Obama's Red Army Boots Up

Like Hitler and Stalin before him, Barack Obama recognizes the value of a legion of glassy-eyed useful idiots following his every order
H.R. 1388 passed today, 31 March 2009. Obama will sign it. Get ready to goose step, America. This will create, among other nightmares, Obama's "civilian security corps." As ALG News mentioned last week, Rep. Virginia Foxx's (R-NC) amendment banning so-called “volunteer” organizations from using taxpayer funds to political purposes was stripped from its parent bill in the Senate, and replaced by an amendment allowing those organizations to skirt the law and continue lobbying. This week, the House will approve the Senate version, and President Obama will no doubt sign it shortly thereafter. 

So starts Isaac MacMillen's excellent analysis of the grotesque expansion of Americorps and the ominous shadow cast by the about-to-be-law create by the "Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act," formerly called "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act" (GIVE Act). The title of the post, "The Rise of ObamaCorps," pretty much sums it up. It was brilliantly sneaky of the Congress bastards to rename it, debate and vote on amendments in the middle of the night, rename amendments, and do a number of other tricks to make tracking the progress of H.R. 1388 difficult for you and me. They wanted it that way.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president

Thomas said that in a 1948 interview during one of his six presidential campaigns. Perhaps he had a crystal ball. 

Like Hitler and Stalin before him, Barack Obama recognizes the value of a legion of glassy eyed propaganized drones following his every order. Except for all of the government takeover action currently going on (i.e., the virtual nationalization of General Motors), and the desire to take away our guns, and the desire to suppress free speech (i.e., the resurrection in some form of the Fairness Doctrine), and a slew of other quasi-fascist-totalitarian actions and measures, I am not prepared to compare Barack Obama to genocidal dictators.

After all, Obama hasn't started a program of genocide that we're aware of. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were natives of the nations they ruled and ruined (Germany and Russia, respectively). Hitler was Austrian. Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia. Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as admitted to by a Kenyan diplomat Peter Ogaga. But no, I'm not saying that Barack Obama is exactly like Hitler or Stalin. Only in a few very important ways. 

Lest you think I'm exaggerating that stuff about glassy-eyed drones mindlessly following orders from Obama, consider these excerpts: Obama "walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere," George Clooney gushed to Charlie Rose.... "I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make [Obama’s] pathway clear,” Halle Berry recently told the Philadelphia Daily News, “I’ll do whatever he says.” (Does Michelle know about this?).... Last summer, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote that "Many spiritually advanced people I know … identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who … can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet." (Source) 

Lest you still think I'm a totally insane rightwing paranoid lunatic, read the following from the The Dartmouth, the student newspaper at Dartmouth College and the campus’s only daily. It's the oldest college paper in the US and is completely student-run and independent of Dartmouth College. I've added my own emphasis to this excerpt, from a column in The Dartmouth in late February, 2008: 

Mr. Obama’s program — soon to be dubbed “ObamaCorps” — would essentially obligate economically disadvantaged students to serve America in return for $4,000 each year. His costly proposal, however, welcomes all non-graduated U.S. citizens who study full-time, not only the financially insecure. Therefore, relatively wealthy students could — offsetting tuition costs — effectively use ObamaCorps resources to finance the ultimate spring break. Countless undergraduates would spend the tuition credit not on education but on scuba diving in the Java Sea. Those less intrigued by tsunamis, volcanoes and spawning billfish might bank the $16,000 over the course of four years. Full Column at The Dartmouth... 

  The Dartmouth also noted this (again, emphasis added): 

For unspecified reasons, Obama has not yet announced how many hours per week participants might serve. For the typical Dartmouth student, finding time would be tough. “We will definitely use our education to contribute to the future of America. Why should the U.S. government force students to serve?” one ‘08 female asked when I raised the issue of compulsory service. “Even Bosnia doesn’t do that anymore…do they?” she continued. While ObamaCorps would not mandate military service, the program’s philosophical foundation appears to disregard infamous American individualism. 

Of course it does. In fact, it seeks to destroy it. Individualism threatens any dictator - or wannabe dictators. The masses thinking for themselves? Can't have that, it's dangerous. The Dartmouth ended their column with the question, "Are we ready for pseudo-compulsory service?" 

Gene Healy comments on that nicely today (31 March 2009) at NetRightNation: 

But America’s very existence repudiates the idea that we’re hard-wired for leader-worship. We became a nation by throwing off a king, and our Founders gave us a Constitution that’s based on the notion that all men are flawed and none should be trusted with too much power. Americans, of all people, should recognize how bizarre and dangerous it is to fawn over professional politicians. Full post... 

Healy writes a good piece but I think he misses a hard reality of modern America. In 1776, the people were not yet brainwashed by mass media political advertising, constantly barraged by a Left-leaning mass media, and were more rugged in both their lifestyles and outlook. Tens of thousands of Americans, loyal to the British king, fled to Canada rather than fight. Thousands more, who hated the king, also fled to Canada for similar reasons of self preservation. 

The fact is that today, in a nation that fawns over amateur singers on shows such as "American Idol," millions have no problem transferring their willingness to fawn from entertainment figures to professional politicians. Since television, professional politicians have, in many cases, become entertainers. Even so, Healy's point is well taken, for not all American Idol fans are willing to follow an Obama off the cliff. Too many, however, are. 

So, no, we're not all "ready for pseudo-compulsory service," and this raises an interesting question: Will ObamaCorps allow conscientious objectors to be exempted from service?

In the matter of a military draft, the matter of conscientious objection is easily understood: The objector has a religious or moral problem with killing, even in the defense of his nation, children and neighbors. The objector believes that killing is wrong in any circumstance. That's easy to understand, even if you don't agree with it. However, on what moral grounds could one "conscientiously" object to in the case of ObamaCorps? 

The answer to that is the same answer that somebody in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia should have given - before it was too late. 

RELATED: 

• Training of New Civilian Security Force Passed, Billions Allocated 
• The High Cost of Volunteering 
• UPDATED - Obama's Dictatorship Quest Nearly Complete 
• UPDATED: The New Hitler Youth? Stop HR 1388!

Action Alert: GIVE Act and H.R. 1388 Update

This is urgent, so I won't get fancy. The following is written by Adam Bitely over at NetRightNation, and I know he wants to get a lot of eyeballs on this and fast. So do I, so here's a large excerpt from Adam's post, titled "GIVE Act/Serve America Act." Thursday, 26 March 2009 UPDATE: The DeMint Amendment was substituted for a similar amendment from Senator David Vitter. The Vitter Amendment was struck down by a vote of 53-43. To further break this vote down, 53 Democrats voted Nay. 41 Republicans voted Yay with 2 Democrats crossing over, Senators Byrd and Nelson. One of these two scenarios is going to unfold. The Senate would adopt the Mikulski amended version of the bill. After that, it will go to conference where the Foxx amendment will most likely be struck. Should that happen, we will need to call for the defeat of the bill in its entirety. We will keep you posted. The other scenario is that the Senate will adopt H.R. 1388 as amended. That would then be sent back to the House where they could vote to simply accept the Senate amendments. This is the more likely outcome. Both of these scenarios would remove any amendment similar to the Foxx amendment.*** For those of you who followed the GIVE Act in the House, no explanation of how terrible this bill is would be necessary. For those who didn't, here is a little background... Get the background and more at NetRightNation right now... ALSO: Please e-mail the link for Adam's post to all of your friends immediately! That link: http://tinyurl.com/NetRightNews Adam reminds us: The bill currently sits in the Senate and Jim DeMint has offered an identical amendment. Unfortunately, the left is attacking him for doing this. Groups like Alliance for Justice are trying to tear down the DeMint Amendment with baseless reasons. Call your Senator today and tell them to support the DeMint Amendment on the Serve America Act (S.277). Post back here in the comments and let us know what your Senator says. Post about the GIVE Act on your blogs as well. If we can get the story out on this bill to enough people, we can change the outcome. HERE IS A LIST OF SENATORS and their contact information: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Cool Stuff...

UPDATED - Obama's Dictatorship Quest Nearly Complete

Obama’s Plan for ‘Brown Shirts’ - Mandatory National Service - The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” and consider whether “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” should be developed. The legislation also refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training” future “public sector leaders.” The training, apparently, would occur at “campuses.” 

Obama Volunteer Bill Prohibits “Religious Instruction” - The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama. This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it... 

--- Original Post --- 

We've been screaming about H.R. 1388 (the GIVE Act) and how it will help form a national youth corps reminiscent of the Hitler Youth. Paranoid? Me? Read the following, then tell me if you don't feeling a bit paranoid. We are being enslaved goose step by goose step, becoming entrapped in the kind of "soft tyranny" that De Toqueville warned us about. I got an ominous email this morning from a trusted source: It passed last night in the Senate.... all Obama has to do is sign now... and he will..... There are so many others left to fight.... This is so bad.... They are trying to pass a bill removing the limit on the number of terms the president can serve now.... [She refers to H.J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. See GovTrack for full info. This would repeal the 22nd Amendment.] 

I emailed back and asked where she was getting her info: Directly from the senate/house sites.... plus tons of political friends.... I am neck deep in this stuff, and I have decided that I am not going down without a fight.... I will keep you as updated as possible.... This is getting really bad.... 

Keep reading. This is getting really bad indeed. 

H.R. 1388 has a creative title: The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act. 321 representatives of the people voted approval for this legislation which, among many other things, strikes a blow to the rights of people to mount any protests against legislation. 

Listen closely, it outlaws the right to mount protests against proposed legislation. (Source) To all of you Democrats and Liberals out there: You loved to remind us that "dissent is patriotic," and I agree with that wholeheartedly. So where are now that the US Congress, with Obama's urging, has just stepped closer to completely removing your right to dissent? 

Kurt Nimmo explains: On March 18, Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, tacked an amendment on H.R. 1388, entitled “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” or GIVE (to government), Obama’s plan to require mandatory service for all able young people. Miller’s amendment will “prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing,” according to GovTrack.us, a site that tracks Congress. Full Post... 

Your precious Obama Change? Here's your "change," folks: Anti-union, anti-free speech, the crushing of civil rights, all accomplished within Obama's first 100 days. In eight years, Bush never managed such a feat, despite all of the lunatic, unfounded fears of the Left. Obama is goose stepping us into a socialist tyranny. 

You still think that's paranoia? In the video here, Obama says "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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." 

Ho-lee-shyt. More from Nimmo: In other words, Obama’s “volunteer corps” act, passed by the House with a 321-105 margin and requiring the government to develop a plan for indentured servitude, would deny millions of people their right to oppose and organize against government legistation under the First Amendment. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air notes today that this is not a uniquely Democrat initiative: Again, in fairness, this is neither new nor particular to Democrats. Misguided politicians from both parties have argued for some sort of national service that would encompass a military draft and options for civilian service as substitutes for it. Most of these came shortly after the end of the draft in the early 1970s. Lately, though, the idea seems to come more from Democrats, who used to oppose the notion of compulsory service on grounds of individual liberty. Barack Obama talked about a “civilian national security force” during the campaign, but retreated when he received criticism for it. Variations of this idea have floated around for months, including the creation of an infrastructure labor force that would displace businesses in public-works projects and so on. Full Post... 

Fair enough, but Morrissey reminds us of the danger: Republicans have an opportunity to stand for individual liberty and the limitation of government control over the lives of young people across the nation by opposing GIVE’s new study and all talk of compulsory service. Ask college-age students how they feel about taking two years out of their post-educational lives to dig ditches and build bridges not because they want to do it, but because it will become illegal to refuse. I suspect they will start Google-mapping the best routes to Canada — or stop voting for the people proposing to enslave them. 

Back to Nimmo: GIVE ...will conscript millions of young people, put them in uniforms and send them packing to 4-year “public service” academies where they will be indoctrinated and trained to become “public sector leaders.” 

Michelle Malkin's column today points out the creepiness of the GIVE act (emphasis added): Especially troublesome to parents’ groups concerned about compulsory volunteerism requirements is a provision in the House version, directing Congress to explore “whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.” Those who have watched AmeriCorps from its inception are all-too-familiar with how government voluntarism programs have been used for propaganda and political purposes. AmeriCorps “volunteers” have been put to work lobbying against the voter-approved three-strikes anti-crime initiative in California and protesting Republican political events while working for the already heavily-tax-subsidized liberal advocacy group ACORN. Full column... 

If, after reading all of this, you're still not feeling creeped out and just bit paranoid, you can go back to sleep. But you might not like the nightmare you wake up to, comrade. 

Commenter Says HR 1388 "Not Nazi" (And Gets Wrecked)

The Left says "Fear No Art,"
but it scares the hell out of them

Yesterday, FreepGawker sent a great comment. He’s the guy who does the blog “Rosanna Pulido is a Freeper.”

Today, Jonathan writes an e-mail that starts out nicely, but quickly goes off the deep end. Like his friend FreepGawker, Jonathan disagrees with me but does not resort to pointless name-calling or obscenity. Unlike FreepGawker, however, Jonathan veers off course.

Jonathan refers to HR 1388, which has made civil libertarians very concerned.

To quote from the Stop HR 1388 Facebook group:

“Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 ‘volunteers,’ is the beginning of what President Obama called his ‘National Civilian Security Force’ in a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. 

He has declined since then to elaborate... The legislation also refers to ‘uniforms’ that would be worn by the ‘volunteers’ and the ‘need’ for a ‘public service academy, a 4-year institution’ to ‘focus on training’ future ‘public sector leaders.’ The training, apparently, would occur at ‘campuses.’ This is basically a big version of Hilter's Youth.” 

Jonathan Greenberg is offended by the allusions to the Hitler Youth. His full comment is below. (My response follows.)

I really think your arguments against HR1388 would be strengthened if you toned down the totalitarian/fascist/nazi imagery. 

I can see how aspects of the bills can raise your heckles, but I think it's a far cry from deporting minorities to ghettos to be subsequently processed in extermination camps. 

Given the vast gulf between this bill, well, the Holocaust, photoshops of Hitler Youth posters blended with Obama's face are simply offensive. 

You praise FreepGawker for his civil approach to politics (and I helped him with that project), and maintain a commit to a similar approach, acknowledging room for humor as long as its not hateful humor. I'm pretty sure comparing your political opponent to one of the greatest mass murderers in the 20th century (only behind Mao and Stalin) crosses that line. 

As a Jew whose grandparents came from Poland the Ukraine, I doubt I have to further elaborate on why "tongue in cheek" allusions to Nazism are rather hurtful. I find your repeated attempts to conflate Obama's positions with totalitarianism especially amusing since, asides from your misuse of the word (I studied fascism and other totalitarian modes of government in college), I would be very surprised if you vocally opposed during the Bush years his warrantless wiretapping, war of aggression, suspension of habeus corpus, and torture (you know, the things totalitarian governments actually do). 

But by all means, keeping displaying your tasteful Hitler photoshops and comparing Americorp to Nazi brutality (my girlfriend works for Americorp; she teaches legal immigrants English. The horror). Yours, Jonathan

PS: Please do not get the intentions of this e-mail wrong. Yours is one of the few conservative blogs I consider worth reading, and I only took the time to send you this because I thought it was constructive and more importantly you strike me as someone open to reason.

My Response To Jonathan:

Thank you for your comment. Again, as with FreepGawker, I appreciate a good and civil volley of words. It will not surprise you that I disagree with a number of the points you made.

You started out by saying that you think my “arguments against HR1388 would be strengthened” if I “toned down the totalitarian/fascist/nazi imagery.” Perhaps, but that cannot be proven either way. The bill HR 1388, however, smacks of totalitarianism and state absolutism.

As noted in my post "The New Hitler Youth? Stop HR 1388!," the House of Representatives adopted a last-minute amendment that would actually bar participants in the programs from attempting to influence legislation or taking part in various other political activities, including protests or voter-registration drives. Is that not totalitarian?

As for the fascist/nazi imagery, keep reading. Your first sentence was on target. However, the rest of your first paragraph veers off course. There, you said that you “can see how aspects of the bills can raise your heckles, but I think it's a far cry from deporting minorities to ghettos to be subsequently processed in extermination camps. Given the vast gulf between this bill, well, the Holocaust, photoshops of Hitler Youth posters blended with Obama's face are simply offensive.”

Really? I mean, really? I must ask you if you ever wrote a similar comment to any of the thousands of liberal bloggers who, over the past nine years, have gleefully portrayed George W. Bush as Hitlerian in art and words.

It's okay for the Left to label as "Nazi"
anyone who disagrees with them

Bush-as-Hitler was completely inaccurate, whereas the similarities of Obama’s proposed youth corps to Hitler’s youth corps are frighteningly real. Why is it, sir, that liberals love to portray others as fascists and Nazis even when it is inaccurate to do so, but they get the heebie-jeebies when it’s done to them?

Liberals love to chant the mantra “Fear No Art,” so why is it that they fear so much art? (See "The Left's Shameful Slurring of Monkey Cartoonist.")

You continued, Jonathan, by saying that comparing one’s political opponent “to one of the greatest mass murderers in the 20th century (only behind Mao and Stalin) crosses that line. As a Jew whose grandparents came from Poland the Ukraine, I doubt I have to further elaborate on why "tongue in cheek" allusions to Nazism are rather hurtful.”

Again, sir, I remind you of the Left’s incessant comparison of Bush to Hitler. But you’ve missed something here. You are not seeing the nuances. Yes, the poster in question alludes to Hitler, but it stops short of saying that Obama is another Hitler. The poster makes the point that the Obama youth corps is (possibly) a new, happy face version of the Hitler Youth.

Compare that to the tens of thousand of portrayals of Bush as Hitler, with no nuancing, that clearly paint Bush as a genocidal maniac. We are not portraying Obama as a genocider; what we are saying is that Obama (and some [but not all] Democrat leaders), are embracing policies and programs that totalitarian in nature. "Totalitarian," as I've already said, does not require genocide or mass murder to simply be totalitarianism.

Your imagination gets the better of you when you say the poster compares Obama to “one of the greatest mass murderers in the 20th century.” The poster is quite specific in its allusion to the Hitler Youth. It refers the program, the policy, the bill. It does not say that Obama is Hitler. Unlike many Bush-Hitler liberal “art,” the poster in question does not suggest that Obama is a murderer.

You’re a Jew, Mr. Greenberg? So was my father and his entire side of my family. My grandparents, too, came from Ukraine to escape the Czar’s persecutions. Many of my relatives, left behind, were subsequently destroyed by Hitler’s machinations. Please do not lecture me on why allusions to Nazism are “rather hateful.” They certainly can be, as in the Bush-Hitler examples. But they can also be instructive.

After all, Mr. Greenberg, I’m guessing that you would agree that we should “never forget.” Do you take that to heart? Do we not have a duty to point out a program, proposed by a sitting president, that has frightening similarities to a program favored by Hitler? You call the poster’s allusions to national socialism (Nazism) "tongue in cheek."

You’re wrong. They’re intended seriously. You seem unaware of the fact that totalitarianism does not require genocide or mass murder to simply be totalitarianism. You say you doubt that you have to further elaborate on why allusions to Nazism are rather hurtful. No, you really don’t.

When I was in college, I and others formed a group that stopped the student government from giving thousands of dollars to the legal defense fund of subsequently convicted bomber/murderer. That money would have been illegally taken from student health funds.

We were successful, but in the two-week-long struggle, liberals spat on us and called “Nazis” and “fascists” verbally and in the liberal student newspaper. Has that happened to you, Jonathan?

Were we "Nazis" because we tried to prevent theft? Were we "fascists" because we stopped the illegal plundering of student health money?

Hurtful? I can tell you personally, Jonathan, that it is. When you "studied fascism," were you only reading the textbooks that your Marxist professor assigned to you, or did you face down real fascists disguised as liberals, as I did?

It's not fascism when they do it

You say that you find my “repeated attempts to conflate Obama's positions with totalitarianism especially amusing since, asides [sic] from your misuse of the word.”

“Nazi,” by the way, is capitalized because it’s a proper name, such as Republican or Democrat. You must have noticed that while studying fascism, no? You say you studied fascism and other totalitarian modes of government in college, yet you seem incapable of recognizing it when you see it.

You’re wrong, too, in assuming that I have not “vocally” opposed “warrantless wiretapping, war of aggression, suspension of habeus [sic] corpus, and torture (you know, the things totalitarian governments actually do).”

I have always been against illegal wiretapping. I am against “war of aggression” but support a war of self defense. I kind of like habeas corpus and have never spoken against it, although I think President Lincoln was correct to suspend it given the circumstances of the time.

Torture is nasty business, yes, but have you been speaking out against Chinese torture of prisoners or against the brutal torture of millions of young Muslim girls who face genital mutilation? Have you? You make some very large assumptions, Jonathan.

Your comment goes off the road in your last paragraph: “But by all means, keeping displaying your [dis]tasteful Hitler photoshops and comparing Americorp to Nazi brutality (my girlfriend works for Americorp; she teaches legal immigrants English. The horror).” 

Nobody has compared Americorp to Nazi brutality. (Where did that come from?) Those of us who are worried about the National Civilian Security Force is concerned about political indoctrination, state absolutism, and the bad things that could result from those. Nobody has suggested that the National Civilian Security Force would make use of brutality, although only a fool would not see the potential for such abuse.

Which part of “Security Force” makes you feel comfortable? Perhaps you think the “security force” will only teach English to legal immigrants. Maybe you think that such a “security force” would mow people’s lawns and plant petunias for peace between ESL classes.

 As a Jew who wants to understand the state-sponsored brutality in his family’s history, especially as one who has studied fascism, you should be more aware of the current and very real trends toward totalitarianism.

From Tim Geithner's request to be able to seize non-bank entities in pre-emptive fascist fashion, to Nancy Pelosi's desire to muzzle radio talk show hosts, to Obama's desire for a vast civilian "security force," the sound of jackboots marching toward us grows loudly by the week.

FINAL NOTE / UPDATE, 2020: Jonathan never responded.