OBAMA'S YOUTH CORPS - REBUTTAL TO A DIFFERING VIEWPOINT

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!

OBAMA'S YOUTH CORPS

Here's an urgent news item that maybe you don't know about. Carolyn, NO APOLOGIES ROUND 2, sent me this. Click on the title to visit. Her journal is an excellent and well-written read.

This really surprised me, as I have never seen anything like this even proposed in the U.S. ever before. The article below appeared in the WORLDNET DAILY recently.

Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'

'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes'

Posted: November 13, 20081:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."

"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.

WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Now comes the Emanuel video, which has been embedded here:








In the interview, Emanuel was questioned whether participants in the proposed force would live in barracks.

"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."

Emanuel said the planned requiring service "will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."

He said, of course, the plan at that point was flexible.

"We propose three months [but] at the end of the day [if] someone says it should be four … I'm not going sit here and hold up [plans]," Emanuel said.

When the reporter questioned the commitment, Emanuel responded, "Guess what. We have a lot more challenges. We are going to need a lot to do it. If you're worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes."

He chuckled at the reporters concerns.

"Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. … Think of it this way, it will be a common experience.

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

But the plan, especially its demand that Americans participate in a domestic "force," has been raising questions.

The blogger Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"

Emanuel uses his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," to specify that he would propose, for all Americans ages 18 to 25, that they "serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."

A video of his comments is here:



Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.

But Farah's call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

There are many valid concerns about this. Why do we need now a "civilian national security force" operating outside the National Guard and the U.S. Military? I don't think one has to go very far to see where this could go. Keep in mind that anytime the government wants to do something they don't think people will approve of or will be wary of, the government ALWAYS tries its old line of reassurance that it will ONLY BE USED FOR or IN CASE OF, and nothing else. The old limited context line. But as time goes on, as we all know, it always expands and grows. For me, this is way too much like the beginnings of Hitler's Youth Corps of Nazi Germany. It could very easily be used to keep an American population under control and in line with government policies. The months of "training" could very easily be indoctrination into the Government's way of thinking.

And speaking of Mr. Emanuel . . . for those of you who think that he is pro-Israel: not so much. According to an article in ARUTZ SHEVA, the Israel National News Service, entitled JEWS AROUND THE NEXT PRESIDENT (click to read the entire article), Mr. Emanuel certainly is not. The article, authored by Tamar Yonah, started off by saying that Jews in America or in Israel should be reassured by the appointment of Jews to Obama's administration.

"The recent appointments of Jews by United States President–Elect Barack Obama to his new administration should not be reassuring to the Jewish community in America or in Israel, says David Bedein, Bureau Chief of the Israel Resource News Agency.

During the elections, Bedein covered the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania, working on behalf of the Philadelphia Bulletin. Speaking on Israel National Radio's Weekend Edition, Bedein said that the Jewish appointees are not pro-Israel.

Most of the rumors spread about Obama, Bedein stated, were "more or less concocted by the Hillary campaign.” However he did express concern over Obama's closeness to Jewish policy makers who have pushed for Israel to give up land in the past. In particular, is Rahm Emanuel, the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel's parents are Israeli.

Obama's first appointment in the White House, Rahm Emanuel, was the key person in the Clinton administration to make the Oslo Accords happen in 1993. We are facing a situation of Jews around the next president who are very, very antagonistic to any of Israel's settlement policies in Judea and Samaria. But much more serious than that of course, is that the implication to the rest of Israel. If any of that territory is handed over, we'll see missiles on the center of Israel."

As we have seen before, anytime we pressure Israel into giving up land given to them through their covenant with God, some type of disaster always happens to the U.S. There have been no exceptions to this, nor will there ever be.