PART 1: CORRECTION / CLARIFICATION: WE MUST STAND UP AGAINST BARACK OBAMA'S PLANNED POLICE STATE NOW

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."

CORRECTION:

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:

Ummmm... yeah.
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?
Namaste.

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,

Tom Usher

[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]

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Ummmm... yeah.

      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?

      Namaste.

    • @QuakerDave -

      Hi Dave,

      Please read the corrected post above.

      Thanks.

      God bless all,

      Tom Usher

    • Mr. Usher,

      I have corrected the post on my blog and thank you for your keeping people honest. I myself am a conservative but foremost I am a christian and do not want me to be considered a liar. Please check my blog Real Politics for the correction and I hope you continue to be a frequent visitor.

    • UPDATE: "MEA CULPA IS RIGHT."

    • @P Alfonso -

      Hello P Alfonso,

      I'm sorry it took so long to get to your comment. I was writing my follow-up post the whole time and didn't read your linked posts until after I had posted my follow-up.

      The thing about it now is that I remember seeing reference to this story once back in July. I had forgotten about it. After reading your posts though, the part about the deletion came back to me too.

      Obviously, the deletion was made because the wording is extremely poor. They figured it would be easier to weather the storm of deletion rather than trying to explain exactly what he meant.

      As I mentioned in my own follow-up, we don't know how whatever he creates will be used. I don't hold with all the covert, violent ops going on around the world. I don't hold with Christian missionaries being recruited as CIA operatives, and they most certainly have been. Of course, that's not what worries the more Libertarian leaning Americans. They are more concerned about a domestic CIA developing over the dead body of the already questionable FBI.

      I will say though that many Libertarians do hate the international interventionism going on. That's one major place they part company with the neocons.

      My concern is with coercion and deception no matter who's doing it or where. I don't like it when America does it, and I don't like it when any other nation does it. All the lying in the world (so-called Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and all other religions and ideologies) needs to come to an end or the human race will be cut off. Fortunately, I believe in the promise that we will as a species overcome all the evil that is infesting the race.

      Anyway, I believe you are genuinely concerned, albeit knowingly to a point falling short of what Jesus is calling upon you to believe.

      I imagine you consider me a bleeding-heart, hopeless, clueless idealist. I will say that I am definitely a bleeding heart and it is all I can do to live in this hardhearted world. I am also definitely an idealist. What I am not is hopeless or clueless. I am under no illusions about evil on the right and left and below and above and all around, in fact. The only thing I'm certain I can count on is God. I want to join God more than anything else. I want others to join too.

      God bless you, and thank you for using your real name and even having a website that doesn't conceal your identity.

      Tom Usher

    • @QuakerDave - So Dave,

      To use your expression: "Ummmm... yeah," what's your take on why the Obama Campaign saw to it that the words in question:

      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

      ...we're taken out all over the place?

      Is this an error? Were the words not removed? If they were removed but were harmless, as you suggest, why were they removed? Does the removal give you pause about Obama's basic honesty and instincts he's developed? I know "instincts" and "developed" don't seem to fit together, but I'm one of those who doesn't believe in the people can't change idea. That applies to homosexuals, as I assume you're intelligent and knowledgeable enough to have gathered without my pointing that out. I've changed concerning all sorts of things, and I'm very glad I have even though I still have a long way to go.

      I believe that the thrust of this post and the comments so far other than yours is that the rest of us are not confident the way you seem to be that Barack Obama is nearly as benign as your position suggest you might trust that he is. I should think that the consensus might be that you are engaging too much in wishful thinking without much upon which to base that thinking yet. Of course, the power of prayer cannot be set aside.

      Also of course, I don't know what the others hold in terms of their views about Bush-43's domestic spying and the torture at the dark sites and all the rest of the terrible things that have transpired. I'm completely against them. Therefore, I believe I'm being consistent in applying the light toward both major political parties.

      Are you simply hoping for the lesser of evils, as you see evil? I don't want to settle for that even though I don't want to coerce anyone.

      Let us know what you think about all of this, will you.

      Thanks.

      Tom Usher

    • Follow-up:

      Well, I just made the mistake of reading all of the comments over at Media Matters. I was wondering whether anyone addressed the issue of the Obama-AmeriCorps quote having been deleted anywhere. As of right now, there are no comments touching on that. I was intending on leaving a comment, but the level of discourse, if one may call it that, is so immature that I was glad to get away from it as rapidly as possible. It reminded me a great deal of some of the most aggressive neocon forums I've read only perhaps even worse. It's like one-upmanship. Who can be the most obnoxious? If that's Barack Obama's base, no wonder I don't feel confident.

      I'm not saying that I disagree with every last point (I used the term advisedly) over there. It's just that so much of the comments are just prattle, and that's being generous. It was the Democrats have done nothing wrong since before any of the commentators were born and any problems that came up during Clinton's administration were really the doing of the Republicans. One comment actually blames George W. Bush for what happened at Waco and several blamed his father. Listen, those two did enough wrong for real without blaming them for things that Clinton's team was in charge of doing.

      I won't go on here much longer, but I will at least say something about the Waco disaster. The fact is that David Koresh and other leaders of that group would have come out of that compound for shopping or whatever had no one attempted to serve a warrant at the compound. The Feds could very easily have arrested him offsite by walking right up next to him at the store or by being parked next to his vehicle and catching him by surprise. Who doesn't know this?

      The whole thing with the bright lights and loud music and the rest was as dumb as dumb can get. It was straight out of the same play book that gave us Abu Ghraib actually. Understand here that I totally disagree with David Koresh's ideas. The guns were nuts. They had nothing to do with Christianity. As for all the other allegations against him, that's what they remain. As far as I'm aware, there wasn't any hard evidence against him concerning all the child molestation talk, etc.

      God bless all,

      Tom Usher

    • Works for me.

      Peace, friend.

    • Originally Posted By QuakerdaveWorks for me.

      Peace, friend.

      Glad to hear it from you, Dave.

      You're coming across here as one who tries to be a straight shooter (no violence intended, for those unfamiliar with the expression).

      Peace to you too my friend,

      Tom Usher

    • @Real Politics -

      Hello Real Politics,

      I believe you that you don't want to be a liar or to be considered as one.

      Peace, love, and truth,

      Tom Usher

    • I don't think this (what is feared by libertarians as suggested above in the post) is what is covered in the "GIVE Act" (aka, H.R.1388 of the 111th Congress).

      The The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps.

      AmeriCorps and "security" of the type suggested by "military" and "law-enforcement" is a stretch.

      However, since the words were pulled from publications after Obama said "security force" (to my knowledge, he's never addressed it directly) remains troubling for many libertarians and not without some justification.

      The idea though that this GIVE Act is to create Nazi "Brown Shirts" in the U.S. is fear-mongering worthy of the neocons.

      The Brown Shirts were openly rallied to violence and racism, etc. We don't hear or see that anywhere associated with this bill. Of course, things can and do morph in a hurry. What the neocons did under George W. Bush proves that, and Obama certainly is doing his job not keeping his campaign promises. What's new?

      It would be wrong to suggest that there are not totalitarian bents within the Democratic Party. We should though confine ourselves to criticizing such legislation that is clearly directed to the promotion of thugs. AmeriCorps is not my choice, but it hasn't earned a deserved reputation for creating thugs.