Scattered around the internet message boards, blogs and purported news sites the right is having a serious circle jerk party over a statement Barack Obama made in Colorado a couple of weeks ago. Below is the original quote they are using to make a case that Senator Obama, if elected, will force this nation into a fascist state. All of the comments and articles I've read are outrageous lies and extreme fearmongering.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
This is not ALL he said. He laid out a plan to expand the Peace Corps and Americorps as well as beginning new programs to aid with education primarily. HOW does the right twist what he has plainly laid out?
NO WHERE does Senator Obama speak of arms or that these expanded programs would be military. Yet that is exactly what they are making a case are his intentions should he be elected.
Apparently what they fear is a secret armed shadow army of college students. How ridiculous and neuron challenged can they be?
I am sometimes accused of being a conspiracy theorist in regards to 9/11. But, rightwingers take conspiracy theory to a whole other level.
Careful, careful they hounded, harassed and spent millions of dollars to nail Bill Clinton SURE he was trying to take over the world, take away their guns. They won't stop with Obama. We are dealing with a vicious groupthink mentality that is so far removed from MORAL VALUES and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY they are dangerous.
Obama's 'civilian national security force'
Posted: July 15, 2008 1:00 am Eastern
With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.
For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.
In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.
Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?
What does it mean?
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?
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?
Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?
Are we talking about creating a police state here?
The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.
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?
So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.
At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.
Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?
The questions are endless.
But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.
Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?
I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.
Help me out here. What am I missing?
Can I get a hand?
This kind of hit piece has generated an unbelievable response from the rightwing sycophants who've never uttered an objection, even a whimper of protest to the lies that led us into Iraq, the outting of Valerie Plame, the overt coverup for those responsible and a long list of scandal after scandal, and a list too long to go into here in which Bush and Cheney have whittled away at the Bill of Rights.
Compare what the author of the above article, to what Obama actually stipulates as quoted in the article below. Of course it does matter to these people that this has bipartisan support.
Experts: Bipartisan support, societal woes could aid Obama's attempt to boost volunteerism
By John McCormick | Chicago Tribune reporter July 3, 2008
From Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, presidents and those who aspire to be president have long put forth calls for greater public service. Some found success, while others fell short of their lofty rhetoric.
Roosevelt formed the Civilian Conservation Corps and Kennedy created the Peace Corps with strong support and participation, while Clinton's AmeriCorps has never fully realized its potential, hampered by continuing funding struggles since its 1994 inception.
Still, as Sen. Barack Obama called for greater public service Wednesday, some experts predict the potential now exists for programs seeking an expansion of volunteerism to succeed, despite a slumping economy and the nation being at war.
"This may be a moment in time that is different from when earlier calls did not prove that effective," said Stephen Goldsmith, a former Indianapolis mayor and chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Goldsmith, a Republican and professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said bipartisan support, serious societal problems and heightened interest in service among young people could offer new or expanded service programs the ability for growth not seen in decades
He said surveys show today's youth, a group sometimes called the " 9/11 generation," is deeply attracted to service, even as such interest has fallen off for other age groups following the attacks in 2001.
"It may represent a real shift to interest in community service," Goldsmith said.
Amid that environment, Obama outlined several proposals to boost service, both at home and abroad, during a speech in Colorado Springs.
"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," Obama said. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger."
In his speech at a University of Colorado campus, he pledged that enhanced public service and active citizenship would be a central cause of his presidency.
"We will ask Americans to serve," the Illinois Democrat said. "We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve."Obama's draw to youth
For supporters, Obama's credibility on the topic is enhanced because he proved during the primary campaign that he could captivate and then mobilize young voters. His campaign argues they might also follow him into community service.
Clinton had a similar, though not quite as powerful, pull among youth. But his AmeriCorps program, which recruits workers in exchange for an education stipend, has never caught on the way the Peace Corps did in the 1960s and '70s.
Funding for AmeriCorps has been strained amid agency mismanagement and disdain for the program among some Republicans.
Still, it recorded its 500,000th participant last year. Volunteers nationwide have served needy communities by tutoring children, feeding the homeless, caring for the elderly and rebuilding areas struck by disaster.
Obama promised to increase AmeriCorps slots from 75,000 to 250,000 and pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011.
Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain of Arizona also supports an expansion of both programs and has stressed public service, including in the military, during campaign appearances.
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional service members.
"It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.
Obama had outlined many of the proposals offered Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.
Goals set for students
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students tied to that level of service.
In Chicago, meanwhile, billionaire investor Warren Buffett headlined two fundraisers to benefit Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
mccormickj@tribune.com
