Obama Citizenship

The President?s Further Consolidation of Political Power

By Phil

We have had two reports of private citizens being visited by law enforcement personnel for making allegations against the President. We have also known that Mr. Obama has decided to move authority over the Census from Commerce to the White House (in fact, this was stated by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) as a primary reason for not accepting the top position at Commerce).

Over the past week, there are now further reports of political consolidation on behalf of this President; to wit…

• H R 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act

According to WorldNetDaily:

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.”

The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the DomesticVolunteer Service Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.

It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes “new programs and studies” and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

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” [my link, including commentary on "change.gov"] in a 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 new bill specifically references the possibilities “if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.”

Such new requirements perhaps, the legislation notes, “would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

No one, apparently with the exception of infants, would be excluded:

“The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives.”

Other folks across the blogosphere are similarly taking notice:

The plan generated this concern from Resistnet.com: “This is the equivalent of brown shirts.”

Another portion of the bill talks about a “service learning” plan that will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

A forum participant noted, “I wonder what’s going to happen to those who refused to ‘volunteer.’ Maybe they will be put into a different ‘campus.’ I guess we will soon find out.” …

On the Albany Insanity blog, this concern was raised: “What gives the government the right to require individuals to give three years service under the guise of ‘volunteer’ service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the bill passed and then iron out the details. It talks about uniforms and ‘camps.’ They revise the word ‘camps’ and call it ‘campus.’ There is language about Seniors and Community organizations.”

The blog noted, such work forces would be used for “pressing national and local challenges” that apparently could range from weather disasters to economic uncertainty.

At a Republican website, officials noted it authorizes funding for an Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans’ Corps and Opportunity Corps.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. It was approved in the House 321-105, with mostly GOP opposition. It now goes to the Senate. …

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposed youth corps, officials softened the website’s wording.

Originally, under the tab “America Serves,” Change.gov read, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served 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,” the site announced. …

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

“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?” Farah wrote. “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?

“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?” Farah wrote.

Further, according to The Whipping Post, only one hour of debate is allowed on this bill (seems to be the way that this Democratic majority in DC operates these days).

• “Organizing for America”

According to the American Thinker site:

Certainly, thousands of organizations seek to influence the political debate. There’s Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions or the left-wing People for the American Way, for instance.

Political parties are another example of an association, of course. Before, during and after political campaigns, the Democrats and Republicans promote their agendas. As legal entities, they have their own constitutions, their rules of business, their chairmen and officers. They have to be accountable to both the government and their members.

But there is a new organization on the political scene — “Organizing for America,” announced by President Barack Obama in late January but officially unfurled last weekend.

Obama describes OFA as a “grass-roots movement” but OFA is a “project” of the Democratic Natrional Committee.

As Politico reported, OFA will take the 10 million person database built up by the Obama campaign “to mobilize support for the president’s legislative agenda.”

A visit to the OFA website reveals that supporters are not simply asked to sign up, they are asked to take a pledge. A pledge to support — not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic Party, but Obama and his “bold plan.” OFA does not use the Democratic Party logo but the “O”-shaped logo of the Obama campaign in which the red white and blue of the flag are abstracted to soft pastel colors. …

You will not find any mention of OFA`s governing structure, their budget, their bylaws, or their officers at the OFA website. Donations to the website go to the DNC, but OFA is managed out of the White House. If you click on the comments button, you are taken to a link to the White House email.

Those who take the pledge are asked to “talk with people about the President’s plan” and to “ask them to sign their names to the pledge” in support of Obama’s policies.

So we have a Movement — this is their term, not mine — organized by, and loyal to, a sitting President. Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.

Does anyone know of any historical precedents for this in the United States?

Did Mitch Stewart, youthful director of OFA, who asks Obama’s acolytes to organize “neighborhood by neighborhood“  study anything at school about Mao’s “Red Guards?

How about Fidel Castro’s “widespread system of neighborhood informers“?

Or Hugo Chavez’s use of “neighborhood committees“?

Did Stewart learn anything about democracy at all?

Do any of Obama’s pledged servants understand why a sitting president has no business creating and deploying his own supporters to help organize their neighbors? 

Keep in mind that these acolytes have renounced any thought of questioning the actual policies of the maximum leader. Whatever he says, they are for it. They have given their word.

And they are coming to have a talk with you.

As Thomas Lifson wrote, “This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate.”

• Cybersecurity could get shifted to the White House

This one, from CNet:

Forthcoming legislation would wrest cybersecurity responsibilities from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and transfer them to the White House, a proposed move that likely will draw objections from industry groups and some conservatives.

CNET News has obtained a summary of a proposal from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would create an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, part of the Executive Office of the President. That office would receive the power to disconnect, if it believes they’re at risk of a cyberattack, “critical” computer networks from the Internet. …

Giving the White House cybersecurity responsibility was one of the top recommendations of a commission that produced a report last year to advise President Obama on cybersecurity issues. However, the Homeland Security Department, which currently has jurisdiction over cybersecurity, hasinsisted the reshuffling of duties is not needed.

“The Obama administration has an adviser on energy and climate change, and that’s good and important,” Lewis said, “but we’re still in the mode that cyber is less important.”

While the bill is still in draft form and thereby subject to change, it would put the White House National Cybersecurity Advisor in charge of coordinating cyber efforts within the intelligence community and within civilian agencies, as well as coordinating the public sector’s cooperation with the private sector. The adviser would have the authority to disconnect from the Internet any federal infrastructure networks–or other networks deemed to be “critical”–if found to be at risk of a cyberattack.

The private sector will certainly speak out if this provision is included in the final draft of the bill, a representative of the technology industry who spoke on condition of anonymity said.

“You can be assured that if that idea is put into legislation we would certainly have views on it,” he said. “It’s not trivial.”

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on March 21, 2009 (boomark / email).