As Amanda reported on the blog last week, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.-N.Y.) is spewing the old lie around that poor, unfortunate minorities are those gipped into going to war. Their lack of education and good living conditions make them more easily susceptible to receiving payment in return for defending their country, he says, and so he has proposed legislation that would draft both men and women into military combat.

The problem is Rangel completely off his rocker -- spouting fictitious statistics as facts.

A new study released yesterday by Tim Kane of the Heritage Foundation proves Rangel's rantings to be utter nonsense. Even more interesting, Kane's well-documented research shows quite the opposite extreme that that described by Rangel when it comes to military demographics. The entire report is worth the read, but Kane's conclusion sums up his findings best:

Overall, the wartime recruits are more similar than dissimilar to their civilian counterparts. The all-volunteer force displays near proportional rep­resentation of income backgrounds. Whites serve in approximate proportion to their population, although representation of minority groups varies. Recruits must meet educational standards, and the military provides resources for furthering educa­tion to those who might not otherwise have the opportunity to attend four-year colleges. Although rural representation is disproportional, the military offers the opportunity to gain new skills and enter industries that are not available in rural areas.

With regard to income, education, race, and regional background, the all-volunteer force is repre­sentative of our nation and meets standards set by Congress and the Department of Defense. In con­trast to the patronizing slanders of antiwar critics, recruit quality is increasing as the war in Iraq contin­ues. Although recent recruiting goals have been dif­ficult to meet, reenlistment is strong and recruit quality remains high. No evidence supports argu­ments for reinstating the draft or altering recruiting policies to achieve more equitable representation.

Our servicemen are offended by Rangel's statements, as they should be. Major Brian Bresnahan's column at Military.com offers a more personal perspective:

I know our battalion of reserve Marines in Iraq was full of folks who took a pay cut when they were mobilized. In fact, the discrepancy in pay was so great for some of our enlisted Marines it created hardships for their families. We had Marines with graduate degrees and high level management positions in Fortune 500 companies.

There were enlisted Marines I served alongside who put lucrative computer programming jobs or the pursuit of a law degree on hold. Our battalion surgeon volunteered for the Navy Reserve to serve. He is one of the very few pediatric heart surgeons in the United States; certainly not a man without choices in life.

The angry parents and spouses of service members flooded some of the radio talk shows Monday with the stories of why their husband, wife, son, or daughter gave up scholarships, high paying jobs, or other opportunities to go fight.

So, Congressman Rangel simply made an incorrect scientific hypothesis. Honest mistake, right?

Wrong. The full measure of his outlook was unveiled when he expanded his argument about the troops and their deficiencies with respect to the rest of society. The truth is he doesn't think much of us. In the end, his position and comments weren't what anyone could call "supportive."