The ultimate question in life you should ask yourself is who you serve and for what purpose and why?
Hopefully serve nothing and nobody,as to serve someone or something, would entail entering into a life of servitude, and why would any sane rational individual enter into a condition in which one lacks the liberty to determine one's own course of action or way of life.
One interesting point that they mention is that obama voted to extend the patriot act. I thought he was always preaching about how bad it was.
I am not sure about him personally, but a Bill has been entered to extend certain features of the act.
A BILL
To extend certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 for 10 years.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
The patriot act, one George Bush's little constitutional trashing gems, due to expire this december, may not be going away quite so soon. A bill has been introduced in congress to ammend certain sections of the act that would have expired the act this year, the emendments now give this atrocity life until 2019.
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1944823.aspx
WRT the idea of a "National Service", there are 2 sides to the issue, good and bad.
The good in creating work, helping communities, the elderly, sick etc, however those points are also weighed against the bad, the idea of putting aside personal preferences for, "a cause greater than yourself." Or the possibility of being penalised for not participating, i.e. not getting work or scholarships if you have not participated.
The idea goes way back to an early draft of the idea of service to a column by Senator McCain penned in 2001:
(Putting the "National" in National Service)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.mccain.html
A later article from September last year give a slightly better idea of some of what is expected and mentions some of the possible "penalties" of not participating. I.E.
Under Barack Obama's plan, a refusal to participate in a national service program touted at the federal level will be punished by the withholding of high school diplomas by the school district in your town. And without that diploma, few colleges or employers will even bother to look at your application.
It's a softer sort of authoritarianism which requires no draft boards, muddles the identity of the "bad guy" and produces no martyrs in handcuffs for the evening news. You just can't get a job if you don't do as you're told.
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil...--Obamas-very-modern-take-on-national-service
It seems the above idea has been put into play as with the following quote from an article dated 18 March:
House Passes Bipartisan Legislation to Expand and Strengthen National Service
Provides incentives for middle and high school students to engage in service through a Summer of Service program and authorizes up to 25 institutions of higher education to be designated as “Campuses of Service” eligible for grants to encourage students to engage in service during school and in their future careers.
http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=1265
“Campuses of Service” ......Interesting terminology
Home page for National Service, read all about it
http://www.nationalservice.gov/
Or the service plan page:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/
We also have the citizens page, great Tshirts as well.
http://www.citizenserviceforobama.org/
Shades of Starship trooper universe, be a good citizen by serving.
and an interesting stub on what the administration likes to call “progressive federalism,”
"The Obama administration seems to be open to a movement known as “progressive federalism,” in which governors and activist state attorneys general have been trying to lead the way on environmental initiatives, consumer protection and other issues, several constitutional experts say.
A recent decision by President Obama that could open the way for California and other states to set their own limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks represents a shift in the delicate and often acrimonious relationship between the federal government and the states, legal experts say, possibly signaling a new view of federalism.
“I think it’s quite significant,” said Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of constitutional law at New York University law school. “It shows the Obama administration’s more benign view of government intervention,” Professor Issacharoff said, and “may indicate a spirit of cooperative federalism” in which Washington will look to the states for new ideas and even a measure of guidance.
The above sounds quite good, however the other side of the coin:
The insidious thing about "progressive federalism" is that it is a one-way street, selectively employed in a manner designed to relentless increase, but never decrease, government power and control. Obama and other statists are more that happy to see command-and-control California set higher-than-federal auto emission standards, in a case of wag the dog regulating. But states that decide to go another way, and regulate below the federal standard -- who decide, for instance, to opt out of certain provisions of the Clean Air Act or Endangered Species Act -- are out of luck, and will find the federal hammer coming down on them.
Conclusion:
This "laboratory" is designed to produce only one outcome -- more regulation. "Progressive federalism" is another Orwellian attempt to rob words of their meaning -- and might more accurately be described as "faux federalism."
http://theamericancontrarian.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-progressive-federalism-one-way.html
Conspiracies aside, there does seem to be quite a lot of good in the ideas presented, but there is also an underlying darker side, of more controls and regulations that once implemented may not turn out to be all that positive in the long run.