Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" It's time we wake up, and start listening to what Barack Obama is really saying (provided his words actually mean anything). Even those people who consider themselves liberals or Democrats should be worried about this man. On Wednesday, July 2nd, Obama gave a speech in Colorado Springs that emphasized "national service" for all Americans. That, in itself, doesn't sound too shocking, since other presidents (e.g. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, and Bush) have suggested similar goals. Typically it's just empty rhetoric. And we've all probably heard this famous line from John F. Kennedy's inaugural address: Obama's message started with a similar tone: In his speech at the University of Colorado campus, Obama pledged that enhanced public service and active citizenship would be a central cause of his presidency. Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he also said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional soldiers. He promised to increase AmeriCorps slots from 75,000 to 250,000 and pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011. That sounds like a worthy goal. Who doesn't like the idea of an "all-volunteer" organization to help the poor and disadvantaged, right? Does Obama realize there's no constitutional authority for this? We all turn a deaf ear, because it's "for a good cause". But please, let me keep my own money -- I'm poor too. Is there no end to the government spending our taxes on other people? Here's where Obama starts getting really creepy though: What exactly is a "civilian national security force"? ...and why do we need one? What authority will this "civilian force" have? Are there national security issues that our police and national guard can't handle? What will we call them? ...maybe, the Green Police? Obama called for greater integration with schools, so that young Americans are better prepared to be active citizens. In America, are we not supposed to be FREE -- to volunteer -- or not volunteer? As a parent, this one strikes me as "way over the top". He's going to withhold federal funding from school districts unless each and every student gives fifty hours of service? ...starting from age 12 and up? Will this only be "state-approved" secular training? ...or do parents and students have a choice? It's harder to force college students into this mandatory service. So basically, he's saying the government will pay them $40 per hour to do it, right? To me, it even makes sense to give college students a reasonable tax break. We all know how expensive university life can be, for both students and parents. But trying to "force" 100 hours of government service into their lives seems like a very bad solution. As with the students in secondary schools, how will they monitor and enforce all of this? Who keeps tabs? Will a whole new government bureaucracy be created? Volunteering is a great ideal. If possible, we should all do it, every chance we get. Yet, it all comes down to choice and freedom. Choosing where, when, and how (or whether we even want to) is our God-given right. No government authority should ever be allowed to command children's responsibilities, or dictate our moral convictions to us. That's not a slippery slope -- it's a freakin' cliff. Since when did providing our children a "world-class education" include mandatory service to The State? Sounds like fascism -- not patriotism -- to me!! ********************************************************* Sources >> Chicago Tribune / AARP / Baltimore Sun Yet I'm curious -- why hasn't ALL of the mainstream media picked up on this? Why aren't these questions being asked everywhere? .