Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > Politics & Philosophy
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

View Poll Results: What did you get out of Bush's Speech?
We're going to war with Iran very soon. 7 63.64%
Our Economy is severly fucked. 8 72.73%
The Federal Budget will never be balanced. 7 63.64%
We will continue to subsidize the mexicans and niggers. 8 72.73%
Our Justice system is more corrupt than it's ever been. 7 63.64%
More American soldiers will be given death sentences in the Middle East. 8 72.73%
The Draft is right around the corner. 6 54.55%
Our Health care system is about to be raped by the government. 7 63.64%
The social contract is dead. 6 54.55%
I've realized that Bush is still a filthy lying kike whore. 8 72.73%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Display Modes Share
Old January 23rd, 2007 #1
William Robert
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,911
Blog Entries: 3
Default State of the Union- Bush is still a Filthy Lying Kike Whore

Full text of the speech.

"Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not. Each of us is guided by our own convictions, and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation's prosperity, to spend the people's money wisely, to solve problems, not leave them to future generations, to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us."

Oh really! Is that how it works?

"Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity, and this is the business before us tonight."

Oh really! Is that the job of the Federal Government now?

"A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy, and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move - and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government, but with more enterprise."

You've got to be kidding!

"First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 - and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and balance the federal budget."

That's a bunch of bullshit. Who believes this crap?

"Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience - and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that duty, and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true, yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid, and save Social Security."

He's starting to sound like that nigger president in "Idiocracy"

"Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act - preserving local control, raising standards in public schools, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap."

Do you think he really believes the crap that is coming out of his mouth?

"Now the task is to build on this success, without watering down standards, without taking control from local communities, and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools, and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose something better. We must increase funds for students who struggle, and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children, and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law."

This guy is so out of touch with reality, I can't believe it.

"Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making healthcare affordable for more Americans."

How about eliminating the tax code?

"We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate - so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law."

Why don't you enforce the laws already on the books.

"It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply - and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power - by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power."

Hard to believe coming from a guy who makes millions from OIL.

"A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts."

Our justice system is corrupt to the core.

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger.

Oh really, that's the governments job too eh?

"Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse. And Osama bin Laden declared: Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah - a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken."

So does that mean we will be bombing Iran next week?

"They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

So what you are really saying is they want to kill Jews in our government and in Israel.

"And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam, the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia, and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day."

So it's basically Iran's fault then. Oh, we better bomb them for sure now.

"So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units."

I thought our military was designed to defend America?

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country, and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict."

Ooh, we wouldn't want that now, would we?

"Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way."

Sending more troops is a new strategy?

"The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military - so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time."

Sounds like you are growing big government larger, not shrinking it. Balanced budget?? Sure!! Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

"The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons."

So when are we bombing?

"I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty."

What happened to limiting spending and balancing the budget?

I guess the niggers are happy about the continued freebies from American Taxpayers.

Last edited by William Robert; January 24th, 2007 at 12:30 AM.
Old January 24th, 2007 #2
William Robert
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,911
Blog Entries: 3
Default There should have been silence.

There should have been silence.

Tonight, George W. Bush was cheered and applauded by members of Congress as he approached the dais to present his sixth SOTU address. He was applauded regularly throughout his address to the nation. That response was an unforgivable, yet predictable disgrace. The members of Congress applauded the words of their failed and incompetent leader. They applauded when there should have been total silence.

The almost festive gala broadcast around the world was a farce unlike any that has ever taken place in the halls of the US Congress. Everyone with an ounce of sanity knows that the state of the union is one of total disaster. No one with an iota of concern for the nation or the world should have raised one hand to applaud a single word spoken by George W. Bush. But they did.

Applause and cheering are signs of approval and are accolades for a job well done. The man speaking to the nation, and indeed the world, is a criminal, not a leader. George W. Bush is a puppet of corporate interests and political thugs. He has brought Americans to the closest brush with Fascism they has ever experienced, and he has waged an unending, illegal and immoral war that has shamed us as a nation. There should have been silence, but there was applause.

There should have been silence for the thousands of dead American and coalition troops, and for the maimed and blinded and limbless soldiers who have been sacrificed for nothing more than greed and hubris. There should have been silence for the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis whose nation will never recover from its wounds.
There should have been silence for the victims of Katrina whose plight has been ignored and forgotten in Louisiana and Mississippi, and who know first hand that their President is a professional liar who cares nothing at all for their continued suffering. And, last but not least, there should have been silence for the Constitution of the United States that is now on its deathbed. There should have been total silence, and yet, there was applause.

Whatever George Bush said during his speech was total gibberish. His proposals meant nothing and his goals another series of empty, inane promises for improving the quality of life in a nation he has systematically brought to its knees.

Damn the hypocrites who applauded George Bush despite their disgust. Damn the supporters who still don’t get it, and damn anyone and everyone who showed the rest of the world that there is respect and admiration for the man who has taken us to hell.

There should have been total and absolute silence. Every face should have shown anger and defiance. That response would have upheld the dignity of the Congress and shown respect for the office of the Presidency. But it also would have reflected the TWENTY EIGHT PERCENT APPROVAL RATING that the nation gave this man today.

In my private scenario, I would have placed a photo of a dead soldier or marine to be held aloft by every honorable and enraged member of Congress. But in the real world, U heard applause as the world’s leading terrorist conjured up September 11th once again and as he assumed not a single atom of responsibility for having made us all more unsafe than ever in history.

There should have been silence. There really should have. But there was not.
Old January 24th, 2007 #3
William Robert
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,911
Blog Entries: 3
Default The Democrat's response

Democratic Response to the State of the Union Address

Good evening.

I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown - an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs.

We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction,and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight.

The first relates to how we see the health of our economy - how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy - how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy - that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in 10 years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying

Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make,over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs.

We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.


The damage to our reputation around the world.

The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.

And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action. Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other. And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. When comes the end? asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the

American people and for the health of our relations around the world.

Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.
Old January 24th, 2007 #4
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,392

A state of the Jew-union Diasporas address. Back in the USSR, state of politbori union address had a red-light flash to stop the clapping.

Most annoying, had my TV on mute,with subtitle,the sorry faces of congress was most prevelant without the soundbites.
Old January 24th, 2007 #5
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
Default President Bush: priest of Siva the Destroyer ?

Destruction and creation are part of the same cycle. President Bush serves Siva the Destroyer.

Reagan tried the nice guy approach. That didn't work. Maybe Bush thinks high treason is the way to overthrow the system. Bush is the authentic "".

Like everyone else, I have acquaintances and relatives in the military, and I like most of them as people. But if you ask U.S. soldiers, vets, or cops, whether they think personal income tax is moral, 99% will give you a response like "I don't care", "It's not my problem", or even "Go to Russia, commie!"

If you tell me I must spend my life reporting all my activities to you, so that you can take everything from me to which you think you're entitled, so that your son can get a government "student loan" (my money) to buy a car, so that he can recruit a mate while I (perhaps working in the "service economy") become extinct for lack of a mate - then I have not only the right but the obligation to pray to Siva the Destroyer, that a Chinese H-bomb melt you. Don't hide behind your kids: basically, you killed mine.

There really isn't much difference between putting a stack of Form 1040s in the public library and raping your neighbor in the ass. Will we live this way forever, or will Siva the Destoyer intervene?

Yes, the eternal Jew had a lot to do with instigating this genocidal kleptocracy of ours, but 90% of Whites support it, and repudiate any responsibility for acting upon, or even considering, the moral issues. The system must crash. Hard. Bush is fulfilling the will of the Gods. Maybe consciously.
Old January 25th, 2007 #6
Smart Ass White Boy
TwistedCross's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,137

I didn't vote. There is no "All of the above"
Old January 25th, 2007 #7
William Robert
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,911
Blog Entries: 3
Default Attn: Twisted Cross, It's multiple, vote away.

Bush's War on the Republic

From the beginning of the “war on terror,” George W. Bush has lied to the American people about the goals, motivation and even the identity of the enemy – a propaganda exercise that continued through his 2007 State of the Union Address and that is sounding the death knell for the Republic.

Since 2001, rather than focusing on the al-Qaeda Sunni fundamentalist terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks, Bush has expanded the conflict exponentially – tossing in unrelated enemies such as Iraq’s secular dictator Saddam Hussein, Shiite-led Iran, Syria and Islamic militants opposed to Israel, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

In effect, Bush has transformed what began as a definable military objective – the defeat of “terrorist groups with global reach” – into an endless war against what he regards as evil, a conflict so vague that it is claiming as collateral damage America’s “unalienable rights” and the Founders’ checks and balances on the powers of the Executive.

In Bush’s State of the Union speech on Jan. 23, there could be heard a requiem for the Republic.

“The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that’s the case, America is still a nation at war,” Bush told Congress.

But that “evil” will always be “at work in the world,” so America will always be “a nation at war” and thus, under Bush’s theories of unlimited Commander-in-Chief powers, the American Republic will be banished permanently.

Bluntly put, Bush and his neoconservative legal advisers don't believe in the “unalienable rights” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, including ones as fundamental as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial and protections against warrantless searches and seizures. [See, for instance,'s "Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus."]

The Bush administration may make grudging concessions in these areas when faced with determined opposition in the courts or from the public, but they hold these liberties to be subordinate to Bush’s “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief.

Beyond this disdain for fundamental American liberties, Bush has contempt for any meaningful public debate. Though he talks about compromise and consultation, his view of national unity is to have everyone shut up and get in line behind him, "the Decider."

Since the 9/11 attacks, Bush has overseen a bare-knuckled political strategy of bullying anyone who disagrees with him and marginalizing their voices. From the Dixie Chicks to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, from France to United Nations weapons inspectors, those who have dared to cross the President have faced ridicule and reprisals.

These ugly attacks have become so much a part of the American political landscape that the news media treats them as unexceptional, as if it’s normal for a President to coordinate with powerful media allies to silence dissent.

For instance, there was no media outcry in April 2003 when Bush gave a wink and a nod to a retaliatory boycott against the three-woman Dixie Chicks band because the lead singer, Natalie Maines, had criticized the President.

“They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out,” Bush said. “Freedom is a two-way street.”

So, instead of encouraging a full-and-free debate about an issue as important as war and peace, Bush made clear that he saw nothing wrong with his followers punishing Americans who disagree with him.

'Democrat Party'

While Bush may have softened his belligerent style slightly since the Republican defeat in the November 2006 elections, he still couldn’t muster enough politeness to refer to the “Democratic” Party in his State of the Union.

For years, tough-talking Republicans have made it a point of insult to drop the “-ic” and use “Democrat” as the adjective. This phrasing has become a mark of the swaggering Republicans who have dominated this era of U.S. politics. It's the partisan equivalent of willfully mispronouncing the foreign-sounding name of a disliked neighbor.

So, even as Bush was supposedly trying to be gracious to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he couldn’t stop himself from congratulating the “Democrat majority.”

More significantly, however, Bush continues to demean the Constitution. Despite having sworn “to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution” as his preeminent duty, Bush keeps insisting that the highest obligation of government is to keep the people safe.

He repeated that mantra in his State of the Union. “For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger,” he said.

In other words, Bush believes security – or at least his view of security – trumps everything, including constitutional rights.

But that concept turns upside down more than two centuries of U.S. history and tradition. Instead of Patrick Henry’s exhortation of “give me liberty or give me death,” the Bush dictum could be summed up as “just make sure I’m safe driving to the mall.”

Bush apparently sees the American people as a pudgy bunch of consumers as soft in the head as in their bellies. In the State of the Union, the President didn't hesitate to again lay out his distortion of the threat the nation faces.

To heighten the fears of Americans, he again misrepresented the goals, capabilities and even the identities of the enemy. He blurred diverse and even antagonistic Muslim Sunni and Shiite groups, shoving them under the umbrella of “the Islamist radical movement.”

“The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat,” Bush said. “Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.”

But this depiction is a continuation of Bush's tendency to misstate the key question of what's motivating Islamic militancy.

In September 2001, Bush claimed that the motive behind the 9/11 attacks and other manifestations of anti-Americanism in the Middle East was that Islamic extremists “hate our freedoms.” Now, he says they want to “kill” Americans, democracy and anything else that gets in their way.

However, this distortion of what drives the swelling anti-Americanism in the Middle East is not only wrong, it’s dangerous. It guarantees an expensive, bloody and endless war. It also could ensure eventual defeat for legitimate U.S. interests in the region.

Diverse Motives

The truth is that the motives of Islamic militants are much more complicated and diverse than Bush wants the American people to know.

In Iraq, Sunni insurgents are killing Americans because the United States invaded their country and handed the reins of power over to rival Shiites, while Shiites are using "death squads" to consolidate their authority by killing Sunnis. Along the Mediterranean, other Islamic militants have fought against Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and Lebanese land.

Some Middle Eastern militants are resentful of U.S.-backed autocrats like those governing Egypt and Saudi Arabia; many object to the corruption that has surrounded the region's oil wealth; others want a return to more traditional Islamic religious values; some actually favor democratic elections because they expect to win and want to unseat corrupt pro-American leaders.

In the Palestinian territories, Hamas did win an election. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is a powerful political force. In Iran, radical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gained office through a limited democratic process.

Even al-Qaeda has far more limited objectives than Bush has claimed. Despite Bush’s oft-stated assertion that – if the United States retreats – al-Qaeda will form a caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia, no credible analyst believes that.

Intercepted al-Qaeda documents actually reveal leaders fretting about how fragile their position in Iraq would be if the United States withdrew. According to one captured letter, “Atiyah,” a senior aide to Osama bin Laden, stressed the need to exploit the continued American presence so al-Qaeda can put down roots in Iraq.

“Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote. [For details, see’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]

Yet, even as Bush's Iraq War strategy plays into the hands of al-Qaeda, the President told Congress and the American people that he intends to confront radical Shiite movements in the region with determination equal to that aimed at Sunni extremists. Bush said:

“In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah – a group second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.”

But Bush left out the history about those American deaths. He was referring primarily to the 241 U.S. soldiers who died in 1983 when a suicide bomber destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, after the Reagan administration had intervened in Lebanon and taken sides in the civil war.

By definition, terrorism is a violent attack on civilians to achieve a political end. Hezbollah’s attack in 1983, therefore, was not an act of terrorism as lamentable as the military deaths were. Bush, however, blurs the point by associating the bombing with al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on civilian targets inside the United States.

Although the U.S. and Israeli governments list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, the European Union does not. While some of its actions such as its missile attacks on Israel in summer 2006 could be categorized as terrorism because of the loss of civilian life, Hezbollah also is a broad-based political and social movement.

Guaranteeing Defeat

Lumping Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Iraqi insurgents and others together with al-Qaeda underscores the risks – and almost certain futility – of Bush’s expanding “war on terror.” With anti-Americanism across the Middle East often registering in the 90 percentiles, Bush’s strategy is more likely to accelerate Islamic extremism than put a brake on it.

Bush also finds himself caught in a contradiction between his rhetorical embrace of Middle East “democracy” and his reliance on “moderate” – i.e. autocratic – regimes that engage in political repression and have defied popular sentiment to cooperate with Bush.

At one point in his State of the Union speech, Bush denounced extremists who seek to “overthrow moderate governments” but returned to his lofty rhetoric about democracy and freedom as vital components in defeating the extremists.

“To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred,” Bush said. “What every terrorist fears most is human freedom. … The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must.”

Though a surefire applause line, Bush’s praise of liberty represents possibly the most insidious lie from his "war on terror." As U.S. intelligence is well aware, free democratic elections in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia would represent a disaster for U.S. foreign policy by likely putting into power Islamic militants like the Muslim Brotherhood.

As was obvious during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s trip to the Middle East, the U.S. diplomatic position is precariously dependent on kings, princes and despots who favor regional stability for reasons of their own self-interest.

Bush’s exhortations about human freedom therefore are galling to many in the world who see Bush himself as the world’s most notorious autocrat, violating international law at his personal whim and overriding the constitutional liberties of Americans at home.

Bush is the personification of what recent polls of global opinion have registered as a leading complaint about America – hypocrisy, espousing concepts of liberty while denying even basic human rights to suspects swept up in the “war on terror.”

There is also no end in sight, Bush made clear.

“The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others,” Bush told Congress. “And that’s why it’s important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through.”

But the bottom line for Bush’s “war on terror” is that it won't just cost countless lives and hundreds of billions of dollars; it also is doomed to fail, at least as presently constituted. If it lasts much longer, it is certain, too, to deliver a death blow to the noble American Republic.
Old January 27th, 2007 #8
William Robert
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,911
Blog Entries: 3
Default "Surge" or "Involuntary" Military Conscription

"Surge" or "Involuntary" Military Conscription: The Neo-Conservative Architects of Military Escalation

Was it a coincidence? The Bill to restore the Draft (Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393)) was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed, in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

The "surge" in US forces in Iraq has been presented by the Bush administration as a short term necessity to confront "the terrorists":

"So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq." (President Bush's TV address to the Nation, 10 January 2007)

Within days of Bush's announcement, Congress responded by formally rebuffing the White House's proposal to send more troops:

"The defiant White House stance comes as both the House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, prepare to vote on resolutions that oppose additional U.S. troops in Iraq. Cheney said those nonbinding votes would not affect Bush's ability to carry out his policies" (AP, Jan 14, 2007)

While differences have emerged between the presidency and the US Congress regarding troop dewployments, real opposition to Bush's "surge" largely emanates from the broader American public, which is putting pressure on its (elected) members of Congress.

US troops in Iraq are facing fierce and organized armed resistance.

Occupation forces no longer exercise control over part of Iraqi territory.

The "Green Zone" is threatened. The more than 20,000 troops are to be deployed in Baghdad, with a view to securing the "Green Zone" enclave.

Despite these developments, the decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.

The Neo-Conservative Architects of Bush's "Surge"

The decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.

Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute is credited as being on of the main architects of Bush 's "Surge". Fred Kagan together with General (ret) Jack Keane, argue that "any troop increase must be large and lasting", involving "a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so". (Quoted in the the Financial Times, 2 January 2007).

"Kagan was arguing that while "the high end of estimates" suggested the need for another 80,000 US troops to stage an effective counter-insurgency operation in Iraq, "it is very likely that a surge of 50,000 troops would be sufficient to stabilise the capital". In the event, it seems unlikely that Mr Bush will commit even half that number".(Ibid)

Frederick Kagan is the brother of Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who coincidentally is also on the board of Directors of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC). The latter is a Washington based think tank headed by William Kristol, with direct ties to the Bush Cabinet.

William Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the main founding figures of Neoconservatism. Irving Kristol sits on Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also a Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington based Weekly Standard. Robert Kagan is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. All of these people are firmly committed to America's "long war", a war without borders, inspired by the teachings of the late Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago.

Surge and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

An overall expansion of US forces worldwide is an integral part of the NeoConservatives mission, as formulated in the Project of the New American Century's key document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses.

Bush's "Surge" is essentially derived from this document, which constitutes the PNAC's manifesto. The authors of Rebuilding American Defenses are Donald Kagan, (Professor of History at Yale University and father of Frederick Kagan and Robert Kagan)., Gary Schmitt (PNAC Project Coordinator together with Donald Kagan) and Thomas Donnelly (main author), Both Schmitt and Donnelly are resident fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and colleagues of Frederick Kagan.

In Part IV of Rebuilding American Defenses, the PNAC recommends an overall expansion of "active-duty strength" from 475,000 (2000 figure) to 525,000. It also points to the reinforcement of the Army National Guard as:

"a hedge against the need for a larger-than-anticipated force in combat.... It should not be used primarily to provide combat service support to active Army units engaged in current operations"

The Army National Guard should according to the PNAC "play its essential role in fighting large scale wars", while minimizing its civilian functions.

PNAC Pressures US Congress

Two years ago (28 January 2005), the PNAC submitted a Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces, addressed to the Senate and House Majority and Minority leaders. The Letter asserts that "the United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume" and that steps must consequently be taken:

"to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."

The authors of the January 2005 PNAC Letter, who describe themselves as "a bipartisan group with diverse policy views" include (among others) the key Neo- Conservatives ideologues and protagonists of Bush's "surge", namely William Kristol, Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly. Other prominent members include former CIA director James Woolsley, John Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen, who has acted as an adviser to Paul Wolfowitz and has participated in several PNAC activities, former CIA specialist Reul Gerecht who is a Senior PNAC fellow. and a resident scholar at the AEI, Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, etc. .

In this regard, there is a consistent Neo-Conservative thread characterized by a working relationship between Washington based think tanks (CFR, AEI, PNAC, Carnegie, etc) as well as a complex net of personal and family ties between the various NeoCon protagonists.

The "Surge" is De Facto

Bush's "Surge" has de facto already been put in place in the form of what Mahdi Nazemroaya describes as "a concealed military draft":

"[T]he U.S. Marines have started recalling or legally summoning thousands of ‘inactive servicemen’ to serve in Iraq and the Middle East, where the number of U.S. troops and contracted security personal are dropping towards hap-hazardous levels. ... The U.S. Army too, undermined by shortfalls in manpower, has ordered over a reported 14,000 ‘inactive servicemen’ back to fight" (Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global Research, August 2007)

Similarly, the Bush administration has taken measures to increase the recruitment of private mercenary-soldiers, who constitute a significant and growing force in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Ibid)

"Many young men from within the United States and around the world seeking American citizenships or green cards have also been lured into the circuits of the U.S. military and mercenary groups." (Ibid)

The Universal National Service Act

Barely noticed, in early 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced a bill in the US Congress which requires:

"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

Ironically, Rangel's initiative to restore the draft was described as "an anti-war tactic" directed against the Bush adminstration:

"Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America. But whether or not one agrees with Rangel's rationale, many Americans would agree that universal service can be a great leveler and a unifying force in society."

The 2006 version of the bill (which followed earlier versions) was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Military Personnel. There have been no actions taken at the committee or subcommittee levels since it was introduced in February of last year.( See Library of Congress)

Restoring the Draft?

However, following the victory of the Democrats in the November 2006 elections, Rep. Charles Rangel reaffirmed his commitment to "bringing back the draft" as part of the House of Representatives' Democratic agenda.

On January 10th 2007, Rep. Rangel reintroduced his bill, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393) (For full text see Annex below).

Was this a coincidence? The Bill to restore the draft was introduced on exactly the same day as Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in a nationally televised address. In this address the President and Commander in Chief confirmed that he was going to "surge" more than 20,000 troops and that this decision would be implemented without seeking the authorization of the U.S. Congress. (See Francis Boyle, January 2007)

Meanwhile Rangel's bill HR 393 has been referred both to the Arms Services Committee and the Ways and Mean Committee. .

What are the implications of Rangel's timely January 10, 2007 proposed Universal National Service Act?

Although Rep Charles Rangel is opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, the reintroduction of the Draft is on the books of the US Congress. His proposed bill directly serves the interests of the Bush Administration, which can now blame the Democrats for attempting to reintroduce compulsory conscription. Bill HR 393 is opposed by ranking democrats. While it has little chance of being adopted, it could indeed be used, in an opportune fashion, to manufacture a shaky bipartisan legitimacy, which ultimately would support Bush's proposed "Surge" in troops. .

Given the dynamics and hidden agendas behind these various initiatives, a combination of the NeoCon Surge on the one hand and the "Universal Service Act" proposed by a leading Democrat on the other, might ultimately serve the interests of military escalation, as formulated by the NeoCons, leading to some form of bipartisan "consensus" on "involuntary" conscription.

The decision and discussions would be reached behind closed doors in the Armed Services committees of the House and the Senate. There are many formal mechanisms to recruit servicemen and women, which could be applied outside the outright reintroduction of the Draft.

This form of bipartisan dialogue would serve to deflect attention from the more fundamental issue of military escalation, not to mention the war on Iran, which are being implemented without Congressional approval.

If the Bush/Cheney White House refuses to seek authorization from Congress for an increase in troop deployments to Iraq, this could constitute a violation of the United States Constitution. (for further details see Francis Boyle, op. cit)

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.



Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 393 IH


1st Session

H. R. 393
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.


January 10, 2007
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2007'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.


Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. National service obligation.

Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.

Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.

Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 111. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 112. Relation of title to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.


Sec. 201. Favorable treatment of combat pay under earned income tax credit made permanent.



In this title:

(1) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.

(2) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.

(3) The term `national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(4) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.

(5) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(6) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.


(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.


(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.

(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

(1) a declaration of war is in effect;

(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or

(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--

(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services; and

(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels.

(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(d) Selection for Induction-

(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).

(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--

(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or

(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.


(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.


(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

(b) Matter to Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

(c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.


(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.


(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.


(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.


(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.


(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.

(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.


(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.


(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.

(b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.



(a) In General- Clause (vi) of section 32(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining earned income) is amended to read as follows:

`(vi) a taxpayer may elect for any taxable year to treat amounts excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 as earned income.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2006.

Last edited by William Robert; January 27th, 2007 at 01:35 PM.
Old January 27th, 2007 #9
William Robert
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,911
Blog Entries: 3
Default Is Bush an Idiot?

Is Bush an Idiot? (3 min vid)
Old January 27th, 2007 #10
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,392

I don't know if any ya'll read this-- Couple year’s old article worth revisit and the aftermath of 911-cui bono…

The Oil Racket and Greater Israel

February 28, 2003

The economy of the United States is racked with recession with no sight to its end. This puts the State Department under immense pressure. War has always been the remedy to past economic woes. With the Jew’s influence and immense political machinations, they are providing the Bush Administration with their solution. The promise for revenues from oil is a tempting investment, especially to oilmen like George Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney. But, to whom will this war benefit? It is obvious Israel will benefit the most. Indeed, the time for fulfillment of Eretz Israel has drawn near for the Zionist State. With world criticism growing, the Canaanite tribe knows that the outcome of any war is anarchy. Out of confusion all deceit can be effectively propagated. They now believe American politicians have succumbed to their political lobbies and their influence will hide all their deceit.

“Five things did Canaan charge his sons: 'Love each other (i.e. of this tribe only), love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters and never tell the truth.' " -- Pesachis F. more


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 PM.
Page generated in 0.18675 seconds.