Government Readies Youth Corps To Take On Vets
-
I guess I thought too much of you.
You guys are unbelievable.
-
I think Michael Savage has a great program and don't think him loony at all.
-
If you were born in a communist nation where you were not allowed to speak or write any wrong doings by your government or teachers in fear of being imprisoned. And then came to America and were allowed to be creative and be able to learn, live, and work of your choosing and have the ability to earn for your family as much as you can. Then you would understand why our freedom is worth protecting. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is worth fighting for.
Under the Clintons came political correctness, now under Obama we have an attempt at political silencing.
Basically what it comes down to is freedom, most are familiar with the song “Freedom is never Free”.
And some old enough will remember Ronald Reagan stating this:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free”.Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)We must always protect our rights and keep a watchful eye over our leaders, for those who would mislead society from all that is good here in America and would try to usher in a new change away from what this country is about.
-
The article does -seem- to be over the top...
BUT
Obama DID SAY that he wanted a CIVILIAN DEFENSE CORPS
and Dan, Heck and Al here will not comment on it,
except to put lipstick on a pig....
Do you three believe that Obama SAID he wanted one?
He called it a CIVILIAN *****DEFENSE***** CORPS.
Not a new national veterans human resources org.
Can you explain WHY he wants one?
T brought up a legit topic, only because
Obama actually SAID IT.
And Savage irratates me with repeating the same phrases over and over
and over and over again, right in a row.
But he does say some truth, he just gets carried away most of the time.
Al, the libs' mod, should at least try to answer the
question. Why do you guys ignore Obama's CIVILIAN DEFENSE CORPS,
When all we heard about the Patriot Act was a devasting losss of
your freedoms and privacy, and the paranoid fear that your doors were going
to be kicked in and your phone conversations recorded ?
Now that Obama is pres, that doesn't matter anymore, eh?
Oh, but T is partisan?
I suggest you really talk to the issue, or ignore the thread.
But ignoring the serious "civilian defense corps" and personally attacking
anyone who posts what you don't like, makes you the personal attackers.
-
I think Michael Savage has a great program and don't think him loony at all.
Thank you to saying that, ballpeen. It does put your Jews-in-the-20's reference into perspective. You people are too much with you Nazi references. You give less thought to the families of the 6 mil Jews who died at Nazi hands than you do to a fertilized egg. And our morality and priorities are out there...
How about if we just said, instead, it was like the Union army stomping your Confederate asses.
-
The article does -seem- to be over the top...
BUT
Obama DID SAY that he wanted a CIVILIAN DEFENSE CORPS
and Dan, Heck and Al here will not comment on it,
except to put lipstick on a pig....
Do you three believe that Obama SAID he wanted one?
He called it a CIVILIAN *****DEFENSE***** CORPS.
Not a new national veterans human resources org.
Can you explain WHY he wants one?
T brought up a legit topic, only because
Obama actually SAID IT.
And Savage irratates me with repeating the same phrases over and over
and over and over again, right in a row.
But he does say some truth, he just gets carried away most of the time.
Al, the libs' mod, should at least try to answer the
question. Why do you guys ignore Obama's CIVILIAN DEFENSE CORPS,
When all we heard about the Patriot Act was a devasting losss of
your freedoms and privacy, and the paranoid fear that your doors were going
to be kicked in and your phone conversations recorded ?
Now that Obama is pres, that doesn't matter anymore, eh?
Oh, but T is partisan?
I suggest you really talk to the issue, or ignore the thread.
But ignoring the serious "civilian defense corps" and personally attacking
anyone who posts what you don't like, makes you the personal attackers.
Al, the libs' mod, should at least try to answer the
question. Why do you guys ignore Obama's CIVILIAN DEFENSE CORPS,
When all we heard about the Patriot Act was a devasting losss of
your freedoms and privacy, and the paranoid fear that your doors were going
to be kicked in and your phone conversations recorded ?
Why do you keep mentioning me in your posts? It's like when Rich started stalking RifferX at the other board; it's silly, somewhat annoying, and a little bit creepy.
FYI, Legacy does the bulk of the mod work here. Both he & Chic John are free to take whatever action they deem necessary. When I want to do something, I make sure to ask Leg first.
The idea to limit posters to a thread a day came from me, but it was something both of us agreed would be a good idea. People were already complaining about being inundated with threads, and we thought it'd be a good idea to try something during the almost football-free period between the draft and training camp, when more people tend to visit this board.
And I think it's working well. Yesterday, I looked at an older page of this board and saw eight threads with no responses, but the first page only had two goose egg threads. There were several threads with more than fifty responses and one with well over a hundred.
You seem to be the only one complaining. You're also involved in most of the personal flame wars and just today criticized another poster for starting a thread you didn't like. It seems like you're more interested in discussing the politics of this board than actual politics. Legacy and Inspecta have already pointed this out to you, but you're free to keep believing that a liberal cabal is oppressing you. Just try to not let it take over every one of your posts.
As to the civilian security thingy, Heck answered your question two months ago. I recommend you check that out.
-
His answer was incomplete - it said nothing about "civilian NATIONAL SECURITY corps".
National Security, I was erroneously saying defense corps.
Heck grabbed at one part of the weed, but ignored the rest.
I mentioned you, because you Thanked Dan on his angry, bitterly critical post
objecting to T to dare express his opinion since it didn't conform to you and Dan's
protecting the Teflon God of Liberals.
Here is what I expect the answer should have been:
Obama SAID National Security, not Peace Corps, not Americorps, not a veterans helping corps.
Obama, imo, is setting up our society to be 100% dependent upon him for societies survival.
Hence, he is "buying votes and power" with tax dollars.
The real answer is not Heck's flippant and narrow perspective retort in defense of Obama,
and the real answer is not the Brown shirts front and center.
But, Acorn has intimidated people who speak out, Leftist Prosecutors in Minn. did the same.
Obama has done the same.
Acorn is now under investigation in more than 10 states.
Obama's org.
So, the jump to brown shirts may be overstated, but the idea has significant historical perspective
when a radical speaks of a civilian national defense corps, as powerful as our own military and as well funded.
Well, HERE is the correct and objective answer to my question that I never received from Heck, or Dan, or Al:
**********************************************************************
July 20, 2008
Obama's Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary
window.google_render_ad();Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to havea civilian national security forcethat's just as powerful, just as strong,just as well-funded." (emphasis added)The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.
The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.
Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,
"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.
Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.
In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.
Note: the author has experience in community organizing. For example, he organized one of the earliest Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, in continuous service for over 30 years. He trained over a hundred Illinois non-profit organizations to resettle Vietnamese Refugees. He assembled three dozen congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, in continuous operation for 25 years. He was an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state's Commission on Human Rights was being drafted. -
FYI, Legacy does the bulk of the mod work here. Both he & Chic John are free to take whatever action they deem necessary. When I want to do something, I make sure to ask Leg first.
**********************************************
Good idea. Leg is fine, and so is John. Never had any complaint about them.
**********************************************
The idea to limit posters to a thread a day came from me, but it was something both of us agreed would be a good idea. People were already complaining about being inundated with threads, and we thought it'd be a good idea to try something during the almost football-free period between the draft and training camp, when more people tend to visit this board.
***********************************************
I don't care about where the idea came from. I'm not complaining about the restriction
to one thread a day. It is fine, unless you let libs violate the rule, but not anybody else.
***********************************************
And I think it's working well. Yesterday, I looked at an older page of this board and saw eight threads with no responses, but the first page only had two goose egg threads. There were several threads with more than fifty responses and one with well over a hundred.
***********************************************
It's childish to count responses. Libs won't discuss what they don't like, and that's criticism of the
Obama admin.
In fact, it seems to be a collective decision. And, if a new thread they don't like IS discussed,
like with BallPeen, all of a sudden libs go berserk, and get hateful and resent T and Peen just
for expressing their opinion.
Gosh, Al. See the problem? Ask Leg or John.
************************************************
You seem to be the only one complaining. You're also involved in most of the personal flame wars and just today criticized another poster for starting a thread you didn't like.
************************************************
Yes, because I am also the one catching hell, along with T or Steve or anybody else.
Even JOHN caught a little hell for a conservative opinion a long while ago.
That's not true. I criticized him for smarting off to me and then posting reading material to your thread
for reading material.
Should I say it again? or what? Get it now? It isn't that I didn't like it, but I didn't see why
you didn't man up and tell him to post reading material in your reading material thread.
OH, let me guess, the liberal's mod - that was okay because it was him. But, if it was
me or T or Steve or now, 'Peen, you'd have a hissy fit.
Do...you...see...what....the....problem....is....here? You play favorites. No wonder a few libs wanted
you to be a mod.
*********************************
It seems like you're more interested in discussing the politics of this board than actual politics.
**********************************
Wait. T started a thead about politics. And T and Peen were attacked because they posted it.
Seems to me you're the libs mod and you take that to heart. As in, biased.
***********************************
Just try to not let it take over every one of your posts.
***********************************
Yes, your highness.
************************************
As to the civilian security thingy, Heck answered your question two months ago. I recommend you check that out.
*************************************
I recommend you read what the real answer I was wanting. I posted it.
Then try to learn to be fair in your criticism. You are throwing your weight around
only vs conservatives or anyone who won't agree with you.
I recommend you be a little quiet and think about that.
-
You misinpret, Dan, and it isn't all your fault.
I meant only that I know the answer is not a simple liberal defense of Obama,
that Obama spoke of more things about the civilian national security corps than
just Americorps.
But it is very, very troubling that Obama also said, he wanted the civilian national defense corps
to be as powerful and well funded as our military. Doesn't that send up at least a tiny, eesy weensie
little itsy bitsy red flag? AT ALL ?
THAT is sure the heyl not "helping returning veterans get proper health care".
So, Dan, what IS YOUR take on the national security force?
