then punish by your choice: incarceration, or participation in the 'volunteer work'...with extra hours tacked on, for good measure.

Posted by: Angela in Bothell on May 4, 2009 11:57 PM
141. dumbo kid and the Daily Kunters should all be put into a concentration camp and re-educated in conservative principles.

JUST KIDDING, HA HA HA!!!!

Posted by: Crusader on May 5, 2009 12:24 AM
142. "Involuntary volunteering" is asinine in concept and unconstitutional in practice, not to mention blatantly un-American.

How did a sack of excrement like "Ted" Kennedy even manage to get lionized with such a designation as the "Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act"? Somehow, I don't think the Kopechne family whose daughter the filthy sot Kennedy drove into the chappaquidick river, left her to drown in the car while he swam to shore and instead of reporting the incident to rescue personnel, went home to sleep off his drunken stupor, would approve of the naming of this act.

Yeah, real class act that Edward M. Kennedy is.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 5, 2009 06:17 AM
143. I am awaiting the press clips of smiling, groomed, uniformed, arm-banded, dim-bulbed urban youths as they hoist their torches and march the streets singing songs of worship for their glorious leader. "We must tread the evil Jew...er, I mean....right wing rabble under our hooves! "Seig Heil, mein Obamanator!....and while we're at it, where's all the free stuff you promised us.....?...oh, yeah, and down with Fox News....and what else were we supposed to say..?"

Posted by: Saltherring on May 5, 2009 06:17 AM
144. Until reading this post and comments, and re-reading the constitution - I was unaware that mandatory jury duty is in fact unconstitutional.

How did this one slip by?

Posted by: BA on May 5, 2009 07:58 AM
145. Saltherring, they'll be like those indoctrinated WashPIRG college kids that show up at our door a couple times a year. They always want a donation, "you know, for the environment and stuff".

WashPIRG is a big liberal front group that is on every college campus in the state. If there was a similar conservative group anywhere they would be booted off campus in a heartbeat. That's the way it is.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 5, 2009 08:08 AM
146. @140: By definition, if the 'volunteer' service is mandatory, then anybody who refuses will have to be forced to comply. That is where the force comes in.

And where exactly do you see "force" described here? Did I miss the section that outlined punishments?


@141: So much for "reasoned" debate.


@142: "Involuntary volunteering"? Sure, if you consider being a medical intern or law clerk "involuntary".


@143: Again, so much for "reasoned" debate.


@144: Actually, you can probably make a case for that! However, that is one example of a break with the Constitution that I agree with.


@145: If there was a similar conservative group anywhere they would be booted off campus in a heartbeat. That's the way it is.

Yes! Those College Republicans have been run off EVERY SINGLE college campus. Besides, according to you, conservatives don't give a crap about anyone but themselves, meaning that there are no similar organizations anyway.

Posted by: demo kid on May 5, 2009 08:39 AM
147. Ron, you should moderate these comments. Some of these people are over the top. Wishing others would silence themselves is not argument, and should result in deletion.

Posted by: Dave on May 5, 2009 08:46 AM
148. Show me one instance where I have said, "Besides, according to you, conservatives don't give a crap about anyone but themselves, meaning that there are no similar organizations anyway."

Of course I've never said any such thing.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 5, 2009 08:56 AM
149. No Answer to 135

And the WHIFF by kid et. al.


It is MANDATORY to reply to the call for cleansing of faith based citizens.

Oh wait the kid will decide what is MANDATORY.

Will be fun to ramp up the underground army again.

Posted by: Col. Hogan on May 5, 2009 09:00 AM
150. Just wait until these faith-based urchins with their Obama armbands begin knocking on doors on YOUR block asking how they can 'help' you, and asking questions about your habits, and writing down notes for Headquarters. Their supervisors will be sitting down the block in their smoked-window command cars, booming their basses and making Blackberry transmissions, all at YOUR expense.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 5, 2009 09:28 AM
151. Arthur H:

I'm not opposed to the idea of saying that every youth is required to perform a year of civic-service

The Constitution is opposed to it, as are our human rights.


demo kid:

No. This argument about "involuntary servitude" is false.

