It might be to take the place of the National Guard. Normally the National Guard is for domestic security, but they can also be sent overseas to help in foreign wars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6585217.stm
If you want to avoid an unpopular draft, this is the logical course to follow.
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain"If you want to avoid an unpopular draft" ??
It might be to take the place of the National Guard. Normally ...text shortened... but they can also be sent overseas to help in foreign wars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6585217.stm
If you want to avoid an unpopular draft, this is the logical course to follow.
Mandatory Volunteer is a Draft.
You may want to re-think that supposition, it truly doesn't compute. Plus the "civilian" G.I.V.E. Act is written in great detail without need for suppositions and has no mention of National Guard.
and - Why the link to this two year old article??
Originally posted by MacSwainThen why didn't you call it a draft?
[b]"If you want to avoid an unpopular draft" ??
Mandatory Volunteer is a Draft.
You may want to re-think that supposition, it truly doesn't compute. Plus the "civilian" G.I.V.E. Act is written in great detail without need for suppositions and has no mention of National Guard.
and - Why the link to this two year old article??[/b]
Is is mandatory or voluntary? I've never heard of a mandatory volunteer. Isn't that an oxymoron?
My point is if the domestic duties of the National Guard are replaced by this other force it frees up the National Guard to go overseas.
It doesn't matter how old the article is. I was just showing that the National Guard can be sent to foreign wars.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainFirst off: I didn't label anything - Did you not see my post was in quotation marks?
Then why didn't you call it a draft?
Is is mandatory or voluntary? I've never heard of a mandatory volunteer. Isn't that an oxymoron?
My point is if the domestic duties of the National Guard are replaced by this other force it frees up the National Guard to go overseas.
It doesn't matter how old the article is. I was just showing that the National Guard can be sent to foreign wars.
Secondlly: I gave a link to a website (you obviouslly did not read).
Thirdly: Read the article - it answers all your questions.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288
These questions you are asking me, it appears as if you think I wrote this Act and named something "Mandatory" or "Volunteer". Let me assure you, I have no answers for you because I have had no hand in the matter.
I can assure you of this (having READ the article) - there is NO mention in this Act of either National Guard or Draft.
Please read the article...if you are upset by something in it - take it up with your government - not me. Cheers!
Originally posted by zeeblebotYour post was NOT my statement...It was Metal Brains. What you posted was where I quoted Metal Brains post in order to give him an answer (which is in my post above.)
name it something else.
For final clarification: I did not write the original article - only posted it. I did not name (therefore cannot re-name) anything about it. Not a difficult concept is it?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288
I repeat -- Read the Article -- IF you don't like something in the article - take issue with your government not me. I do not write neither Laws for your government nor aritcles reporting them.
2 edits
Taking it from the beginning...PLEASE NOTE QUOTATION MARKS
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288
“The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.”
“The legislation also refers to “uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."
“This is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.”
"Bill, H.R. 1388, was sponsored by New York Democrat, Carolyn McCarthy. It was approved in the House 321-105."
"It now goes to final step to become law, the Senate."
(My personal recommendation is uniforms to be supplied with "brown shirts!"😉 😕
3 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainThe bill sets up no "new volunteer corps"; it makes a number of changes and expansions in the existing VISTA, AmeriCorps, and the National Civilian Community Corps. A summary of the bill is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1388&tab=summary
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288
[/i]“The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "[b]volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.”
“The legislation also refers to “uniforms" tha sonal recommendation is uniforms to be supplied with "brown shirts!" 😀[/b]
Nothing to see here; VISTA has existed since 1965 and the AmeriCorps and NCCC since 1993. Guess I missed where they became "militias"; organizations that, unlike these, have guns and a paramilitary structure.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, if I may, let me make a clarification to your post. The article does not mention “militias” were being created. I used that term in the thread title only to attract a bit of attention to the subject.
The bill sets up no "new volunteer corps"; it makes a number of changes and expansions in the existing VISTA, AmeriCorps, and the National Civilian Community Corps. A summary of the bill is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1388&tab=summary
Nothing to see here; VISTA has existed since 1965 and the AmeriCorps and NC ...[text shortened]... became "militias"; organizations that, unlike these, have guns and a paramilitary structure.
The ‘summary’ you link writes: “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the GIVE Act – Amends”… <then goes on to name the groups>…It indicates existing groups will be under G.I.V.E. Act ‘umbrella,’ where aspects are revised, altered and eliminated. It does verify the addition of service by older adults and children under 17 before and after school.
While claiming to be neutral this ‘summary’ fails to mention the very items found unsettling, to those who have written of the G.I.V.E. Act, which are glaring in their absence.
Service will become mandatory (4 yr. Term being named)
Uniforms
Camps
Do you have other source material, which is a bit more in depth? On the other hand, there is certainly no need for us to kick this about. I recently read there was a 74 –14 Senate vote to clear this Act to go to a final vote for passage. So it seems the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Bon appetite.
Originally posted by MacSwainSo your title of the thread is dishonest; no surprise.
First, if I may, let me make a clarification to your post. The article does not mention “militias” were being created. I used that term in the thread title only to attract a bit of attention to the subject.
The ‘summary’ you link writes: “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the GIVE Act – Amends”… <then goes on to name the groups> ...[text shortened]... inal vote for passage. So it seems the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Bon appetite.
Here's something "a bit more in depth"; the actual full text of the bill. You're welcome to try and find the provisions making service "mandatory" with "uniforms" and "camps".
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388
Originally posted by MacSwaini knew that.
Your post was NOT my statement...It was Metal Brains. What you posted was where I quoted Metal Brains post in order to give him an answer (which is in my post above.)
For final clarification: I did not write the original article - only posted it. I did not name (therefore cannot re-name) anything about it. Not a difficult concept is it?
http://www.worl ...[text shortened]... ent [b]not me. I do not write neither Laws for your government nor aritcles reporting them.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderWrong bill. Look up HR 1444 and you will see it is back.
So your title of the thread is dishonest; no surprise.
Here's something "a bit more in depth"; the actual full text of the bill. You're welcome to try and find the provisions making service "mandatory" with "uniforms" and "camps".
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3947
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainHR 1388 (the G.I.V.E Act) has now been passed by the Senate with some changes and will now go to a conference committee to negotiate the differences. Both versions have absolutely nothing to do with a "Presidential Militia" nor do they create new agencies. Given that the bills were passed overwhelmingly in each House of Congress, I'd expect a final version and a signing by the President in less than a month.
Wrong bill. Look up HR 1444 and you will see it is back.
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/3947
HR 1444 would create a "Congressional Commission on Civil Service" (see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1444). If this commission was created one of its duties would be to address and analyze "Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed ........" Again, what that has to do with a militia is a mystery to me. The CCCS was originally included in the G.I.V.E Act (section 6104) but apparently didn't meet Senate approval as it is superfluous to the purposes of the Act. That Rep. McDermott has introduced a separate bill to establish the CCCR seems to show that it will not be reinstated into G.I.V.E by the conference committee.
HR 1444 has been referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor where, in all probability, it will die.