25 November 2008


Those of you who have been reading my journal for any length of time know that I sometimes rebut a different opinion. I have several readers who do not share my views, and I welcome and value the friendship of every one of them. Debate is one of the purposes of me writing this journal. I haven't said it since those of us who started on AOL got the big boot, but I have always welcomed liberal readers and encouraged them to comment whether they agree or not. I enjoy the debate as long as there are no personal attacks.

One of my regular readers, since my AOL days, is Ryan,
THAT BAPTIST AINT RIGHT, left a comment in my entry OBAMAS YOUTH CORPS. Here is one of the points Ryan made:

" . . . the idea of a volunteer corps has been around since the Kennedy Era & has been espoused on & off for years. I remember it was seriously debated during the Reagan Era as a means to give high school students college credit much like the Peace Corps does."

The key word here is "volunteer". What President-elect Obama and Representative Emanuel want to do is anything but "volunteer". Their version is like the old joke of "getting volunteered" for something. This is just another step the government is trying to take that takes away one more freedom from parents. I have no problem at all with young people being a part of some volunteer or charitable organization. There are many, many young people, even in this day and time, that do so on their own - WITH THEIR PARENTS' APPROVAL! The young people and their parents have the freedom to choose. Under the proposed program, it would become mandatory, NO CHOICE. Does the government REALLY have the right to FORCE children to be a part of something with NO REGARD for the wishes of their parents? This is very dictatorial no matter how you slice it, no matter how "noble" the cause may be.

But there's an even bigger issue.

"To say this is anything like the Hitler Youth is a serious, serious stretch. That is more politics than reality."

The above isn't the part that is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. But I'll comment on this a little later. Ryan continued on:

". . . mandating it would be a bit much. The idea of voluntary service for college or high school credit is, I think, a great thing. Nothing makes more of a lasting impression than teens working in a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. I & my family will be volunteering the weekend after Thanksgiving, in fact, at a local homeless shelter, something my teen & pre-teen look forward to every few months."

I agree wholeheartedly here. This is an experience that your children will never forget. They'll have the opportunity to see people with much, much greater problems than they have, and I think it will help them to keep things in their own lives in perspective. They will also enjoy the rewards of the experience more than they could have ever imagined otherwise. You did make my point here - as their parent, YOU have the choice to have your children participate. Under the Obama/Emanuel plan, you would have no choice. It would be forced by the government, and your children might not have the option as to where they wish to do their community service work. I don't know, I haven't seen anything about a mandated list of things they would be allowed to do, but it's possible.

The much larger issue here is another part of this program, which is Obama's civilian national defense force that, according to Obama, would be just as well-funded and just as strong as the U.S. military. Those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five would be required to go through three months of "basic training." Both these programs are tied together, according to Mr. Emanuel's book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America", where he said, that all Americans in this age group would
"serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

First, this is a perfect opportunity for government indoctrination. Since it would be a requirement, recruits would be required to study and learn whatever the government put to them. Secondly, since we have the National Guard and the U.S. military, what possible use could there be for a "civilian national defense force?" I definitely wouldn't trust ANY government official with the answer to that one.

Anyone still believe there's nothing suspicious about all this, no possible harm, or loss of freedom that could come from this? I'll quote the main players in this. In an interview, Mr. Emanuel said this:

"Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service."

Civil defense training? Defense against just what, Mr. Emanuel? The rest of us perhaps? And Mr. Emanuel went on in the same interview:

"There will be a body of citizens who are ready, capable and trained."

Again, Mr. Emanuel, ready for exactly what? This statement sure sounds like a paramilitary organization to me.

As Ryan put forth in his comment, is this a serious proposal? If it's not, then why did Obama say in a speech in Colorado that we
"cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set"
and we need a "civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." Hear it for yourself:

To me, this is very, very dangerous ground. The creation of a government national defense force that is just as big, powerful, and well-funded as the military. In order to be "just as powerful", these people will not only have to have the training, but the EQUIPMENT. They must have the tanks, aircraft, firearms, electronic gear, and so on if it's going to be "just as powerful" as the military. So here is where it is not a very far stretch at all to compare it to Hitler's Youth Corps. Even if the "only" equipment they had were firearms, can you imagine this? I don't think we can, since we haven't had anything even remotely approaching this in our country.

People better oppose this, and oppose it now. Once this is put into place, it will be nearly impossible to dismantle it later. I think the best way to voice your opposition is through your Congressional representatives. For some of you, it will likely fall on deaf ears. But e-mail or write anyway. Let your voice be heard. Let them know you're out there. There is cause for great concern on the part of everyone. I'm not being an alarmist here although there are some that might think that. I do think that there is cause for alarm. It's just too close to history, and we simply don't need a civilian national security force for any legitimate purpose, and the cost would be staggering (side note here: we've all heard the accusations against the Bush administration for spending too much on the military - but it's OK if the Democrats want to spend billions on this little project? Hmmm . . .)

That's my rebuttal. Ryan, as always, thank you for reading and commenting. I really appreciate it!


Amanda said...

Well said! I think you handled it great and I agree with all your points.

Many blessings

Carolyn said...

Well Said Dirk! Well said. The word here really is, volunteer. I haveen't found a for sure, but many of the sources who are still talking about this- it used to be on Obama's own web site(the word mandatory) made it sound like the services for "volunteering" would be for groups such as ACORN and the other community groups that Obama and co. have been involved in. I will, when my son is a little older, find plenty of worthy causes around my hometown to volunteer time to- I don't need government telling me that my child has to volunteer, especially for something they deem worthy. To me, there's a big difference in volunteering at a local soup kitchen, pantry, nursing home etc, and being made to train for a social propaganda machine such as ACORN. Nuff said though. You stated your pointsexcellenty las usual! God Bless!

Heli gunner Tom said...

This idea sounds just too close to the "Mark of the Beast" in Rev ! Go figure, here would be the 'military arm' of the Dems. Socialist new One World Gov't ready to enforce it's new laws on all Americans.. or death.
Actually, it all falls neatly into place for my bible trained mind. Of course, I hope you all realize that the confiscation of firearms would have to come first-- just as it did in Nazi Germany. And after that we would have NOTHING to protect all our other Freedoms.

Good post, Dirk.

Tom S

MISSY said...

I still say the public won't go for it. *M*


That Baptist Ain't Right said...

Dirk: I think this is all a big overreaction. There is no plan to go over; no details to pick apart; no options to consider. All we have is an idea with a lot of tentacles. If it is like the one proposed under Reagan, I could go for that. I could even go for a mandatory volunteer corps of some sort. (Yep. I said "mandatory," just like we used to have a draft =or= Peace Corps.) Intead of demonizing the plan, let's wait & see what it is.

That Baptist Ain't Right said...

One more thing: send me an email when you get a minute. Got some info you may be really interested in, especially since it will be in the news shortly.

natalie said...

Dear Dirk
somewhere in my throbbing celebreum
is the nagging question:
Why did President Elect Obama say we needed this army?
I am also confused: was there also a Peace Corps Army mentioned?

Lisa said...

Very well said! I agree with all the points you made in this entry Dirk. I for one oppose this youth corp Obama wants to do.

Dawgman said...

Geez, but does this idea of Obama's "Civilian Defense Force" scare the crap out of me!!! Like Mr. Rogers used to say: "Can you spell G-E-S-T-A-P-O??" As you so aptly put it, defend against what??!! What's it going to be? Government-organized street gangs protecting a fledgling socialist regime from those of us who would oppose it?? Sure sounds like a possibility, don't it?? Or rather a probability, considering the dead-seriousness of these people who want to rule our lives from D.C.

Thanks, Dirk! You killed an entry I was considering on this same subject!! Not mad, though -- my hat's off to you! You're right on target with this and I couldn't have said it a bit better than you did. I'll be writing on other subjects.



Dirk, in a separate e-mail I mentioned that I spent 20 years working with the military and aerospace industry and am married to a retired marine who was a pilot and did reconnaissance missions over the period of 20 years he served.

I do agree, it should be VOLUNTARY, but I also agree that we should be stronger WITHIN our nation and the military training that 3 of my husbands had who all served in Vietnam, gave them a strength and an awareness that served them well during their personal lives.

