Mark Levin Rips On Obama Zombie

Mark Levin rips the Governmental Agencies as they help destroy America. Big Government and Union Workers Wages, and benefits are helping to Destroy America. The Obama Zombies are already ready to parrot Barry Soetoro, just say Blame Bush, Blame Bush.

Many of these Obama Zombies working in the Big Government are in Party Mode. The GSA runs wild spending our tax dollars on parties, trips and Hookers. The Brown Shirts, I mean Government Workers see their fearful Leader Barry Soetoro and angry Mooch Elle traveling all over the world, spending our money. The Soetoro feel the need to take separate planes on many occasions. Mooch Elle says Barry smells bad and maybe Barry wants to travel with his new Larry Sinclair of the month.

RICK SANTORUM SCHOOLS INCOHERENT BOB SCHIEFFER

The Lamestream Media or Main Stream Media as they wish to be called when they take off their BROWN SHIRTS have spun more dribble on about Rick Santorum. Santorum points out facts about Barry Soetoro supporting and ideology that is based on lies. The ideology that Gore and Obama and the Brown Shirts try and shove down our throats is ludicrous. Many Senior Citizens are dying in Europe the past two years due to the cold weather. The Green Movement started by Commies is just a means to control the masses further while eliminating the Old and the Poor.

Inhumane Treatment of Elderly Patients on UK Healthcare INFO HERE


Below is a rush transcript of "Face the Nation" on February 19, 2012, hosted by CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. Guest is Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, did you hear what Rick Santorum said. He's the man of the hour in Republican politics and he's with us this morning. The latest leader in the Republican race at the top of the national polls and even in Michigan where Mitt Romney grew up. Yesterday, he was feeling his oats. In one twenty-four-hour-period he questioned the President's religious beliefs.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology, oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but none-- no-- no less a theology.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Said prenatal testing is really just the President's way to reduce costs in taking care of the disabled.


RICK SANTORUM: Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And questioned the value of public schools.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools frankly much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic.


BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll ask him about all of it this morning, then check in with our round table of Norah O'Donnell and John Dickerson, plus Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post and Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press.


This is FACE THE NATION.


ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning. Welcome, Senator.


You are the leader in the polls this morning. And I have to say you were very busy yesterday. The Associated Press led its story of your appearance in Columbus, Ohio, by saying, quote, "Rick Santorum questioned Barack Obama's Christian values." That was after you lashed out at the President's proposal on energy of all things when you said this.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's not about you. It's not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs.


MAN: Right.


RICK SANTORUM: It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.


(Crowd applauding)


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, Senator, I've got to ask you. What-- what in the world were you talking about, Sir?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I was talking about the-- the radical environmentalists. That's why I was talking about energy, this-- this idea that-- that man is-- is not-- is here to serve the Earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a-- a-- is a phony ideal. I don't believe that that's what-- that's what we're here to do. That-- we-- that-- that man is here to-- to use the resources and use them wisely, to care for the Earth, to be a steward of the Earth. But we're not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective. And-- and I think a lot of radical-- a-- a-- a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside down.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, how does that translate into some sort of theology that the President's theology--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Well, it's-- it's a world view.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --is not based on the Bible. I mean that suggests that he's not a Christian.


RICK SANTORUM: No, I wasn't suggesting that President's not a Christian. I accept the fact that the President is a Christian. I-- I just said that when you have a-- a-- a world view that-- that elevates the Earth above man and-- and-- and says that, you know, we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth by-- by things that are-- that-- that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, that politicization of the whole global warming debate, I mean, this is just all-- all-- all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government. And-- and it's not questioning the President's beliefs in-- in Christianity. I'm talking about, you know, his-- the-- the belief that-- that man is-- should be in charge of the earth and should have--


BOB SCHIEFFER (voice overlapping): No, but once--


RICK SANTORUM: --dominion over it and should be good stewards of it.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I-- I don't want to just spend the whole program on this, but was your--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Good.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --use of the word theology, perhaps, you could have had a better word than that? I mean, don't you know that-- that--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): It--


BOB SCHIEFFER: --or do you wonder that-- that might lead some people to suggest that you were questioning the President's faith?


RICK SANTORUM: Well-- no, because I've repeatedly said I don't question the President's faith. I've-- I've repeatedly said that I believe the President is a Christian. He says he is a Christian. But I'm talking about his world view or his-- the-- the way he approaches problems in this country and I think they're-- they're different than how most people do in America.


BOB SCHIEFFER: At another stop in Columbus, you took on the Pres-- President on prenatal care for expectant mothers. Here's what you said at this-- in this passage.


RICK SANTORUM: One of the things that you don't know about Obamacare and one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America. Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I-- I have to ask you to-- to give some explanation of that. You sound like you're saying that the purpose of prenatal care is to cause people to-- to have abortions, to get more abortions in this country. I think there are any number testing, I think any number of people would-- would say that's not the purpose at all.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, Bob, that's simply not true. The-- the bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in-- in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions and in fact, prenatal testing that-- that particularly amniocentesis. I'm not talking about general prenatal care. You said prenatal care. I-- I didn't say prenatal care shouldn't be covered. We're talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a-- which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb. In-- in which in many cases and in fact most cases a physicians recommend, particularly if there's a problem, recommend abortion. We know, Bob, that ninety percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from? I have a child who has trisomy 18. Almost a hundred percent of trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted. So, I know what I'm talking about here.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I-- I know you know what you're talking about. I know that well. I know you also had another child that was stillborn. But--


RICK SANTORUM (overlapping): And I was--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Didn't you want to know about that, just a minute.


(Cross talking)


BOB SCHIEFFER: Just hold on.


RICK SANTORUM: But what my-- my child was not stillborn. My child was born alive.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: --and he lived two hours.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: And by the way, prenatal testing was-- we had a-- we had a sonogram done there and they detected a problem. And, yes, the doctor said, you know, you-- you should consider an abortion. This is typical, Bob. This is what goes on and in-- in medical rooms around the country. And yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions. That is-- that is a fact.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I stand corrected on the stillborn. You're absolutely right. I simply misspoke. But, Senator, do you not want any kind of prenatal testing? I mean would we just turn our back on science that this is something that expectant mothers should not go through, that it's best not to know about these things ahead of time? I mean is that what you're saying here?


RICK SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying. Look, people have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, just as to me, has a has is-- is a bit loaded. There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free. I have no problem with that if the-- if the insurance companies want to. I'm not for any of these things to be forced. Just let me-- just step back and say I don't believe any of these procedures, anything in insurance should be forced. So let me-- let me just start from there.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea of having, for example, sonograms and other types of prenatal care, absolutely, if-- if I think that is-- that is a wise thing to do. And If I was an employer, I would certainly encourage that. But not all prenatal testing, amniocenteses basically are used for the purposes of identifying children who are disabled and in most cases end up as a result with abortions. It's the bottom line.


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): You're not saying. Let me just ask you, you're not saying that the cause of this, that the President looks down on disabled people, are you? You're not accusing him of that?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, the President supported partial birth abortion and partial birth abortion is a procedure used almost exclusively to-- to kill children late in pregnancy when they've been found out to be disabled. The President voted for a provision that-- that said that children born alive as a result of abortions late in pregnancy who were-- who were otherwise viable should be allowed to be killed by the doctor. I think the President has a very bad record on-- on-- on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled who are in the womb. And I think this simply is a continuation of that idea.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, since you brought all this up, I just wanted to make sure that everybody had a clear understanding of exactly what you meant--


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And-- and how you feel about this. Another thing that raised a few eyebrows yesterday, Senator, you questioned the value of all things at the public school system. Now here's what you said about that.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly, much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home school or have the little neighborhood school and into these big factories. So we built equal factories called public schools.


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, there you are, Senator. I mean, are you saying that we shouldn't have public schools now? I mean I thought public schools were the foundation of American democracy.


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah, I think, I'm saying that-- that local communities and-- and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education, not the-- certainly not the federal government and to as I said before, as I said in that clip I think the state governments have not done a particularly good job in public education. I think public education should be a dynamic process that's locally run, that works with parents to provide the optimal opportunity for each child in America to get the education that they need, not what the federal government or the state government says that you should have. That's why I refer to it as, you know, going back to the industrialization of America when we had a-- we had a system in-- in this country with industrialization where, you know, you had one car produced. And, you know, you maybe got it in two colors. And-- and we haven't changed public education significantly since then. Every single car on a Detroit line is custom ordered. Why? Because it's designed to meet the needs of the customer. The education system, federally run, state run, is not designed to meet the-- meet the needs of the customer. It's designed for the purposes of the school not the children and the parents who are the customers of that system. And I think we need a dramatic change in that system.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, Senator, if everybody could afford to home school their children that would be one thing but--


RICK SANTORUM: I'm not talking about home schooling. I'm talking about public education, Bob.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, there are little communities where the people couldn't afford to have a public school. And that's why you have states involved in the schools. And there-- there--


RICK SANTORUM: Well, there's one thing the state-- there's one thing for states to-- to help fund public education. It's another thing to dictate and micromanage and-- and create a "one size fits all education" system in states and certainly in the federal government what President Obama is trying to do. What we need is to have the same kind of change and dynamic change in the public school system as we've seen in the economy of this country. Customized. Everybody gets what they need. I have seven children. I can tell you each one of them learn differently. All of them can excel in different settings. And that goes with every-- every American child. And we can do better than a system that one in three children drop out of school. If that is the hallmark, Bob, that you talk about as a-- as a great society, when one of three children drop out of school and a lot of the folks who don't drop out of school still can't read at grade level, that to me is a failure and defending that failure is not something I'm planning on doing which is what the President does.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what-- what do you do to-- what would you do to fix it, Senator?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, as I said before, first I'd get the federal government out. I would, to the extent possible with res-- with respect to mandates and-- and designing curriculum and the like, I would get the state government out. I think that-- that the parents should be in charge working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential. And whether it's in a public school or a private school or a Christian school or whatever kind of-- and whatever kind of setting that is best that the people at the local level can determine, I think that's where we need to go in education. It's got to be a much more dynamic process. We are failing American children. We're failing our society with having these high rates of dropouts and the people graduating without the skills or frankly without the value structure that's necessary to be able to go out and work hard and to be able to-- to produce in our society and to build strong communities. And I think we need some really dramatic changes. And we're not getting that.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I want to thank you very much for being with us this morning. I had hoped to ask you about some questions about the economy. But, frankly, you made so much news yesterday, out there on the campaign trail, I felt compelled to ask you about that. Thank you so much for being with us.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I'm-- I'm happy to make news about-- about important issues of the day that obviously don't get talked about a lot.

This date in 1942

MORT's Meanderings: April 18, 2011

April 18, 1942

This date in our history like so many others, has silently slipped into the abyss of forgotten dates marking significant events that helped shape our nation.

This morning, I scanned our local newsrags and tuned into several AM radio stations but, failed to read or hear one reference made to the event that took place on this date in 1942 - The Doolittle Raid on Japan. It was on that date that LTC. Jimmy Doolittle led sixteen twin-engined B-25 Mitchell bombers off the tossing deck of the aircraft carrier, USS Hornet (CV-8) and headed toward the homeland of our enemy in the Pacific, to drop their 2000 lb.bomb loads on Japan.

This event occurred just four months after the Japanese attack, Sunday, December 7, 1941, upon our military base and Naval facility at Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. That sneak-attack cost the lives of more than 2,000 of our soldiers and sailors and literally destroyed our Pacific fleet anchored in the harbor. This was a crippling blow that caught us completely unaware and very nearly rendered us utterly defenseless in the Pacific. Fortunately, our Pacific-based aircraft carriers were at that time, on the high seas and thus, escaped the fate of many of our Navy's ships, sunk at their moorings. Thus began our direct involvement in World War II.

In the intervening months between 'Pearl Harbor' and this April 18, 1942 date, Japan had swept across the Far East and the Pacific Islands in a wave of conquest and terror that was virtually unopposed. British, French, American forces were overwhelmed by the military might of Imperial Japan. U.S. Armed Forces were defeated and captured or had to be re-located to safer locations such as Australia, ahead of the onrushing enemy. Morale in America was scraping the bottom of the barrel. While we were gearing up our military and war materiel industrial facilities, we were suffering the shock of reading daily newspaper headlines that screamed of defeat after defeat at the hands of the Imperial Forces of the island nation of Japan. We were frightened and we had every right to be apprehensive about the outcome. We desperately needed some hope.

President Roosevelt recognized the dire necessity of some sort of military victory to bolster our courage and stiffen our resolve. FDR prevailed upon his Chief Military advisors to come up with a plan - and, they did. After some high-level, top-secret discussions about the feasibility of an aerial attack on the homeland of our enemy, early aviation pioneer and renowned air-racing pilot Army LTC. Jimmy Doolittle, was picked to plan, organize and head-up the mission. And, did he ever? Within an incredibly short time frame, he selected the type of aircraft to do the job and he chose the most capable crews available to fly them. Then, he set about training them at an air base in Florida, in the unprecedented task of flying land-based medium bombers off the deck of an aircraft carrier, while at sea. When the critical date arrived, the planes were flown to the West Coast where all 16 planes and crews were lifted aboard the USS Hornet. The ship steamed toward the location in the Pacific just a couple hundred miles off the coast of Japan, where it had been planned to launch the mission to bomb several targets on the soil of the Japanese homeland.

That plan was foiled when a Japanese 'fishing boat' spotted the USS Hornet underway and radioed the report to Japan. The 'fishing boat' was quickly blown out of the water but, the secrecy of the mission had been breached and the planes had to be launched about 200 miles before it had been planned to do so. Thus, adding even more to the odds stacked against the mission's success.

The entire story of this mission, its success and its aftermath, are legend and are committed to history books such as, "First Over Japan", an autobiography of Lt. Jack A. Sims, co-pilot of plane No. 14 of the "Doolittle Raiders" (ISBN 0-9716398-2-5 © 2002 Southpointe Press, Author: Jack A. Sims, Colonel (USAF, Ret'd) with A. B. Cook). To quote from the review of this book I was invited to write and privileged to contribute:
"Of the signal events in the military history of the United States of America, there is Washington's crossing of the Delaware, the Doolittle Raid on Japan just four months after Pearl Harbor and then, there is everything else."

To note that in less than an average lifespan after this event, it no longer has a place as even the merest footnote in lists of significant events on, 'This Date in History', is tragic. It is a deplorable and a truly sad commentary on this generation's knowledge of or respect for, such a significant event in our nation's history.

While others might forget, I shall never forget. God bless the Doolittle Raiders and all the other courageous men and women who heeded the call to duty, to protect and defend their country, when called upon to serve during World War II. They did so, unselfishly and without a whimper.

Lest we forget.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

Stephen Goldstein​s's illogical diatribe in the Sun-Sentin​el

Once again the Brownshirts, aka The Nazi Democrats, try and twist Voters results in Florida. The Governor Rick Scott won fair and square. In fact Rick Scott won without the help of ACORN, The Nazi MSM, Overseas Terrorist sending in Money, and without George Soros helping him. Do the People of Florida wake up and find their debt shrinking under Rick Scott? Yes! Does the sun still rise over Florida even though we did not steal Billions of dollars to build a Failed Green Jobs Transportation system? Yes! Do the People of Florida find themselves capable of finding their way to Tampa Bay from Orlando without hitching a ride on Soetoro's Slave Ship? Yes!

So as one of the lowlife, Brownshirt wearing, Obama supporting, MSM attacks Rick Scott on his looks, we have a comeback from Chuck On The Right Side.

Dear Stephen L. Goldstein:

Mr Goldstein, you claim that Gov. Rick Scott "looks scary". fine that's your opinion, but have you looked into the mirror lately? You make "Mr. Peepers" look like Cary Grant. So much for the pettiness, your ideas "suck".

Your sour grapes diatribe is your reaction to the results of last November's election results. Do you really think you'd be ranting and writing such partisan garbage if the Democrats won the last election? Of course not, as you are just a partisan "hack" columnist with a minimal amount of common sense.

What's also comical is your reference to the fact that Rick Scott got 48.9% of the vote in November and therefore, should not have been elected. Where were you, "Beau Brummel", when "Slick Willie" Clinton won the presidency by garnering 43% and 48% of the vote in 1992 and 1996? Was he an illegitimate presidential winner?

Your specious column is quite obvious in your desire to turn back the results of the 2010 election because your side didn't win. Swallow up your false pride Stephen and crawl back under your rock till the next time the Sun-Sentinel gives you a chance to look foolish.

Sincerely,

Chuck On The Right Side

Soetoro's Group ACORN, Takes Millions of Tax Dollars!

We have some more disturbing reports regarding Barry Soetoro's group ACORN. When will the rest of Americans (other than Conservatives) realize this guy and his Thug gangs are a bunch of crooks. Most of us are busy trying to make a living and these punks sit around, smoking their dope, rigging elections, committing crime after crime, and getting funding from USA tax dollars. RACE BAITERS ACORN, the SEIU Thugs and people pushing Global Warming Fraud, have to be stopped and de-funded NOW!
Let's not forget Barry's threats, of his Civilian National Security FORCE!




‘ACORN Youth Union’ Chapters Were Funded by Justice Department, Says GAO

By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Justice Department gave a group called the New York Agency for Community Affairs a grant of $135,130 in fiscal year 2005 to “provide youth leadership training to students at select New York City schools, form ‘ACORN Youth Union’ chapters, and coordinate student campaigns to address issues such as school funding, neighborhood safety, and school governance,” according to a Government Accountability Office report released this week.

The GAO report says that in fiscal years 2005 through 2009 the federal government gave ACORN and what the GAO calls “potentially related organizations” more than $40 million in federal funds.

According to the report, eight other agencies joined the Justice Department in providing federal funding to ACORN and “potentially related organizations.” These included the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Treasury Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), NeighborWorks, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

“Nine agencies—HUD, DHS, DOJ, EAC, NeighorWorks, CPB, EPA, Treasury, and NEA—have identified approximately $37.5 million in direct federal grants and at least $2.9 million in subawards (i.e. grants and contracts awarded by federal grantees) to ACORN or potentially related organizations, primarily for housing-related purposes during fiscal years 2005 through 2009,” says the report.

The GAO explains that for purposes of the report it asked 31 federal agencies that it queried about potential funding of ACORN and related organizations to use a list of organizations created by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). “To enable the 31 agencies, for the purposes of this report, to determine whether they had provided funding to ACORN or any potentially related organizations, we suggested that they search their grant and procurement databases using the organizations identified by CRS as potentially having a relationship with ACORN,” said the report. “We selected the CRS list in part because counsel for ACORN identified the majority of organizations on the list as having some sort of relationship to ACORN.”

The Justice Department grant to the New York Agency for Community Affairs was initially reported by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General when it issued a report last November on Justice Department grants to ACORN and ACORN-affiliated organizations.
The IG report said the grant in question was the result of a congressional earmark, and specifically mentioned that one purpose was to form “ACORN Youth Union” chapters.

“In addition, we identified one direct grant of DOJ funds to an ACORN affiliate, the New York Agency for Community Affairs, Inc. (NYACA),” said the IG report. “We considered NYACA to be an affiliate of ACORN because it acted as a fiscal agent for ACORN, engaged in substantial financial transactions with ACORN, and DOJ grant documentation showed that ACORN was a major partner in the grant program being funded. In FY 2005, NYACA received a grant of $138,130 resulting from a congressional earmark. The purposes of the grant to NYACA were to provide youth leadership training to students at select New York City schools; form “ACORN Youth Union” chapters; and coordinate student campaigns to address issues such as school funding, neighborhood safety, and school governance.”

The grant was given out by the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The application for the grant, according to the IG report, said the applicant intended to use the federal money in "building a base of trained student leaders."

“The NYACA’s program title identified in the grant award document was ‘ACORN Youth Organizing,’” said the IG report. “The award period for the grant was from September 1, 2005, to August 31, 2006. The grant program narrative submitted with the application described the program’s goals as: (1) building a base of trained student leaders, (2) winning specific improvements and policy changes, and (3) increasing post-high school opportunities for young people. According to the budget detail submitted with the application, the award funds were to be used entirely for personnel and benefits for the following positions: (1) a part-time Executive Director, (2) a part-time Brooklyn Schools Organizer, (3) a part-time Brooklyn Lead Organizer, and (4) two full-time Youth Organizers. According to OJP, NYACA received all the grant funds with the last draw-down in September 2006.”

Congress included language in its fiscal 2010 spending bills that block funding for ACORN. "Congress passed povisions restricting the funding of ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations in the fiscal year 2010 continuing resolutions, which were followed by several fiscal 2010 appropriations acts that prohibited any appropriated funds from being awarded to various ACORN or ACORN-related organizations," said the GAO.

Sotero's Civilian National Security FARCE

Here was an article that was from July, 2008.
Obviously not enough people read this and voted for the Politically Correct choice, the appeaser, B. Hussein Obama. Is he promoting a civilian force to try and take over the Country in 2012? Obama did side with the Dictator in Honduras, did he not?
Again the Liberal Fringe Media lets Barry go unchecked. They all have Blood on their Hands as well as the Democrat Party.

This article below was at the great Americanthinker.com .
Obama's Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary

Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,

"We cannot continue to rely 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." (emphasis added)

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.

He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.

So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.

The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.

Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,

"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."

Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.

It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."

That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.

Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.

The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.

Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.

In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.


If any supporters of Obama do not believe the truth, listen below with your own set of ears.