“…and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.”

Sounds rational to me. Matter of fact why even go look for ‘real’ work after college (Engineering and science)? Why not use political pressures to stay in Community Service? ‘It’s been done Before’. Forty dollars an hour is roughly UAW scale which is far better than many of the nations lower echelon ‘real workers’ earn at 12 to 14 dollars an hour with NO bennies. Plus the chance to one day run for the presidency is far more lucrative, apparently once in Community Service of course.

Another issue (also brought up by Judy) is quote; the words, “A National Security Force”. Which word is the problem? “FORCE”?…”SECURITY”?…”NATIONAL”?
I take it people have never been to a popular entertainers concert? Even large political rallies come to mind. “FORCE” SECURITY” “NATIONAL”. Robert Mugabe would be so proud. Many others understand history but apparently about 51% have not a clue? that other little sentence bothers me as well, “Equal to the Military in ‘POWER’ and Funding”. Also as he say’s these words, look at his eyes and watch his facial expression change as you watch the vid clips on YT.
Also apparently forgotten by the media, is the Community Reinvestment Act of 1973 (Carter), given teeth in 1999 by Willie, as a timed release ‘poison pill’ for the next administration. Then the childlike ’super glued’ keybords, desk drawers, chairs, etc, that Willie’s ‘crew’ left behind as they sabotaged the whitehouse infrastructure for W (removed from the keyboards btw).
Keep on teaching Victor, the message will gradually cut through ‘The Fog’.

Here is what I do know. I know that much of the imagery you put forth predicting a Nazi like state in the US have are present in this adminstration. Bush has done some pretty scary things in his war on terror and in solving the current finacial crisis in America. Before you point a finger at Obama, how about taking a really close look at Bush and what is doing. The right is not totally innocent either. Until we learn to work together and find common ground, we are pretty much up the creek.

Dr. Hanson, you just don’t get it.

After Obama takes over, it will be the sacred duty of those ‘used to be news media’ to not report any ‘bad’ news. Instead, I expect to see/read lots and lots of tear-jerking (sorry, heart-warming) hopey-changey stories daily.

Hence, they will have earned the new name – “Reverse News media”.

Yea I see the point — or, Perhaps one should remove their head from that stinky, moist, warm place that seems to be obscuring their vision and look back at the last eight disasterous years.

Your argument for a benign interpretation of Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force” idea depends on a degree of trust in this relatively unknown politician that, as yet, I do not share.

Organizing community improvement projects for young Americans under the rubric of “National Security” merely waters down the term. Almost anything the federal government promotes can be given a national security spin — improving the economy, infrastructure projects (TVA/CCC in the 30’s), improving health care, etc. The Nazis made having multiple babies a patriotic duty for German mothers, important for the security of the Fatherland.

For most of us, calling any government sponsored entity a “National Security Force” implies an organization patterned on the military or law enforcement agencies. You can make a semantic argument against this interpretation, but at a minimum it’s a poor choice of words. Obviously, many totalitarian governments have civilian organizations — with a national security moniker — which exist solely to protect the government, not the people.

Finally, why do we need the government to organize and pay for activities already performed by churches, local community organizations etc? Why cajole or compel students to participate in something they may not be interested in? Maybe if we educated them better, they would work to improve this country on their own initiative. And our failing education system is a bigger national security threat than anything Obama’s national security force seems designed to improve.

First you say his comments were not well thought out or intelligently constructed, and now you say he was quite clear. Yet you have the gall to lecture on the use of language. You’re just projecting. I have not once suggested merely one definition of words and phrases, but one can always smell the reek of self-indulgence when common words and phrases are redefined or reinterpreted to make them more palatable.

Did Mr. Obama mention a “Civilian Financial Security Force”? Or a “Civilian Job Security Force”? You can’t possibly be serious.

But let’s say for a moment that we are as stupid as you and Mr. O think we are. As much as we’re reminded about Mr. O’s eloquence and intelligence, one might think he would be so graceful as to fill the unwashed masses in on what exactly this grand plan might be, let alone, phrase it in clear and concise language that is not so easily “misunderstood”. Until such time as Mr. O deems appropriate for us simpletons to know exactly what he means, some of us MUST infer and some of you must give us apologetics.

Again, you’re projecting your own bias upon me. My “common sense” would tell me that a candidate (or candidate elect) for the highest office in the land would do the electorate the common courtesy to elaborate on his ideas. Unfortunately this isn’t the only grand scheme he’s hoisted up the flagpole without sufficent explanation.

To answer your questions – Yes, I watched the video and no, I didn’t read the *entire* speech. I saw the video in it’s entirety a long time ago.

The following quote demands clarification or explanation:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

This language is quite clear. Extremely common political terms with very specific connotations being used by our number one guy. Trying to put this in context with the rest of the speech takes a few linguistic contortions.

Going back to the idea I put forth about young people and their perceived or real authority being unleashed, you may feel it’s worth a shot, however when the President-elect has stated it needs to be “just as powerful…strong (and)…well-funded” as the military, you’ll forgive me if I’m not willing to give him a blank check or free reign.

You’re insisting that the terms Obama used, referring to a “security force”, can only mean military force, when he was very clear that this was not what he meant. You wish to believe there’s only one definition of certain words and phrases, but as anyone should know, that’s not how language works. The term “security” doesn’t simply mean “the use of or threat of force”–for instance, the term “financial security”–do you believe this phrase means the practice of using the force of arms to make money? Anybody could offer many more examples.

Please point out to me, in Obama’s remarks, where it describes putting kids into the kinds of positions of authority you envision. In doing so, please don’t continue to try to infer from his remarks that this is what he “really” meant, or even that this is what it could “really” lead to, at least along the militaristic lines you envision.

Did you read Obama’s speech, and watch the video of it, which I linked to?

Do you really believe Obama would state, in a public speech, that he wanted to start a national paramilitary force? Are your perceptions of him so slanted that it clouds your common sense that much?

Nor is my “observation about his ‘initial thoughts’ and their lack of intelligent structure or coherence…enough to torpedo this concept”. Obama, like anyone else, doesn’t always express himself clearly the first time. It doesn’t disqualify a person from running for any office, even the presidency–politicians do it all the time–nor does it automatically torpedo whatever ideas the person is proffering.

So I’m not concerned that there’s any military or paramilitary subtext in Obama’s idea of a “Civilian National Security Force”. I’m more concerned about the non-military implications of what turfmann describes–the idea of giving tens of thousands of young people a sense of perceived authority, even when it’s non-military or non-police force oriented. I don’t think that was encoded in Obama’s speech–I think it was pretty clear that this was part of what he’s openly suggesting–giving a lot of young people some perceived, or even real, authority, even if it’s just a perceived MORAL authority. I’d like to think the idea of people helping people in national, non-military service is a basically incorruptible concept, but it’s not–I wouldn’t like to see a lot of young people running away with Obama’s original intent, and becoming a self-righteous bunch telling “unbelievers” that they’re evil unless they fall in line, without even listening to what the “unbelievers” have to say (we already have enough of that)–with that mentality, even people who have some real counter-ideas to offer will be harassed or worse. But as to whether any of these proposed kinds of authority really will turn out to be good or bad, that may be to be determined, but if there are any issues with it, I doubt whether it will amount to a tide of awfulness. I wouldn’t go so far as to believe turfmann’s assumption that Obama’s proposal is inherently “a clear and present danger to individual liberty as we know it”, but it should be watched, not because Obama is deliberately suggesting something onerous, but because it could get out of hand and go beyond what he envisions.

People of any stripe, given real or perceived authority, can wield it improperly. I wouldn’t like to see the ideas of one person, or a group, foisted on others with different ideas, when those different ideas aren’t automatically evil either, but rather are defensible at least in principle, or are backed up by experience–the basic idea turfmann is counter-proposing to Obama’s, being that ideologies imposed by government can be a bad idea, even when those ideologies “sound good”, since people high on moral authority can do some real damage if they don’t have some perspective, which most younger people are usually short on. In other words, government imposing moral authority beyond what it’s supposed to, supposes that the morality of too much of the citizenry is bankrupt and needs fixing, instead of the problem being the confused morality, immorality, or lack of morality of some “leaders”, and their subsequent actions and inactions. But the position of the presidency does carry with it an imperative to be moral, and to speak out about it, and hence we see every president making statements and taking some measures to foster morality, as they see it. So the concept of an administration trying to foster morality isn’t inherently wrong or unprecedented–I wouldn’t automatically try to slap down any statements about morality that Obama offers, but rather investigate them first with a little more depth than we usually see applied to thoughts about Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force”.

As to your continuing forward, I submit the idea of tens of thousands of HIGHLY trained, HIGHLY motivated young citizens (aka Obama supporters) that are given any sense of perceived authority being unleashed upon society, which is what I interpreted the remarks to mean in an encoded fashion, is a clear and present danger to individual liberty as we know it.

I agree with, and amplify, your remarks.