I'm guessing the goal is to better acquaint our youth about the fact that not every one is chatting fun stuff on their cellular phone; having fun with their video games or kicking it at the pizza parlor. There's a certain comfort we've come to know since WWII - I was born in 1940, so I've lived through a few wars, and seen the innocent and naive be subjected to harm; even killed, because they simply felt as long as we had soldiers; policemen and firemen, we were 'safe and sound'.

In other countries, youngsters are taught to fight at early ages.

My dad told me how the Filipinos fought 'side by side' with the American troops - tiny children would run food and water to our military as bombs would drop, and often they were killed. Women fed and sheltered them; fixed wounds, and showed no fear as they joined in the conflict.

I have 3 friends who have all grown up as citizens of the Philippines - they impress me with their courage; they are all trained in schools for defense - boxing, and it's very common for the girls to be as adept as the guys. They tell me why their country views this as a necessary part of their upbringing.

They are a small nation compared to our country; they are simple people - farmers; fishermen, and easily targeted by terrorists and enemies even within their nation.

They are ever 'on guard', yet kind and very Christian in nature. They've impressed me and educated me, and I can cite them as an example.

I have friends from Vietnam as well as Japan - both also endorse training the youth to be prepared; to be aware, and be capable of combat if necessary.

It's obvious that there's going to be more attacks channeled toward the United States and their allies; more and more we hear of it - see it, and see the terrible effects from it.

Our military is burdened; as are all the forces who train for security and protection and are paid to do so.

For myself, I'm glad I took some defense training; I feel safer at my advancing age, to have a certain confidence I can not only defend myself, but actually can 'spot' those who might be among us who would do harm if given the opportunity.

I've volunteered in the ghettos since 1967; faced a gun from a man who was abusing 9 of his children in New York, and managed to 'walk away' after keeping a distance; talking softly, but firmly letting him know that I was there to deliver a warrant for him to appear on charges of child abuse. As I talked with him and reasoned with him, he allowed me to deliver the warrant. Later, they put him in a program to help him overcome his fear of people; his anger towards people, and allowed us to move the children to foster homes (I was able to take 2 of the children with me).

There are other examples in my life I could leave here, but suffice to say I don't think anyone is trying to create a military environment as you seem to think Hitler was doing (and unfortunately the history books in this country don't quite tell that story 100% accurately).

My family came from Germany in 1631; still, we have family in Germany and some were killed during the war - a few did join with the forces to defend Germany, but it was truly by 'force' that they had to battle against the Americans or run the risk of death of themselves and their families.

Hitler didn't act alone - there were close to 35 key individuals who actually did most of his 'thinking' for him, and he was more of a 'figure-head' who was on 23 different kinds of drugs for over 12 years prior to his death, and as such was more of a 'patsy' and 'victim' as it played out.

I'm not understating his involvement; I do believe he became obsessed and the drugs didn't help his vision.

Nevertheless, GWB's grand-father consorted with the Nazi's - you can easily check this out from a variety of sources.

Major American corporations were as 'guilty' of promoting that war, as was Hitler.

There was money to be made by the major powers back then; America was one of the countries who saw extraordinary profit, and our hands were no more 100% clean than other nations who used flimsy excuses to wage genocide and death on not just the Jewish people, but others of different faith and nationality.

Persecution of people because of their religious beliefs goes back thousands of years; it's not a new thing.

Warriors - young children - were trained during those 'times past', and all history books will bear this out.

The United States belonged to the Indians; they were able to defend themselves as well as farm and fish - the white people who rebelled and left their England/Germany/Holland/Ireland, came and basically committed crimes of genocide and slavery - again, history books bear this out also.

I have good friends who are Hope; some Black Feet - others Navajo, and Cherokee. They have their history and their complaints; yet, their children were as capable of defending themselves as any child or adult could be. It is their pride that they teach their young these skills; it should be our pride that we have a chance to teach our current youth the same.

As I said, I agree - BY VOLUNTEER, but also by instituting programs in the educational system that better prepare both boys and girls to protect themselves from predators; terrorists, and hardened criminals who see them as innocent and incompetent lambs.


Whoops - I meant HOPI INDIANS, not HOPE....but hope is a good word now isn't it.........