John Kennedy said it best: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

This is a scary idea! It reminds me of the "Brownshirts" of the Third Reich! Forced conscription, except in times of war, is probably unconstitutional to boot. The country has thrived quite nicely for 246 years without a civilian force. Perhaps on the "conspiracy" side of things, there is a chance that the government would then try to claim that the "Civilian Force" is the "well regulated militia" referred to in the 2nd Amendment, and therefore, they are the only "civilians" allowed to keep and bear arms. This concept just raises the hairs on the back of my neck!

If the nation's good with having a draft, and it's good with female Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen, then having females in the draft is a no-brainer. There, I said it. Never though I would agree with ANYTHING the Hon Charles Rangle ever had to say. ;-)

Gut reaction on everything else in the bill:
Not just "no," ....

A national service force does not necessarily mean armed individuals. It could include service in education, environment, or civil engineering, such as the CCC corps or WPA.

Just when I was excited the US Armed forces were shifting to space age warfare capable unmanned drones and attack and defence satellites this bill is introduced. With the defence budget cutbacks I would think a secondary force with its own budget would defeat the purpose and only propel the US into a spending blackhole without limits. What role would the pentagon play? Would they report up through the Sec of Defences office? I would rather we expand the role of the National Guard versus creating a new branch of service.

Included in this bill is an effort to require women to register with Selective Service and to reinstate the draft.

Here are my thoughts on this:
1) Rangel seems to think that forcing everyone into registering the draft and reinstating the draft will "compel" every American to have a stake in any talks of war. Nevermind that the article starts by stating that the Iraq war was met with the largest anti-war protest in history. We went to Iraq anyway, so how is it that a drafted military will cause America to be more reticent about going to war?

2) Rangel states that "currently less than one percent of America's population is unfairly shouldering the burden of war." He fails to point out that this 1% is a VOLUNTEER military. What do you call it when you force someone to do something against their will? Coercion or slavery?

3) I have to wonder if the government would be paying participants for their national service. If so, how? If not, see #2 about coercion or slavery.

http://rangel.house.gov/press-release/rangel-introduce-legislation-reinstating-draft-and-requiring-women-register-selective

This is actually very scary stuff if only for the fact of what Rangel would sneak into the final draft and the number of fools we have for Representatives who would also throw there $.02 worth in rendering it a bill Old King George would have Loved1

Obama gets his stooge Rangel to sponsor a bill. That should tell you all you need to know.

Ya'think?

Obama can't afford to pay DoD civilians to keep our defense department running but we want to pay some snot nose to sweep up after a Hurricane.

A great example is the person at far right in the picture wearing half a military uniform and the other half of a circus tent... pleae tell me she is not an active duty soldier that allowed her picture to be taken like this

"there is already a gun behind every tree,,,,probably two now......"

Under any other administration ...maybe...but where's the money coming from to fund it? Oh 'scuse me, Bernanke will just run the presses one more day in the week! Bottom line? Its the one way for the government to arm Americans against Americans, so no thank you! We're in enough trouble now.

Not only no, but hell no. Freedom of choice still exists, does it not?

It's a joke, won't happen during our lifetime and certainly not in this administration. At a time when Federal employees are going to be subjected to pay cuts and our men and women in uniform left to hang there hopes on a prayer given the defense budget cuts, why would this bill even be leaked to the public. Let's start with pay cuts for all members of congress and the senate to include members of this administration. Let them tell us what it feels like to take a 10% pay cut rather than make assumptions as to what the impact will be on the janitor and cleaning crew in D.C.

Just another way to give our lost generation(s) to be more lost. If the "progs" run it there will be more focus on self-esteem rather than self-improvement. Everyone will get a trophy. I vote no.

We need Bills introduced that involve shrinking the Government, not growing it, period. Why can they not get this message?
We do need to do something to involve our young people in our country and instill some sense of history and pride.
I, for one, am going to get my daughter and myself involved with Project Appleseed:
http://www.appleseedinfo.org/
Edward- I am with you on pay-cuts for Congress. It is far too lucrative to be a politician.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075586-503544/why-is-congress-a-millionaires-club/

There is no need for this type of civilian force as the National Guard already performs those functions. We need less government not more!

No to requiring civilian service or military-unless needed b/c of a low troop level during times of crisis.

Encourage volunteerism for domestic needs and foreign diplomatic service.

It's Charlie Rangel - that alone makes this bill a no go. it's not going anywhere, so relax folks.

Unfortunately, Chris P., we had to form the civilian force (adjunct national guard) when we went to war. The purpose of the Georgia Force is to do that community type jobs close to home so that our Guard can branch out more. It's unfortunate that our NG has had to go overseas. Personally, I'm all for just putting our money into having as much military as we can afford so that we don't have to do things like that (notto mention being ready in the case of a sudden attack). Of course, our current president doesn't think so. Ironic that some of the "cuts" in this sequester are cutting back on jet use by the military. Seems to me if Washington is really interested in cutting spending, they could cut down on jet fuel for golf games and parties and bashes with celebrities. But we know that they're not. they want the little guy to suffer. It's the socialist way.

Actually, Edward and RX, our founding fathers addressed this quite often concerning Congress living within the means that enact on the populace. here's a good one: The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson

How many times have we discussedthe uninformed voter (why we have the government that we have now, of course). I think I like Thmas jefferson. Here's more:
Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people. ...Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson
Which is it now, I ask?

Mr. B., I hear the word a lot but wondered what the actual meaning was. Yep. Fits to a T!
Rhetoric (ˈrɛtərɪk)
— n 1. the study of the technique of using language effectively
2. the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory
3. excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast
4. speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric
5.Likely to act without consideration.

I'm not actually against national service, per se, but can see a lot of problems with it. I could argue the idea from either side.

That being said, I see problems in this just because it can very easily get out of control. Out from under the DoD, budget for defense can easily be cut by large amounts (some is necessary, but Congress will figure out a way to completely do it wrong), and that force could be used for multiple uses inside our borders for nefarious reasons. I just have no faith in government expansion in any form.

One of the reasons I left South Africa was its national service. Not only was it effectively a conscription, but it was using it to enforce apartheid - which I couldn't support. I wasn't comfortable with my son having to serve in a force, the only conflict of which was one as a result of a system I didn't support. At least in a volunteer situation, you can choose whether you want to defend it or not. Freedom I would have been comfortable with - apartheid, not so much. And therein lies the danger.

I agree with above. We already have the national guard we dont need a gestapo or another SS force. This country is regulating almost evrything we do now. I have a 19 yo son and I'll not let him indoctrinate him!

Well, at least not under our government as is right now. As Sharon showed us from life experience, it is possible not to be able to trust your government. We're the last bastion of freedom. If we dissolve, there's nowhere to run.

Liberty means the freedom of choice. It is what we were founded on. This conscription is contrary to that. No liberty, no republic or a democratic process. This is a bad bill all around.... kinda like brown nosing Brown shirts.