Here’s a little more on Obama’s plans for a civilian paramilitary force.

The enclosed article speculates on Obama’s motives:

Or could it be that he's simply trying to equate an army of young government Peace Corps types with the military -- except they'll be armed with brooms and shovels instead of guns? Of course, that's worrisome, too, as it betrays a certain softness in Barack's conception of what "national security" entails.

My problem with the brooms and shovels interpretation is that after the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, Rep. Charles Rangel introduced H.R. 393. Hidden in that bill was a proposal that required all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.

NOTE: Young Americans who are thinking of voting for Obama and/or congressional Democrats should take note of the word “require.”

Aside from handing millions and millions over to the welfare state’s tender care, it now appears that the thrust of Obama’s domestic policy will be directed toward an armed force loyal to socialism, and funded with tax dollars. Rangel is chairman of the House Ways And Means Committee; so his support for Obama’s plans is assured.

Interestingly, both Rangel and Obama tied the Democrat party’s political agenda to national defense and homeland security rather than call for programs similar to the ones implemented by FDR’s Work Projects Administration (WPA).

If Obama and Rangel do what they want with young adults the next logical step is to increase communist indoctrination on teenagers and preteens beyond the public education system. Hitler Youth Camps for Germany’s young is the way Hitler did it. The kids were called Hitler’s Children. The only thing to be decided is whether American kids will be called Obama’s Children or Rangel’s Children?

Incidentally, Rangel was always a big fan of Fidel Castro and his style of governing.

Thursday, July 17, 2008
A "Civilian National Security Force"?
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 10:28 PM

Having had the pleasure of sitting in for Hugh Hewitt today on his radio show, much of the
discussion centered around a peculiar riff by Barack Obama in a speech from July 2 -- one
which, remarkably enough, is going unreported by the media.

In a deviation from the speech's transcript as printed in the Wall Street Journal and the Denver
Post, Barack added:

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.

What in the world is he talking about in invoking the specter of a "civilian national security
force"? One caller -- an immigrant from Communist-era Romania -- confessed that the language
reminded him of the dark days of Soviet domination.

Or could it be that he's simply trying to equate an army of young government Peace Corps types
with the military -- except they'll be armed with brooms and shovels instead of guns? Of course,
that's worrisome, too, as it betrays a certain softness in Barack's conception of what "national
security" entails.

Candidates who can be trusted with the leadership of the free world don't engage in weird little
riffs that leave normal people puzzling over what they meant . . . and with no alternative that
doesn't seem either disturbingly creepy or frighteningly naive. Just another sign that Barack isn't
quite ready for prime time?

Townhall.com::Blog

__________________

Flanders

The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer