By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

November 13, 2008

A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian “force.”

“If you’re worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes,” Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.

WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposed youth corps, officials softened the website’s wording.

Originally, under the tab “America Serves,” Change.gov read, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year,” the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama’s “civilian national security force,” which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Now comes the Emanuel video, which has been embedded here:

In the interview, Emanuel was questioned whether participants in the proposed force would live in barracks.

“Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time,” he said. “There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service.”

Emanuel said the planned requiring service “will give people a sense of what it means to be an American.”

He said, of course, the plan at that point was flexible.

“We propose three months [but] at the end of the day [if] someone says it should be four … I’m not going sit here and hold up [plans],” Emanuel said.

When the reporter questioned the commitment, Emanuel responded, “Guess what. We have a lot more challenges. We are going to need a lot to do it. If you’re worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes.”

He chuckled at the reporters concerns.

“Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. … Think of it this way, it will be a common experience.

“There will be a body of citizens who are ready, capable and trained,” he said.

But the plan, especially its demand that Americans participate in a domestic “force,” has been raising questions.

The blogger Gateway Pundit called Obama’s plan the “creation of his Marxist youth corps,” and DBKP commented, ldquo;lsquo;Choosing’ to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like ‘mandatory,’ ‘compulsory’ or ‘required.’”

Emanuel uses his book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, to specify that he would propose, for all Americans ages 18 to 25, that they “serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”

Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July “Call to Service” speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set” and needs a “civilian national security force.”

A video of his comments is here:

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.

The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.

But Farah’s call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, “The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it’s a civilian force so how would it go about discharging ‘national security’ issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such ‘youth’ organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?”

Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Back to the top

Home

Woman charged with wearing fake bomb says device was free speech

By Denise Lavoie, Associated Press Writer

February 1, 2008

BOSTON — A lawyer for an MIT student held at gunpoint after she walked into Logan International Airport wearing what authorities believed was a bomb asked a judge to throw out the charges Friday, saying the device was a legitimate form of free speech.

Star Simpson, 19, of Lahaina, Hawaii, was arrested by state troopers while wearing a computer circuit board and wiring on her sweatshirt when she went to the airport to pick up her boyfriend last September. She was charged with possessing a hoax device

Thomas Dwyer Jr., a lawyer for Simpson, said his client didn’t think her shirt would scare anyone. He said she’d been wearing the shirt for several days on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus, and it had not alarmed anyone.

He said many young people are fascinated by technology and wear clothing with flashing lights.

“People make these objects part of their identity. It’s a part of their personal expression,” he said. “They are legitimate forms of First Amendment expression.”

Dwyer also argued that state law does not clearly define what a hoax device is.

Assistant District Attorney Stephen Kerr said that police officers who arrested Simpson determined that a reasonable person would think Simpson was wearing an infernal device, which includes bombs and other explosives.

East Boston District Court Judge Paul Mahoney took the motion to dismiss under advisement and said he would issue a ruling on March 21.

When Simpson visited the airport Sept. 21, she wore a white circuit board on her chest over a black hooded sweatshirt. The battery-powered rectangular device had nine flashing lights, and Simpson had Play-Doh in her hands, police said.

Two phrases that looked hand-drawn – “Socket to me” and “Course VI,” which refers to a major at MIT – were written on the back of Simpson’s sweatshirt.

The terminal was not evacuated and flights were not affected. But authorities expressed amazement that someone would wear the device to the airport where two of the jets hijacked in the Sept. 11 attacks took off.

Back to the top

Home

80% Believe Voters Should Be Required to Show Photo ID

Rasmussen Reports

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

A recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found 80% of voters believe everyone should be required to show photo identification to vote. Only 13% disagree.

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of an Indiana law, passed in 2005, that requires individuals to present photo identification when voting. Some segments of the population feel this law discriminates against those who are less likely to carry driver’s licenses or passports, such as the elderly, poor, disabled and homeless.

Those who support the law believe it preserves the integrity of the election process and eliminates voting fraud.

In the same telephone survey, 18% of voters believe that requiring photo ID unfairly discriminates against some segments of the population. Seventy-two percent (72%) disagree.

To measure the impact of that argument against requiring voter ID, Rasmussen Reports first asked voters about their views on the subject. Then, the question was asked about whether requiring ID would unfairly discriminate. Following that, we asked a second question about whether the choice before the Supreme Court. After hearing the objections, 77% believe the Court should rule that states have the right to require photo ID of voters. Just 16% disagree.

Two years ago, 77% of voters agreed with laws requiring photo ID to vote.

When it comes to concern about voting fraud, 17% say large numbers of legitimate voters are prevented from voting. A slightly larger number, 23%, believe that a large number of ineligible people are allowed to vote.

See survey questions and toplines.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

The national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 2-3, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. (see Methodology)

©2008 Rasmussen Reports Inc.

SOURCE: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/ 80_believe_voters_should_be_required_to_show_photo_id

Back to the top

Home

---

State Communist-in-Chief Still Looking to Increase Freebies for Illegals
And Guess What — You Get to Foot the Bill!

Friday, January 11, 2008

So much for separation of powers! Governor Devil Patrick will try to find any way he can to steal your money and give it to illegal aliens. I wonder if his plan includes paying for signs at the state line that read (in Spanish) “Welcome to Massachusetts! Collect your handouts here! Don’t worry, we won’t make you work – that’s what Republicans are for!”

This little gem below was in today’s Boston Globe, that staunch purveyor of truth and individual responsibility.

Patrick mulls new tack on immigrant tuition
May try to bypass wary Legislature

By Matt Viser and Maria Sacchetti
Globe Staff

The Boston Globe, page B1, January 11, 2008

Governor Deval Patrick said yesterday he is studying whether he can bypass the Legislature to clear the way for illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities, triggering criticism from Beacon Hill Republicans on an explosive issue that has reverberated nationally.

Speaking before a group of business and civic leaders, Patrick said his legal team is weighing whether the state could grant the lower rate by passing a regulation, which would require approval by the 11-member Board of Higher Education. Patrick’s comments, in response to a question from an audience member, came two years after an in-state tuition bill failed in the Legislature, and amid a debate over illegal immigration in the presidential race.

Paying in-state tuition would save illegal immigrant students thousands of dollars. At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, out-of-state tuition is close to $10,000 a year, compared with about $1,700 a year for residents. Out-of-state tuition runs as high as $8,430 a year at a community college compared to about $700 a year for residents.

California, Texas, and New York are among several states that allow illegal immigrant students to pay resident rates, but in Massachusetts a similar push failed in 2006 after an emotional debate in the Legislature.

After the breakfast, Patrick emphasized that he supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrant students but has not decided how to proceed.

“We have been asked by a number of people whether it is possible to address that question without legislation,” he told reporters after the breakfast sponsored by the think tank MassINC at the Omni Parker House in downtown Boston. “The answer to that is by no means clear.”

The governor’s comments revived the prickly debate in Massachusetts over whether illegal immigrants should pay lower tuition. Advocates for immigrants accuse the state of punishing students - including some valedictorians - for their parents’ choices and effectively shutting them out of college. Opponents of granting the lower rates say illegal immigrants should not enjoy the same benefits as residents.

The Massachusetts Republican Party issued a statement slamming Patrick for rewarding “illegal activity.”

It’s bad enough to encourage and reward illegal activity while sticking it to legal immigrants and other taxpayers who obey the law, Robert Willington, executive director of the state Republican Party, said in a statement.

State Representative Bradley H. Jones, Republican of North Reading, said he would consider filing legislation to bar illegal immigrants from paying in-state tuition if the governor decided to circumvent the Legislature.

“It’s the wrong policy direction to go in,” he said.

In 2005, the state Senate passed a measure that would have granted in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who have lived here for at least three years, earned a high school diploma or the equivalent, and intended to seek legal permanent residency. But the measure failed in the House the next year and faced a certain veto by then-Governor Mitt Romney, who has since made illegal immigration a key issue in his presidential campaign.

But Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation¹, said the state could benefit by educating immigrants and integrating them into the workforce.

In 2006, his organization estimated that the state’s public colleges would gain $2.5 million a year in new revenues in tuition and fees by 2009 by allowing illegal immigrant students to pay in-state rates. He estimated that illegal immigrant enrollment would grow from nearly 100 students in 2006 to 600 students in 2009, a small portion of the 160,000 public college students in the state.

“It’s in the interest both economically and fiscally for the Commonwealth to allow these students to attend public colleges at [in-state] rates,” Widmer said. “Economically we’re losing many of these students. They are just the kind that we want to educate and who will stay in Massachusetts.”

Yesterday, the governor acknowledged that granting in-state tuition to people here illegally is controversial, but he affirmed his support for it.

“I think this is the right thing to do. It’s a matter of fundamental fairness,” he said. “But I don’t have the answer yet on how to fix this. I want to fix this, but I don’t have an answer for you.”

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Littleton RTC Notes

¹Its name notwithstanding, the “Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation” is not an advocacy group for you, the poor taxpayer of Taxachusetts. It’s a front for Fortune 500 businesses here in Massachusetts – the ones that can afford an occasional socialist experiment (like state-mandated healthcare) paid by you, so they can appear to be “compassionate.” You know, the looney left programs you are required to pay for, but not allowed to participate in. You can read a carefully screened sampling of their “work” here.

While you’re at it, you can ignore their contact information and e-mail address harvesting scam on their Membership page. As a lowly taxpayer, you are NOT invited to join.

If you are as outraged as I am, you can do something about it by signing this petition!

Back to the top

Home

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

The Daily Mail, London, England, UK, October 3, 2007

Daily Mail Photo Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush”.

Schools [in England] will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore’s controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of “brainwashing” children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush”.

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore’s Oscar-winning film does promote “partisan political views”.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

He said: “The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.”

The outcome marks a partial victory for Mr Dimmock, who had accused the “New Labour Thought Police” of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.

Mr Dimmock, a lorry driver from Dover with children aged 11 and 14, said at the outset of the hearing: “I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore’s film falls far short of the standard required.”

His solicitor John Day, said yesterday that the Government had been forced to make “a U-turn”, but said it did not go far enough.

Al Gore talks about Hurricane Katrina in a scene from the controversial movie

He said “no amount of turgid guidance” could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.

The case arises from a decision in February by the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson that DVDs of the film would be sent to all secondary schools in England, along with a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs containing two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.

David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: “The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.”

But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

The Climate Change Resource Pack has now been sent to more than 3,500 schools and is aimed at key stage 3 pupils - those aged 11 to [sic]

Children’s Minister Kevin Brennan said last night: “The judge’s decision is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance, which will be available online today.

“We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.”

© 2007 Associated Newspapers Ltd

Back to the top

Home