No, it is not.


Unless you are forced at gunpoint to earn a high school diploma, this is in no way involuntary

If they say you are MANDATED to work for them, then it is INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Period. You are being forced (involuntary) to serve. That is what the words mean.


just as being required to take a course in civics or clap erasers during detention is "servitude".

No one is required to do those things. Everyone can opt out.


Besides... I would propose that homeschooled and religious-schooled students could get any community service requirement done with their eyes closed.

I would propose that any such requirement is a clear violation of our human rights.


I seriously don't know what you people want.

A lack of government force except when absolutely necessary to protect and defend our individual liberties.


I would argue that volunteerism is a public good that makes the US a stronger country

Then you should be against any requirement or mandate, since that is by definition not volunteerism.


I don't believe that the "government" actually "owes" us anything.

You're wrong. Government exists to protect and defend our individual rights, and owes us that.


I believe that as a group of people in a nation, we need to support one another, or there is little purpose to call ourselves a "nation".

We should support each other, yes ... in protecting each others' individual rights.


I prefer to think that we have responsibilities to go along with our rights and freedoms.

If the government will not recognize our rights, then we certainly should not recognize any so-called "responsibilities" to that government.


"Investigations" would only be required if there was a reasonable question about its constitutionality.

Yes, and federally mandated public service violates the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth Amendments. Fourth because it requires you to report to the government information that it has no right to, without a warrant. Fifth because it takes away due process by pushing you into servitude without a trial. Ninth because you have an unenumerated, preexisting, right to liberty (which this law assumes you do not have). Tenth because the federal government has no right to do this even if it were not otherwise unconstitutional. And of course, Thirteenth because it is clearly involuntary servitude.


"Involuntary servitude" applies here just as much as it would in terms of mandating that students attend math class or do an internship, and you haven't shown otherwise.

If there were any such requirement you would have a point (against such requirements). There isn't any. No child in the United States is required by law to attend any classes or do any internships.

You are asking us to believe that forcing someone, by law, against their will, to serve someone else is not involuntary servitude. But that is what the words ACTUALLY MEAN.


And where exactly do you see "force" described here? Did I miss the section that outlined punishments?

Don't be stupid, demo kid. The bill wants to explore mandatory service. That necessarily means that if proposed, that service would be forced. That is what "mandatory" means.


Your argument that this bill does not actually require anything is true, and irrelevant: obviously McDermott WANTS mandatory service or he would not ask to have it studied. Why wait until a bill drops that would create actual mandatory service, before rising in opposition to it, since we know it is on his mind now?

Posted by: pudge on May 5, 2009 12:58 PM
152. dimo kid @ 146,

You can't reason with leftists, so I guess it's just best to laugh at their lunacy.


Bill C @ 145 & I/S @ 150,

First "Obama Witness" to knock on my door asking how he can "help" will be asked to turn around and grab his ankles so I can kick his ass back to the urban indoctrination center he came from.


Posted by: Saltherring on May 5, 2009 01:02 PM
153. @149: It is MANDATORY to reply to the call for cleansing of faith based citizens.

What? Where exactly do you read that in this bill? Point out the section. I'm waiting.


@151:

No. This argument about "involuntary servitude" is false.

No, it is not.

It is, in that NO enforcement mechanism has been proposed, and there hasn't been any legislation passed. I'd like to see proof that if you or I do not donate our time, we'd be thrown in prison.


If they say you are MANDATED to work for them, then it is INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Period. You are being forced (involuntary) to serve. That is what the words mean.

Yet AGAIN, where is the "mandatory" part of this for you or me? There is a difference between "mandatory" where you do it or go to jail, and "mandatory" in that a high school student is required to do it or they do not earn a diploma.


just as being required to take a course in civics or clap erasers during detention is "servitude".

No one is required to do those things. Everyone can opt out.

And you've just blown a hole in your argument! If this were implemented as part of high school curriculua, you could feel free to ignore this just as much as you'd ignore detention or English class. The end results, I would guess, would be the same, but you can still exercise your freedom in this respect.


Besides... I would propose that homeschooled and religious-schooled students could get any community service requirement done with their eyes closed.

I would propose that any such requirement is a clear violation of our human rights.

I propose, then, that math class is a violation of human rights. I'm sure many high school students would agree.


A lack of government force except when absolutely necessary to protect and defend our individual liberties.

There is NO government force here on the part of forcing anyone to volunteer. There are consequences, but no force.


Then you should be against any requirement or mandate, since that is by definition not volunteerism.

You're viewing this as an end unto itself. I'm viewing this as part of an education.


I don't believe that the "government" actually "owes" us anything.

You're wrong. Government exists to protect and defend our individual rights, and owes us that.

I agree, but you took those words out of context.


I believe that as a group of people in a nation, we need to support one another, or there is little purpose to call ourselves a "nation".

We should support each other, yes ... in protecting each others' individual rights.

So that's it? Then what exactly is the point of patriotism OR national pride?


Yes, and federally mandated public service violates the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth Amendments. Fourth because it requires you to report to the government information that it has no right to, without a warrant. Fifth because it takes away due process by pushing you into servitude without a trial. Ninth because you have an unenumerated, preexisting, right to liberty (which this law assumes you do not have). Tenth because the federal government has no right to do this even if it were not otherwise unconstitutional. And of course, Thirteenth because it is clearly involuntary servitude.

Again, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't know how many times I have to say it. Is there a federal agent with a gun pointed at you, forcing you to do work as part of this legislation? No. Is there ANY PERSON that is "forced" to do work as part of this legislation? No. If this were implemented as a requirement fro high school graduation, would it be "forcing" you to volunteer? No, since you could just as easily NOT graduate. Given ALL of these facts, there is NO basis for your argument. If someone were to say that you would have to volunteer or you would be thrown in prison or fined, then sure, I'd be supporting you and your arguments all the way. But that is not substantiated, so I don't.

You haven't proven anything here.


If there were any such requirement you would have a point (against such requirements). There isn't any. No child in the United States is required by law to attend any classes or do any internships.

Again, EXACTLY MY POINT. If a child doesn't need to do those things, why exactly would you think they would be mandated to complete a volunteer service requirement?


You are asking us to believe that forcing someone, by law, against their will, to serve someone else is not involuntary servitude. But that is what the words ACTUALLY MEAN.

Where exactly does it say this? I must be missing the point where it describes in detail what the punishment is for not joining a federally-mandated chain gang. Likewise, see above... a student can be "mandated" to do this just as much as a student can be "mandated" to take four years of high school math.


Don't be stupid, demo kid. The bill wants to explore mandatory service. That necessarily means that if proposed, that service would be forced. That is what "mandatory" means.

Yours is a flawed reading of the text, which seems to be a trend. Requiring that all doctors have to take classes from an accredited institution before getting a license may be "mandatory" in terms of a necessary step to practice medicine, but it is not required in that you can certainly decide to go into some other profession. The claims that the government will force you or I to volunteer is groundless.


Your argument that this bill does not actually require anything is true, and irrelevant: obviously McDermott WANTS mandatory service or he would not ask to have it studied. Why wait until a bill drops that would create actual mandatory service, before rising in opposition to it, since we know it is on his mind now?

Again, your selective reading doesn't make it so. First, I agree that forcing you or I at gunpoint to volunteer is wrong and unconstitutional. But what proof do you have that this is the case? This bill makes specific mention of youth, and high school and college students, and "mandatory" public service has been a part of a number of high school curricula for years. (I think that mine had a requirement, actually, but given that I was a boy scout way back when, I fulfilled that with my eyes closed.) In no way does this mention ANY alternative approach that would be unconstitutional. Yet, you claim that there is.

So I'll put it to you... is this bill unconstitutional?

Posted by: demo kid on May 5, 2009 02:49 PM
154. Still No MANDATORY Answer to the Cleansing Call by OJ by any leftist. None. All Get ready to defend your lives from the left. See MANDATORY SERVICE is what you will 'volunteer' for.

89. .. something needs to be done about organized religion, which has totally archaic ideas about morality. Maybe McDermott could tackle this next.
Posted by: oregonjon on May 4, 2009 12:59 PM

Demo, OJ, Anyone - What order Muslims first then Jews then Christians and then Pagans.

If a leftist likes it why is it or how could it be unconstitutional??!!!!

Posted by: Col. Hogan on May 5, 2009 03:08 PM
155. McDermott undermines his argument for the need for such "involuntary volunteering" in the wording of his own bill:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (3) Despite declines in civic health in the past 30 years[according to who's standards?], national service and volunteerism among the Nation's youth are increasing, and existing national service and volunteer programs greatly enhance opportunities for youth to engage in civic activity.

Since "volunteering" is increasing by their own admission, obviously there is no pressing governmental need to have this "voluntary" service become involuntarily mandated.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 5, 2009 04:27 PM
156. @154: Still No MANDATORY Answer to the Cleansing Call by OJ by any leftist. None.

Sarcasm and nuance are lost on the right, apparently.


@155: Since "volunteering" is increasing by their own admission, obviously there is no pressing governmental need to have this "voluntary" service become involuntarily mandated.

Isn't volunteerism something that you would want to promote, regardless?

Posted by: demo kid on May 5, 2009 06:41 PM
157. @155 Rick D. on May 5, 2009 04:27 PM,
Congress chartered the National Conference on Citizenship (NCoC) in 1953 to track, measure and promote civic participation.

The NCoC produces a Civic Health Index. The 2008 Index summary states
"Levels of conventional community participation and connectedness (belonging to groups, attending meetings, working on community projects, and trusting other citizens) are low compared to 20 or 30 years ago."

You can read about the NCoC's take on Mandatory Service Learning here:
http://www.ncoc.net/index.php?tray=content_blog&tid=2kctop2&cid=gy22

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 5, 2009 06:54 PM
158. @ 156 ~ Isn't volunteerism something that you would want to promote, regardless?

Promote as in encourage? Certainly. Mandate as in forced servitude? Certainly not.

@ 157~ You gave me a link to NCOC on whether service-learning should be made mandatory and all they do is say how miserable the schools are today?

The dropout rate in U.S. high schools is at epidemic proportions. One third of all public high school students fail to graduate and up to 50 per cent of minority students lack a high school diploma.
Last I checked, the schools were made miserable under the incompetent tutelage of the NEA (i.e. Liberals) that for the past 35-40 years have been more interested in indoctrinating to 'progressive ideology' than actually teaching to the cirriculum. In effect, the NCOC is saying mandatory service-learning is needed because the schools failed, yet it is the same institutions that have failed them that will have another couple years to ensure their failures can provide drops outs with "paid volunteer" jobs.

Besides, Mr. McDermott has come to the conclusion that there is an increase in youth volunteerism , so why attempt to fix something that apparently, isn't broken?

Posted by: Rick D. on May 5, 2009 07:55 PM
159. Just FYI, I served in Americorps when I was a catholic school teacher in Charleston, SC, through the University of Notre Dame's Alliance for Catholic Education.

Posted by: Mark on May 6, 2009 09:38 PM
160. "Jimmie's Ameri-Corpse Program"
will require all Tent City, legal Seattle drunk apartment residents and early-released felon "supervised" types from our communities to serve as domestic volunteers/helpers/ sponsored residents at every local legislator's home to earn "credits" for whatever they please. Win win.

Gardening. Baby sitting. Janitorial. Whatever.

Legislators live with those whom you force US to live with after your budget cuts, while preserving art programs, free tuition/housing and healthcare for illegal aliens and other silly PC program spending, while cutting our police, fire and first responders.

WALK THE TALK, politicians

Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on May 6, 2009 09:56 PM
161. The day my kids are forced to serve this Maxist Liberal travesty of a government is the day we turn in our citizenship and head for greener/freer pastures.

Posted by: scott on May 8, 2009 11:39 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?