-
How about if we just said, instead, it was like the Union army stomping your Confederate asses.
Is that the best name calling you have??? Geesh....you will never make it as a liberal.....oh....I was born in Ohio so I guess I am as northern as you my friend. Maybe more since you are a Californian.
You guys are fun to talk with even if not very engaging.
"We stomped you man"
LOL
-
How about if we just said, instead, it was like the Union army stomping your Confederate asses.
Is that the best name calling you have??? Geesh....you will never make it as a liberal.....oh....I was born in Ohio so I guess I am as northern as you my friend. Maybe more since you are a Californian.
You guys are fun to talk with even if not very engaging.
"We stomped you man"
LOL
Is that the best name calling you have??? Geesh....you will never make it as a liberal.....
Ba dum CHING! Should I not forget to tip my waitress, 'peen?
Show me where I "called you a name"...
Thank you to saying that, ballpeen. It does put your Jews-in-the-20's reference into perspective. You people are too much with you Nazi references. You give less thought to the families of the 6 mil Jews who died at Nazi hands than you do to a fertilized egg. And our morality and priorities are out there...
How about if we just said, instead, it was like the Union army stomping your Confederate asses.
oh....I was born in Ohio so I guess I am as northern as you my friend.
So was I. Doesn't mean you're not a hick at heart (oops, a name was called).
Maybe more since you are a Californian.
I love how living in California is some sort of pejorative...
-
Is that the best name calling you have??? Geesh....you will never make it as a liberal.....
Ba dum CHING! Should I not forget to tip my waitress, 'peen?
Show me where I "called you a name"...
Thank you to saying that, ballpeen. It does put your Jews-in-the-20's reference into perspective. You people are too much with you Nazi references. You give less thought to the families of the 6 mil Jews who died at Nazi hands than you do to a fertilized egg. And our morality and priorities are out there...
How about if we just said, instead, it was like the Union army stomping your Confederate asses.
oh....I was born in Ohio so I guess I am as northern as you my friend.
So was I. Doesn't mean you're not a hick at heart (oops, a name was called).
Maybe more since you are a Californian.
I love how living in California is some sort of pejorative...
mz. said:
I love how living in California is some sort of pejorative...No more than living in Tennessee or Alabama.
My advice to you is get over it.
-
mz. said:
I love how living in California is some sort of pejorative...No more than living in Tennessee or Alabama.
My advice to you is get over it.
-
Ballpeen, I want to give you one last try on this. Legacy was similarly concerned about this quote, so I posted the whole speech and showed how its meaning was completely taken out of context (by loons) and that what he's talking about is really nothing new, and certainly nothing resembling the Hitler youth or Nazi brownshirts, and just how deranged you'd have to be to think such a thing. And Leg, much to his credit, said, "Oh, okay. That's not what he meant. I feel better." He actually changed his mind when presented with new information. If only some people in here could learn that same lesson. Maybe Leg could teach a class.
Take a look at the speech again, and tell me what you think is scary about ...volunteering:
"Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.
And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.
So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only 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.
We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up."
-
Expand AmeriCorps from 75000 to 250000 annual slots;; Establish a Summer of ... turns to tattle-tale squads, forced service abroad
http://www.blog.rockthevote.com/2009/03/ta...e-give-act.html
Take it for what its worth, dont spit while facing the wind either.
can anyone answer what Forced Volunteerism is? left is right? right is left? up is down? down is up?
-
So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people.
************************************************
Yeah, get at those young people. Get em on board the Dem free ticket to utopia train.
But seriously, who is going to PAY for all this eloquent universal domination of the gov.?
-
So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people.
************************************************
Yeah, get at those young people. Get em on board the Dem free ticket to utopia train.
But seriously, who is going to PAY for all this eloquent universal domination of the gov.?
So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people.
************************************************
Yeah, get at those young people. Get em on board the Dem free ticket to utopia train.
So college grads mentoring, presumably, at-riskish kids is now a bad thing.
How dare we!
-
ballpeen, does this speech scare you? Does the idea of expanding AmericaCorps scare you? Could anyone with half a brain read that speech and come away thinking he's proposing something that could morph into Obama's version of the Hitler youth? Would anyone worth their salt take the effort to move their hands and type something so stupid?
Doesn't it make you feel better knowing that you were frightened by lunatics about nothing? What a load this must be off your shoulders - he's only talking about getting young people to help with the elderly, and with disaster relief, or homeless people, in health care, etc.
Amazing what not getting your information from cranks can do.
-
So, a civilain national security corps is going to
help young people with mentoring, and help old people?
But the corps is going to be as powerful and well equipped,
as funded and /// armed? as our MILITARY?
I'd like to hear this one explained more time. I don't get it.
-
You're right. You don't.
He never said they'd be armed, or as well-equipped as the military. You're just making that part up. You should stop doing that.
He's talking about the foreign service, and the Peace Corps, and the dozens of other organizations that assist the government/military in achieving our national security goals. He's talking about a renewed emphasis on soft power.
It's really not that hard to understand if you can read.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login