The
following was written in November 2013 as a response to the
questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the
Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican
Party).
Here is the link to the original questionnaire:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw
This is my answer to Question #9.
9.
A
(I
favor national service which is strictly voluntary; not national
service which is compulsory for military needs, nor required for
community benefit, nor discriminatory towards non-heterosexuals)
To
have military service which is (B)
compulsory for military needs and/or (C)
required for community benefit is
to undermine the original intent of the 2nd Amendment,
which was to protect the right of conscientious objection (as the
right to bear arms whether serving in an organized or
unorganized militia).
A
war or military intervention which our leaders in the national
government have to sell to the American people through manufacturing
false threats and unsubstantiated rumors asking foreign leaders to
prove a negative, and which cannot get enough popular support in
Congress or enough military volunteers, is not a war which we should
commit to fighting without re-evaluating our objectives, and it is
not a war which we should spend a great amount of our resources
fighting due to the risk of war profiteering through mercenary and
infrastructure contracting.
I
do not favor (D)
limiting national service to male heterosexuals because
I support the right of all Americans – homosexuals included – to
be free from discrimination in the public sector, which includes the
military and all government agencies.
For
more entries on conscription / the draft / selective service, please
visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment