PaperDetective

Mandatory Community Service = America now fascist & Fuehrer is Obama

87 posts in this topic

Obama just published on his site at http://www.change.gov/americaserves/ that he wants to introduce 'mandatory community service' in almost every group of society.

This is identical to Hitler's Hitler-Jugend, his hiking and social 'clubs', Brownshirts, League of German Girls, Deutsches Jungvolk, etc.

'Duty to country' is what Obama is selling to Americans and they are buying it. The way he sells it is in a package deal where he packed the evil of 'community' service in a wrapping of 'Original American Values'. The wrapping is of course pure deceit and untrue.

That Americans are in majority ripe for this choice to become fascist, is no surprise. Around me left and right I see people talking all the time and advertising that they belong to a 'community' and that they 'serve a community'. IT is considered a 'badge of honor' now to act on one's 'duty to country'. Bush's altruist policies were already a prequel to this.

Consider what won Obama his election and compare that with Hitler's winning of his elections.

Both organized the youth in their country and got them to vote in majority for them. The new Fuehrer Obama just applied the lessons he learned from Hitler himself.

A small bright spot: My two favorite regional radio hosts at 96.9FM (WTKK) are now mentioning Ayn Rand and especially Atlas Shrugged on a DAILY basis and multiple times in their programs. They are asking themselves already if Atlas should shrug (so do I).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama just published on his site at http://www.change.gov/americaserves/ that he wants to introduce 'mandatory community service' in almost every group of society.

This is identical to Hitler's Hitler-Jugend, his hiking and social 'clubs', Brownshirts, League of German Girls, Deutsches Jungvolk, etc.

'Duty to country' is what Obama is selling to Americans and they are buying it. The way he sells it is in a package deal where he packed the evil of 'community' service in a wrapping of 'Original American Values'. The wrapping is of course pure deceit and untrue.

That Americans are in majority ripe for this choice to become fascist, is no surprise. Around me left and right I see people talking all the time and advertising that they belong to a 'community' and that they 'serve a community'. IT is considered a 'badge of honor' now to act on one's 'duty to country'. Bush's altruist policies were already a prequel to this.

Consider what won Obama his election and compare that with Hitler's winning of his elections.

Both organized the youth in their country and got them to vote in majority for them. The new Fuehrer Obama just applied the lessons he learned from Hitler himself.

A small bright spot: My two favorite regional radio hosts at 96.9FM (WTKK) are now mentioning Ayn Rand and especially Atlas Shrugged on a DAILY basis and multiple times in their programs. They are asking themselves already if Atlas should shrug (so do I).

Thanks for posting this. In addition to what you've said, I just want to point out a tiny little detail that is indicative of a huge, looming statism: the address of the web site you mention is "...change.gov". Obama's "change" is bad enough, but that such a web site is already listed as if it's part of the government is naked hubris. I thought that .gov addresses were restricted to official government sites, as opposed to .com, .org, etc. which can be obtained by anyone. If that's not the case, then the address is being abused to imply a government stamp. If that is the case, then Obama is getting official government sites published before he's even inaugurated. Either way, this bodes ill for the republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really doubt that mandatory community service could ever be enforced, unless it were done through public schools, then all private schools or homeschooling was banned. Otherwise it would be just too easy to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really doubt that mandatory community service could ever be enforced, unless it were done through public schools, then all private schools or homeschooling was banned. Otherwise it would be just too easy to ignore it.

A heavy handed imposition of community service would run square into the 13-th amendment. I suspect a more subtle approach, the formation of the Obama Jugend might be attempted which is in line with your suggestion.

ruven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really doubt that mandatory community service could ever be enforced...

Reality speaks against your doubt.

Many schools already have introduced mandatory community service without any significant opposition. The American mind is ready for it.

Additionally many companies shave been nationalized recently and that is expanding. The reasoning of politicians and voters behind this nationalization has for along time been that 'companies serve the community'. Most companies even spell it out on their sites that they 'serve communities'. It means that companies owe a duty to Americans. And how about what is now a common place: 'I am paying back to my community' which is being used by many successful people when they apologetically turn over their hardearned dollars to the vultures.

'Duty' is already as ingrained here as 'apple pie'. A step from 'just in schools' to the rest of society is just trivial and will not be noticed by the majority here. A minority which notices will have no defense against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A heavy handed imposition of community service would run square into the 13-th amendment.

Why do you believe our laws are still protecting us?

Aren't we confronted on a daily basis with the fact that many laws violate our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really doubt that mandatory community service could ever be enforced...

Reality speaks against your doubt.

Well, you speak against the first part of my sentence, ignoring the later part:

...unless it were done through public schools, then all private schools or homeschooling was banned. Otherwise it would be just too easy to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A heavy handed imposition of community service would run square into the 13-th amendment.

The imposition of the military draft was allowed under the 13th Amendment, so imposing "community service" ought to be a piece of cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really doubt that mandatory community service could ever be enforced, unless it were done through public schools, then all private schools or homeschooling was banned. Otherwise it would be just too easy to ignore it.

My high school in Nevada required some 10 hours of community service; they wouldn’t let you graduate without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really doubt that mandatory community service could ever be enforced, unless it were done through public schools, then all private schools or homeschooling was banned. Otherwise it would be just too easy to ignore it.

My high school in Nevada required some 10 hours of community service; they wouldn’t let you graduate without it.

Yes.

This is the (almost) plausibly constitutional way to legally enforce "service" on young people.

Establishing a cerntain number of hours of "community service" as a requirement for high school graduation is a very common practice now. In a private school with its volumtary attendance requirements this would not be a violation of the young people's rights...it would just simply be irrational and evil.

But in a public school where attandence is enforced by truancy laws -- and the whole thing is funded by tax dollars -- this is the initiation of force and should legally be considered to be a crime. It should be a serious felony punishable by ten years or more imprisonmnet.

"Change" started long before Sen. Obama was elected President.

Unfortunately, this kind of change was the centerpiece of John McCain's bid for the Republican nomination in 2000.

Unfortunately, Sen. Obama's predeliction for committing legalized crimes is not nearly as limited as Sen. McCain's. With Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid (and all the Soros-founded 527s "nutroots" organizations) egging him on, Sen. Obama will do damage to liberty.

Expect Obama/Pelosi/Reid to target free speech because it is "divisive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put Obama's words into context, it isn't as awful as it sounds from that sound bite.

Obama was talking about expanding people in our overseas bases, consulates, embassies and things of that nature and expanding the size of the U.S Peace Corps.

This idea is not something we should be embracing, but it certainly is not as horrific as you all make it sound.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

Context starts around minute 15-16.

Also, from The Volokh Conspiracy.

However, in bad news along this line, Obama's first appointee Rahm Emanuel was, or perhaps still is, an advocate of conscription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To put Obama's words into context, it isn't as awful as it sounds from that sound bite.

Obama was talking about expanding people in our overseas bases, consulates, embassies and things of that nature and expanding the size of the U.S Peace Corps.

This idea is not something we should be embracing, but it certainly is not as horrific as you all make it sound.

How do you like the idea that you, as a college student will be required to "volunteer" 100 hours a year by your college because, if you don't, the college will lose federal funds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disgusted by it. I never claimed to like it, Betsy. I never claimed to like Obama. I'm just saying that he won't be reinstituting the Draft anytime soon. I COULD be wrong, but of course McCain spoke of conscription only as "not practical at this time."....Not practical until he starts another war, that he feels he has to sacrifice more Americans too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for posting this. In addition to what you've said, I just want to point out a tiny little detail that is indicative of a huge, looming statism: the address of the web site you mention is "...change.gov". Obama's "change" is bad enough, but that such a web site is already listed as if it's part of the government is naked hubris. I thought that .gov addresses were restricted to official government sites, as opposed to .com, .org, etc. which can be obtained by anyone.

Well, he's the President-elect, and still a Senator, so he *is* part of the government... It isn't surprising that he can easily get his campaign slogan turned into a website, especially given the current existence of Americorps which ties directly to his "community service" drek. Remember the "volunteerism" orgy held in Philadelphia some years back that was attended by the President and just about every living ex-President?

This isn't being "imposed" on an ignorant America - a majority now *wants* this leash and is eager to volunteer to put it around their own necks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't being "imposed" on an ignorant America - a majority now *wants* this leash and is eager to volunteer to put it around their own necks.

I think that is selling the American people short.

There are some who want unearned goodies and some who want to be told what to do, but the majority of Americans still buy "service" out of benevolent regard for those who suffer unjustly and/or from altruism-induced guilt for their own success and happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

This sickens me. What if I or my children don't comply? ^_^

We better hope there is not another 911 or Cuban Missile Crises in the next two years or we're all going to become the property of O - Uncle Sam.

I'm more than ever inspired to write, complain, and talk to whomever and wherever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't being "imposed" on an ignorant America - a majority now *wants* this leash and is eager to volunteer to put it around their own necks.

I think that is selling the American people short.

There are some who want unearned goodies and some who want to be told what to do, but the majority of Americans still buy "service" out of benevolent regard for those who suffer unjustly and/or from altruism-induced guilt for their own success and happiness.

You know, I think that's a very important question: what exactly is the state of the American people? Is it Phil's position, which is highly pessimistic, or Betsy's position, which is (relatively) highly optimistic? Something in between? Or, if not a mere matter of degrees, perhaps the American population is just incredibly varied--that is, a jumbled mess of often conflicting and contradictory concretes?

I ask, because if one wants to influence the culture, then one needs to have a very objective and accurate read on its actual state. It seems to me that we really don't... For example, I don't agree with Phil's seemingly broad generalizations, but then again, I don't agree with Betsy's not-so-broad generalization. It doesn't seem to me that any of us can so easily say that we are facing an "ignorant America" nor that "the majority of Americans" hold any particular ideas. Where's the evidence for either position?

And if I'm correct, then the next question is: how does one gain a better understanding of exactly where America stands? Even looking at the election results doesn't help, because I don't believe for a second that any majority was terribly well-informed about such issues as Obama's call for compulsory national service. I'd wager a bet that some very large majority were completely unaware of this and many others of Obamas--and McCains--positions. They voted along party lines, or for "change," or based on "hope," or for the first black President, or for the war hero, or because they support the abolition of abortion, or ...

So, I'm at a bit of a loss, personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, I think that's a very important question: what exactly is the state of the American people? Is it Phil's position, which is highly pessimistic, or Betsy's position, which is (relatively) highly optimistic? Something in between? Or, if not a mere matter of degrees, perhaps the American population is just incredibly varied--that is, a jumbled mess of often conflicting and contradictory concretes?

The American population is a collection of individuals with free will and some individuals matter more than others.

In an intellectual battle, you do not need to convert everyone. History is made by minorities—or, more precisely, history is made by intellectual movements, which are created by minorities. Who belongs to these minorities? Anyone who is able and willing actively to concern himself with intellectual issues. Here, it is not quantity, but quality that counts (the quality—and consistency—of the ideas one is advocating).

It doesn't matter if the majority is intellectually bankrupt. All that is necessary is to find a few quality people and supply them with quality ideas.

I ask, because if one wants to influence the culture, then one needs to have a very objective and accurate read on its actual state.

More important, one needs to be a good judge of people so that one can find the quality people and one needs to understand Objectivism and how to apply it to reality so that one can give those people the ideas they need.

It seems to me that we really don't... For example, I don't agree with Phil's seemingly broad generalizations, but then again, I don't agree with Betsy's not-so-broad generalization. It doesn't seem to me that any of us can so easily say that we are facing an "ignorant America" nor that "the majority of Americans" hold any particular ideas. Where's the evidence for either position?

