The House today overwhelmingly passed a bill that establishes a new commission to study the feasibility of a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” This is seen by some, including myself, as part of Obama’s campaign pledge to create a “civilian national security force” that would rival the military. Watch this video.
The bill also creates a “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and declares that “service learning” will be a “mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.” Simply put, this legislation creates an organization which bears some resemblance to the Hitler Youth programs of the 1930′s. According to a comment on Gateway Pundit blog, “[t]here is even a provision in the bill for uniforms.” If this doesn’t frighten America out of her slumber, what ever will?
Leaving aside the fears of creating a new Hitler Youth, the very idea that government can mandate a term of service for all able young people is unconstitutional on it’s face, and disturbing in its implications. The 13th Amendment declares that involuntary servitude is prohibited in America. But Obama has shown on several occasions now that he believes his administration is above the law, and can ignore the limitations of the Constitution at will. And let’s not forget that the Democrats control both houses of Congress, and they are more than eager to impose their leftist will upon America. They have waited a long time for this moment.
It was reported early on that Obama reminded several republican leaders that he had won the election, and that things were going to be done the way he wanted them to be done. Mr. Obama seems to have forgotten that he won the elections because We the People voted him into office. He is not there to represent himself and his interests; he is there to represent the interest of America generally, which includes that of those who did not vote for him. His arrogance is astounding. I heard a commentator on the radio yesterday opine that Obama seems to hold himself in high regard, and looks down with contempt at everyone else. I agree, and we are seeing it writ large. I only hope our country can survive four years of this assault.
I was willing to give Pres. Obama the benefit of the doubt after election and while keeping an eye open, I was pushing most of these types of rumors under the rug. But this one scares me.
Hitler’s history was first get rid of the guns. Second take control of the children. We are headed down a road that is scary. Time for more action on the part of the average citizen.
Early last year my wife brought home a book called Hitler Youth. I read it and saw, even in his campaign, direct parallels to that of the tactics Hitler used. And yet it continues.
The big risk comes if the US were ever, as David Frum has pointed out, to make use of the NAFTA ennnroimevt side agreement to impose a carbon tariff on Canadian oil. Of course, as we know, Canadian oil has nowhere else to go, in practical terms, unless that charge were very large, and the payment of these tariffs would be both royalty and corporate income tax deductible in Canada/Alberta. The wonder, of course, is that oil is a world market, so Canadian oil would not be able to pass the cost through to the US refiners in any meaningful way. Revenue goes to US, no real change in oil markets, and 60% of that revenue comes from provincial and federal coffers, not oil companies. So yes, they care about employment, and as they sink deeper into their sinkhole, they need to find ways to close their deficit hole without imposing new costs of their firms or their constituents. David Frum, who I would not position as a lefty by any means, sees a real threat in a border carbon adjustment because it would accomplish both of these objectives, and might allow the US to place a tariff on chinese autos at the same time. The US will likely meet 17% below 05 without many changes, since they can do it largely through a coal-to-gas switch given that 30% of their emissions are coal power and many of those plants are older anyway. By committing that that target, in an international agreement, we open the window for sanctions under a NAFTA side agreement. When the solution is an average cost of less than $0.50/bbl, the insurance value is worth it. How much extra is it going to cost to move oil through Keystone XL given all the regulatory hurdles?Andrew