UPDATE 4/30/2013: I don't think Obama was only thinking about AmeriCorps: GAO Now Investigating DHS Ammo Purchases - Washington Whispers (usnews.com).
UPDATE: "MEA CULPA IS RIGHT." [If you haven't already, please read the rest of this post first though. Thank you. This UPDATE contains additional important links.]
UPDATE 11/27/2008, 5:50 PM Pacific Time: A commentator has reminded us that the Obama quote in question was apparently deleted around the Internet shortly after he made the remark and that Obama and his campaign didn't answer questions about the particular words and especially specifically about the idea for a "civilian national-security force."
Okay, let's see. I checked my MyBlogLog profile earlier today, and a person who had "friended" me there had a post link showing. MyBlogLog will show you what all of your "friends" are up to. This person happens to be a "conservative" person. Well, I have "left-wing radical" "friends" as well. I do that so I can interact with all sorts of people. I decided to click the link, because of the title, "Republican Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship." You see, I'm very much opposed to Barack Obama's war plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm very much opposed to his plan to increase military spending and the number of troops. When I read the title of the post and then the post itself, it seemed consistent with his general militarism.
So I wrote the following:
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. — Barack Obama July, 2008
This is awfully dumb for someone people refer to as brilliant. This isn't brilliant. It's the dark side.
The military is way over funded regardless of anyone's view concerning national security. To my way of thinking of course, there should be no military. Regardless though, the only reason it is as big as it is, is for the sake of the corporations (fascism, not socialism) that make their earnings off the dole.
We are in a recession/depression. We have people who are sleeping in their cars, on park benches, and in tents on government property (when they aren't all harassed to leave to go somewhere else where they'll be hassled). Many of these people have now hungry children who lived all their lives under a roof with heat in the winter and cooling in the summer, with hot water, a full kitchen, and all the rest that the middle class came to expect and was falsely promised by the greedy ones who stole them blind.
Anyway, the last thing the U.S. needs is some police-state force that rivals the U.S. military in firepower, etc.
Frankly, this statement by Obama is utterly abhorrent. It is anathema to the Christian faith he claims to profess but really doesn't hold.
We need to move in exactly the opposite direction. We need to demilitarize.
Obama is appealing to humanity's worst and mixed-up emotions. Don't go along with him on this horrible idea.
Then, QuakerDave () submitted the following comment:
Read the ENTIRE quote in context.
He's talking about organizations like the peace Corps and AmeriCorps. Organizations that spread around the good things about America without using guns and cluster bombs and such.
I know you folks hate the man, but at least try to be somewhat accurate when you rant about what he says, okay?
That sent me instantly out Googling the quote. The first site that came up was "On Grant's radio show, Coulter suggests Obama's "civilian national security force" will lead to "a lot more Waco raids" on Media Matters.
What lesson must I take from this? I'm certainly not changing over to supporting Obama's militarism, but I will redouble my efforts to vet any information that comes from a "conservative" site.
Thank you, QuakerDave (Quaker Dave), for pointing this out. Let me say that while you are right to point out that I jumped to conclusions, you've made the same mistake. You said, "you folks hate the man." What that means is that you lumped me together with people who don't share my views. I'm surprised that my obvious anti-militarism didn't tip you off on that. Secondly, I don't hate Barack Obama. I hate his militarism and neocon leanings. I hate that he's leaning toward the very people with whom you've lumped me. I don't hold with Ann Coulter for instance.
Look, I'm not going to excuse myself for not being more suspicious of the "conservative's" blog post, but I will say that I would never make this type of mistake concerning a Dennis Kucinich. If someone presented me with the same quote telling me that Dennis had said that and never having seen or heard the quote before, it wouldn't even cross my mind that it could stand alone. I would have to no more about the context. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced after reading the context that Obama is thereby made trustworthy in all of his intentions. I don't mean about AmeriCorps. I mean about the direction of the nation and the world. This AmeriCorps mix-up doesn't at all negate his warmongering talk. Nothing's off the table concerning Iran, for instance. I know he said that, and I know the full context. He means he's not going to say that he won't nuke Iran. He didn't repudiate Hillary Clinton when she said she'd wipe out Iran if Iran attacked Israel. Isn't that right? Iran isn't going to first-strike Israel. The Iranians aren't suicidal. Israel has a nuclear arsenal. Iran knows that. Israel has submarines capable of launching long-range missiles with nuclear warheads. Iran knows that. Clinton and Obama both did the nation and the world and even Israel no favor talking that way. Don't you agree?
It's beyond my bedtime, so I know I'm not doing very well explaining my thoughts.
Anyway, I'm sorry I was lured into the trap and did some falling down. I'm getting back up stronger though. Whenever I've given "conservatives" the benefit of the doubt, I've been burned. It has just been a long time since it hit me this directly. Being a spiritual person, I can only conclude that God is slapping me in some sense — a good sense — as in further awake (although I'm going to hit the hay just as soon as I post this correction).
I apologize to Barack Obama for not checking the conservative's statement. Please forgive me. Thank you.
God bless everyone,
[tags]abhorrent, anathema, Barack Obama, children, Christian faith, civilian national-security force, corporations, culture, current affairs, current events, dark side, demilitarize, democracy, dole, emotions, faith, firepower, government property, greedy, harassed, hassled, hungry, liberal, middle class, military, national security, news, over funded, park benches, philosophy, police state, police-state force, politics, recession/depression, society, technology, tents, Tom Usher, U.S. military, fascism, socialism[/tags]
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)