My evidence comes from my dealings -- and my considerable success -- in communicating my ideas to friends, family, co-workers, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To put Obama's words into context, it isn't as awful as it sounds from that sound bite.

Obama was talking about expanding people in our overseas bases, consulates, embassies and things of that nature and expanding the size of the U.S Peace Corps.

This idea is not something we should be embracing, but it certainly is not as horrific as you all make it sound.

It certainly is horrific and Obama most certainly did not restrict his principle of national service to "expanding people in our overseas bases, consulates, embassies and things of that nature and expanding the size of the U.S Peace Corps" and neither does the rest of the progressive New Left make such a restriction. One prime domestic "service" they push is service on behalf of the "environment". In the link given by PaperDetective in the very first line of this thread, which is the topic of the thread, Obama said he wants to

create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved 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 setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

They don't dare -- yet -- call for open conscription into servitude, but their plans do include coercion even while they package it as "voluntary".

As has already been pointed out, service is already often a requirement to graduate from public schools. ARI used to have a major campaign against this (and might still be doing it). ARI does in fact recognize that such servitude, even if actually voluntary, is as "horrific as we all make it sound".

The National Honor Society has also been morally corrupted into a "service organization" requiring "community service" if one wants to accept the "honor" and use it in applying to colleges. It used to be that if your class rank was high enough you were automatically granted the honor. Apparently you now have the "choice" to decline it so they can claim the servitude isn't mandatory.

And discriminatory tax laws are already being used and proposed to push people into "service". An example of "encouraging retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available", as Obama euphemistically put it, can already be seen in some towns in Maine where under a recent state law passed by the progressives retired residents are now allowed to "volunteer" to work for the town in exchange for a reduction in the horrendous property taxes of several thousands of dollars a year, most of which goes to fund the public schools for the benefit of others. They really have the gall to call this "volunteering".

I'm disgusted by it. I never claimed to like it, Betsy. I never claimed to like Obama. I'm just saying that he won't be reinstituting the Draft anytime soon. I COULD be wrong, but of course McCain spoke of conscription only as "not practical at this time."....Not practical until he starts another war, that he feels he has to sacrifice more Americans too?

McCain was not elected and will not be starting another war, nor did he hint that he was promoting a draft if it were "practical" to for him to get away with it. (He said he does not believe the draft is a practical was to man the military.) One has to be wary of anyone who emphasizes "service to a higher cause" the way McCain did in his campaign, but characterizing him as wanting a draft was something promoted by the Obama media trying to embarrass him with a trick question that was not put to Obama. No serious presidential candidate, if he had to answer directly, would guarantee he would never support the military draft because they all think that as Commander in Chief they would have a duty to do whatever it takes to fight a war, and they all think that the rights of the individual are secondary to that and that compulsion can be "practical" if "necessary". But that does not in itself mean that any particular candidate wants a draft and is trying to maneuver the country into one.

The New Left, however, has always favored compulsory national service. Their leaders during protests against the draft during the Vietnam War when the draft was last used made it clear that they opposed the draft then primarily because they wanted the US out of the war because they wanted the communists to win. Push a progressive today and you will most likely get him to admit that whether or not he advocates military conscription for today's wars (which some of them do), he thinks that we all "owe something back to society" and should be required to undergo national service of some kind. They are collectivists and Obama is more likely than most Republicans to push coercively induced servitude, including military conscription in the name of "fairness" if a larger scale war arises for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if I'm correct, then the next question is: how does one gain a better understanding of exactly where America stands?

It could be done with professional polling and focus group research, which is what political parties and activist groups (if they have the money) use when they want to quietly find out what people really think as opposed to the spin and push polls they constantly put out.

Even looking at the election results doesn't help, because I don't believe for a second that any majority was terribly well-informed about such issues as Obama's call for compulsory national service. I'd wager a bet that some very large majority were completely unaware of this and many others of Obamas--and McCains--positions. They voted along party lines, or for "change," or based on "hope," or for the first black President, or for the war hero, or because they support the abolition of abortion, or ...

So, I'm at a bit of a loss, personally.

But they also voted for a choice in which both candidates were openly promoting sacrifice because that is what the culture has drifted into. The only question is how explicit they are willing to get in enforcing it, but hardly anyone today would object to the sacrifice and at least some degree of compulsion as a moral ideal. That is why it is so important to buy time by electing the candidates who will do the least to impose it, which this time we didn't.

It's true that most voters are unaware of the meaning and implication of the candidate's positions, and that, too, is part of the problem -- they don't know how to think about such issues of political philosophy and as pragmatists aren't interested in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently the thug blinked (temporarily--the club in his hand is still there). Maybe he thinks he's showing his hand too quickly?

From http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31...lan_for_a_Draft :

Obama Quietly Revokes His Plan for a Draft

Politics | Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:49:23 pm PST

Earlier today we posted about Barack Obama’s plan to require community service from middle school, high school, and college students. This is how it read at the time:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved 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. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Lo and behold. Tonight, after the plan was publicized, Obama has quietly thrown that “requirement” part down the memory hole: America Serves.

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved 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 setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Change!

UPDATE at 11/7/08 9:36:53 pm:

They’re going through the site and cleaning up the places where it said “require community service,” but they missed a spot on this page: Service | Change.gov.

Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.

I'd just love to see someone at a press conference stand up and ask the bastard, "How do you think the families of the police officer and security guards killed by the Weather Underground feel about your getting your start in politics from Weather Underground members?" or maybe "Do you think the students of America should follow your example, and get their start in their careers from terrorists?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is getting official government sites published before he's even inaugurated.
...And what's more, even before he is elected as the next President by the Electoral College.

But of course the Electoral College is just a formality called for by an old document, which is no longer relevant. All you need to know about how the Federal Government works now is: L'etat, c'est Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is getting official government sites published before he's even inaugurated.
...And what's more, even before he is elected as the next President by the Electoral College.

But of course the Electoral College is just a formality called for by an old document, which is no longer relevant. All you need to know about how the Federal Government works now is: L'etat, c'est Obama.

In some States, the electors are legally obliged to cast their vote to the candidate to whom they are pledged. I suppose it is theoretically possible (in some States) for a pledged elector to vote against his pledge.

If electoral pledge breaking became common or egregious, the Electoral College would be abolished by constitutional amendment within a few years. This wold be very true if a counter pledge electoral vote actually changed the outcome of the election.

As to the occasional anomaly where the pledged electoral vote is one way and the aggregate popular vote is the other way, we all know that his can and in fact has happened. For instance the election of Abraham Lincoln. He had a minority popular vote.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is getting official government sites published before he's even inaugurated.
...And what's more, even before he is elected as the next President by the Electoral College.

But of course the Electoral College is just a formality called for by an old document, which is no longer relevant. All you need to know about how the Federal Government works now is: L'etat, c'est Obama.

In some States, the electors are legally obliged to cast their vote to the candidate to whom they are pledged. I suppose it is theoretically possible (in some States) for a pledged elector to vote against his pledge.

That is how John Hospers and Toni Nathan got Roger McBride's Virginia electoral vote 'pledged' to Richard Nixon in 1972 -- the first and only electoral vote for the Libertarian Party and the first electoral vote for a woman.

But the original post questioned how Obama is getting an official government web site before he is officially recognized as President. Maybe because he is a Senator, or maybe because it was set up for the "transition team". Or maybe because he was annointed months ago, already had his own Presidential Seal, and the inauguration is only a big expensive party to celebrate the previous coup -- the Messiah requires no permission. George Bush has been going out of his way to help him in every way, believing until the end that "professionalism" means being helpful to thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites