"My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years -- 4,000 hours over the
rest of your lifetime -- to the service of your neighbors and your nation."
"We will be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I
will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous
regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
Text of State of the Union
These words seem to project calls to action that many will accept as being reasonable. But what exactly are
the methods and consequences for following such goals?
The USA Freedom Corps! What exactly is: "extending American compassion throughout the world."
? It sure rings like nation building, doesn't it? When Bush seeks to expand the AmeriCorps, Senior
Corps and the Peace Corps it sure sounds like the Civilian Conservation Corps of FDR. Just what does 'voluntarism' mean for
George Jr?
Does our duty as a citizen extend to service to the State or to our neighbor and community? Those who
confuse legitimate charity for worthy causes with service in government programs, enter a very dangerous arena. If the claim
for national service rests upon a moral duty, where is the evidence that any national government has ever fulfilled
their duty to American citizens?
We are living in a shadow vestige of what this nation once was. Government was about serving and protecting
her people. Now the call is to serve the apparatus that serves itself, at the expense of the citizen. How fine it would be
if social service organizations would be benign government programs, but the horrible record of State agendas destroys the
noble purpose of volunteer compassion.
Have we lost all proportion when it comes to the miserable record of bureaucratic programs? If President Bush
purports to be a Republican, why expand Socialism? We cannot accept hideous schemes in the spirit of bipartisanship. The correct
role for government has been abandoned for over a century. Now we see emerging the West Texas version of Hyde Park.
The long fight to abolish the draft, may well need to be fought again. This time, the idea expands to a post
graduate course in state service for our youth. The task of indoctrination wasn't completed in the government schools,
so on the job training becomes necessary. This is not the kind of public service that bears healthy fruits. And who among
us cannot see the seeds planted for voluntary blending into a disguised form of compulsory?
Couple this domestic twist with the approach of the War Party for security, and we must wonder just who is
being protected. It sure smells like preemptive strikes are on the horizon. In the fine tradition of the Israeli air strike
against the Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981, we are being prepared for more tortured justification in international law. Preventive
aggression without declaring war is an insult to any nation that holds itself out as the beacon of freedom for the rest of
the world. If this 'axis of evil' is so diabolical, and must be confronted, do it legally and get Congress to declare war!
One need not defend a deviant tyrannical regime to implore their own country to observe constitutional requirements.
The current course in interventionist rule, guarantees perpetual warfare. Attempts to validate arrogance of power as legitimate
under the ruse of self defense, stretches common sense to unnatural limits. Bush views this quest as a fight against pure
evil. Crusades without prudence end in carnage. If the goal is to protect America, how is this country served when three new
enemies are being programmed into the GPS targeting system, when their abilities to strike our shores are limited to cells
of fanatics?
Are Americans so bewildered that such unilateral assaults will have more in common with the desperation of
imperial Japan, when they launched their attack on Pearl Harbor, than a holy cause for saving the world? If the weapons of
mass destruction are ready to be used, does it make sense to initiate a doomsday scenario, when Red China may well side with
her Asian cousins? It is one thing to correct inadequacies in political objectives after the Gulf War, with attempts to defuse
the aggression of Saddam Hussein. But what exactly has been achieved with over ten years of flyover confrontations, while
we still buy his oil? Real grass root dissent exists in Iran, so why is Bush so willing to regenerate national solidarity
against that satan infidel?
No folks, this is a very dangerous policy to pursue. If the political elites are allowed to galvanize their
'policeman of the world' strategy, America will act like a thug. Real and justifiable retaliation for active aggression from
terrorist states deserves an effective response. But adopting unilateral preemptive raids, which virtually guarantees lethal
reprisals, does not increase protection for our country.
Is Bush just preparing the American public for the aftermath of this war on terror when he calls for the USA
Freedom Corps? Is this the first step back to conscription or is it going to be expanded into a FEMA disaster response backup
of the home guard?
When Americans endorsed the Socialism of FDR, they bought into the deception of equating civic moral
duty with government service. Linkage between these two vastly different approaches, has caused more damage
to the American Nation than any terrorist plot. Bush has revealed his zeal for militant incursion, in defense of the New World
Order. His father popularized the acceptability of what was once a shadow theory. Bush II is now taking the reality of the
NWO and equating it with the defense of America. Buying into this prevarication would make Franklin Delanor Roosevelt proud.
The following is from the FDR inaugural speech March 4th, 1933:
"It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the government itself, treating the task as we
would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to
stimulate and reorganize the use of our national resources."
It seems that Bush has an updated rendition of the same message. Not exactly the Republican vision that the
State serves the people. WWII changed America for the worst. We risk a WWIII that will destroy it forever . . .
SARTRE - January 31, 2002
