Monday, August 11, 2008


Ive been asked a few times, why, with my general criticisms of the current regime and system i dont support Barack Obamas particular brand of change. I think this video, of a speech he gave in denver this july, says even more than i could about what Barack considers "Change." Not a change from abuses in the system, but a change from any illusion we might still have that our lives are our own.

At (12:30) into the video you see obama call for massive expansion of the military and national service

65,000 additional soldiers
27,000 additional marines
250,000 Americorp Slots.

but that pales in comparison to the statement the junior senator from illinois makes at (16:45), stating:

"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."

in 2007, 1,426,705 people were on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components with a U.S. Defense budget of $439 billion, with an additional injection of emergency war funding later in the fiscal year.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force with this same sort of price tag and power? or is he talking about matching the funding to his new bigger, better armored, better taken care of, more powerful military?

What Does this force do? how is it paid for? (Tax Money of course, noting that today, as i write this, we reach our first free of cost of government day according to Is it authorized by the constitution in the same way the existing civilian militia is contended to be? Does it function similar in function to the CCC of FDR's day, from whom, no doubt, Obama gained the inspiration, or as it specificly addresses National Security, does it more closely follow the lines of East German STASI? National, Federal Police Jurisdictions and Forces rarely bode well for free societies. These and many other questions are a matter of great concern to me, and the reason i cannot support Obama in 08.

I realize there are very few options out there, and Obama does speak of hope, and change, both increasingly attractive ideas in this stagnant political age. But do the means justify the ends?

While both Mr. Obama and i hold very similar hopes for a new America, an America where citizens and communities band together and where the next generation will give itself to service and involvement, where we disagree is in the methodology. Instead of encouragement, Obama would like to coerce, from mandatory service as a college requirement for schools to receive funding, to tax funded national programs of an unprecedented scale, Obama would like to -force- America to be great, and that is something that ideologically i cannot agree with, and historically does not work.

While many people will continue to hail that Obama is a great change from the terrible dictatorial tendencies of the Bush terms of office, I cant help to think that it is exactly because GW has set such terrible precedent for a rogue executive that Obama thinks he can use the oval office to shape this country and the world, through executive order, special security directive, into his vision of the future. Through the convincing and coercive force of what has become the most powerful, unchecked seat, in the most powerful unchecked government, he may now be able to force about a world as he thinks it should be.

after all, as Georgie said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Im sorry to say, Freedom isnt easy.

I also highly recomend reading this letter: Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach Change

Yes we need change, and I do not denounce him, for saying so, nor do i denounce what he would like to see in america, or what work he may have done, but we must examine that work, and always ask: Change, But at what Cost?

Quo Vadis

No comments: