The GIVE Act (HR 1388): Expand opportunities to serve, or create Obama's Brownshirts?

[Rhythmdvl]

@Polycarp

I realize we’re focused on the right-wing blogosphere here, but didn’t Sam Stone start a thread inqiuiring about mandatory participation in one of these programs over in GD when this was first proposed? – thogh, to be fair, Sam was asking if there was any truth to the allegation.

Obama’s Creepy ‘Call to Service’

It was basically a reply to an Obama campaign speech in which he made a call to service. As noted above, it included the argument that certain aspects of the speech (if implemented) could lead to a rise in tuition costs, undercutting one of the goals it was seeking.

There is a lot more there, too, quite far from --and much more reasonable than-- the insinuations referred to by the OP. The closest he gets is referring to a quote by Obama:

@Sam_Stone

@Obama speech

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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.

WTF? A civilian national security force? Just as powerful and well funded as the U.S. military? What, are you going to spy on your neighbors? Hire people to search handbags of people going in and out of buildings?

Add all this up, and Obama appears to have a completely different view of America - one in which everyone works for the state from time to time, where citizens are enlisted into ‘corps’ which tackle national problems, where every kid in America will have to do mandatory service for the country before becoming citizens.

Sorry, but this sounds… Fascist. It turns the relationship between government and citizens as spelled out in the constitution on its head. It’s one thing for government to fund a small auxiliary of volunteers like the Peace Corps. It’s quite another to inject every nook and cranny of American life with calls for ‘service’ to the state.

Sorry if this post isn’t all that exciting, but I thought it prudent to add a bit of context to the Sam Stone reference. I may not agree with him politically for the most part, but letting some of the OP-referenced paint fall on him would be a mistake. ETA: not that Polycarp was insinuating as much.