Obama 'army' begins recruitment

[Plazoo]

By Chelsea Schilling
2009 WorldNetDaily


President Obama's army of citizen volunteers is now actively recruiting college students in states across the country to "build support for President Obama's agenda" – and earn college credit while advocating for "change."

Obama for America, Obama's 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and is now known as Organizing for America, or OFA. The movement some call "Obama 2.0" is now recruiting students and offering to provide credits toward degree plans in exchange for their advocacy skills.

A message from OFA national volunteer coordinators announcing the recruitment campaign and internship opportunities has been posted on several websites and on Facebook.

"Students and young people were critical in building the movement that helped elect President Obama last year. By becoming a National Organizing Intern, you'll be part of the grassroots effort to make the change we fought for a reality in 2009 and beyond," it states. "As an Organizing Intern, you'll work side by side with OFA staff and community leaders to help build support for President Obama's agenda. You'll learn core organizing principles that are crucial for any campaign and play an important role in building our organization in your state."

The announcement continues, "President Obama describes his time as a community organizer by saying: 'It was the best education I ever had, because I learned in those neighborhoods that when ordinary people come together, they can achieve extraordinary things.'

"This is your chance to get that same education.

"If you're passionate about making sure every American has quality health care, reviving our economy, and building a clean energy future, don't miss this great opportunity. No previous experience is needed in order to apply."


The group's website declares: "Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is empowering students across the country to build on the movement that elected President Obama and help bring about his vision for change."

Volunteers must commit to working at least 12 hours a week from Sept. 1 to Dec. 11 and, according to the OFA website, may receive college credit from their schools for doing so.

The Omaha World-Herald reported that OFA workers have been knocking on doors and making phone calls in Iowa and Nebraska to garner support for Obama's health care initiative.

"It is the first time in recent memory that a presidential candidate has maintained an active, grassroots presence in either state after an election," the newspaper reported.

"Iowa has almost nonstop presidential activity," said Norm Sterzenbach, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. "But the idea of having a sitting president continuing an organization is fairly unusual."

According to the Washington Post, Obama used the same standing political army earlier this year to gather signatures in support of his economic plan. The president asked his supporters to go "block by block and door by door" in every state.

In March, when volunteers canvassed high-traffic locations in Birmingham, Ala., to support Obama's health care, education and energy policies, one event organizer told the Birmingham News, "We are looking for supporters. We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."

Read Full Story Here

[Brendon]

I don't see anything bad about continuing a grassroot movement that was successful in raising support for the president. I assume it's completely up to the schools on deciding if it's right to give the college credits or not.

[Piggy]

I don't see anything bad about continuing a grassroot movement that was successful in raising support for the president. I assume it's completely up to the schools on deciding if it's right to give the college credits or not.

Ask yourself this, if George Bush was in Office and said he was going to start his own Christian Army that would be equally as powerful and strong as the military, to push the right wing agenda, would that bother you? If Bush made this speech, what would your reaction be? Especially if this is Government funded. Do you think our Nation has the extra money to start a politically motivated Army?

Because keep in mind, Obama won't be in office forever. If he's voted out in four years, this may just happen.

Also, ask yourself, what is the purpose of this? We have a military and states have a National Guard. What role with this new force have in our society?

Do you still feel the same way?

[Brendon]

Since the religious party breaks the secularism of the Government, no. If he was just using it to raise support for him, sure. I don't know how much is being spent on this army if anything is, since it's all grassroot stuff at this point.

[Piggy]

Since the religious party breaks the secularism of the Government, no. If he was just using it to raise support for him, sure. I don't know how much is being spent on this army if anything is, since it's all grassroot stuff at this point.

There is no separation of church and state within the constitution, therefore if Obama establishes this civilian army (which we still don't know what they are doing), it will be taken over by the next President.

In Obama's words, the civilian national security force will be just as well funded as the military, so we're looking at roughly $515 billion. It also means that if the next President uses this civilian national security force to support his own agenda, you're okay with it?

What about the need? How do you see a need for a civilian national security force? A few posts ago, you weren't worried about terrorism. If there are no worries, why the need for a national security force?

[Brendon]

There is no separation of church and state within the constitution, therefore if Obama establishes this civilian army (which we still don't know what they are doing), it will be taken over by the next President.

The separation of church and state is from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

[Piggy]

The separation of church and state is from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution!

Um, no, it's not. The separation between church and state is an interpretation by the courts. It was not the intention of the founding founders, nor the constitution, that is why the phrase is not in the constitution. If you feel that strongly, feel free to open up your wallet and mail me any Government documents you possess which have the phrase "In God We Trust".

Please, for the love of God, stop reading the Daily Kos.

[Big_Montana]

Um, no, it's not. The separation between church and state is an interpretation by the courts. It was not the intention of the founding founders, nor the constitution, that is why the phrase is not in the constitution. If you feel that strongly, feel free to open up your wallet and mail me any Government documents you possess which have the phrase "In God We Trust".

Please, for the love of God, stop reading the Daily Kos.

Please, for the love of God, put down your TV remote!

The Constitution was written borrowing wisdom from Philosophers like Locke, Hume, Rousseau, what percentage of their works have you read? Locke's ideas on the separation of church and state, was the basis for what was written in the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson wrote a few letters some of which were QUOTED as the basis for the supreme courts justification for the official term separation of church and state which is currently a more stable LAW than the whole damn second amendment!


Let's stop making in factual assumptions about our founding fathers based on what some under educated TV or Radio broadcaster (who is more worried about his Neilson ratings than the truth) says.

In God we trust was added to our money after the CIVIL WAR (before that it was very intentionally the Latin 'E Pluribus Unum' or "from many one") it was added because people got it in their heads that the civil war was a curse from God for our departure from him etc. etc. we have not reversed this momentary stumble because it is easily argued that God is very non specific, as far as I’m concerned God could be a reference to the flying spaghetti monster (Google it it's funny).

But that not being the point of this discussion I think you’re going a little far in taking this Army quote out of context asking how it'll fit in with the National Guard and regular army? It’s an analogy to an intellectual force, not armed, volunteer, not paid.

Dare I say it if you remove God from the church, G.W. Bush already had his own grass roots organization pushing (parts of) his agenda, and some of those people believe exhibitions of JOY not related to God are sins and if you don't believe as they do it's their fault...those are the lunatics i'm worried about, not the ones that come to your door and explain their side of an issue if you allow them, (okay they will probably mis-represent that their side is the only side but that's a different conversation).

i'm no longer a republican or a democrat, because it seems that the 10% on the extreme right and left are the only ones represented. and we are too busy over-reacting to the little things that the side we don't associate with does, that we don't even realize our side isn't representing us most of the time either.

Turn off Fox, Turn of KOS, Turn off CNN, learn about those representing you, their votes, their connections to organized crime etc. do your own research on how and why the constitution is interpreted the way it is, you may find yourself just as mad at the person you keep voting in as your TV has been telling you to be at the other guys!
-Deke

[Piggy]

The Constitution was written borrowing wisdom from Philosophers like Locke, Hume, Rousseau, what percentage of their works have you read? Locke's ideas on the separation of church and state, was the basis for what was written in the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson wrote a few letters some of which were QUOTED as the basis for the supreme courts justification for the official term separation of church and state which is currently a more stable LAW than the whole damn second amendment!

What does this have to do with the right to bear arms?

Let's stop making in factual assumptions about our founding fathers based on what some under educated TV or Radio broadcaster (who is more worried about his Neilson ratings than the truth) says.

Kind of like making the assumption this is where I got my information?

But that not being the point of this discussion I think you’re going a little far in taking this Army quote out of context asking how it'll fit in with the National Guard and regular army? It’s an analogy to an intellectual force, not armed, volunteer, not paid.

Source?

i'm no longer a republican or a democrat, because it seems that the 10% on the extreme right and left are the only ones represented. and we are too busy over-reacting to the little things that the side we don't associate with does, that we don't even realize our side isn't representing us most of the time either.

Well we agree on something then.

Turn off Fox, Turn of KOS, Turn off CNN, learn about those representing you, their votes, their connections to organized crime etc. do your own research on how and why the constitution is interpreted the way it is, you may find yourself just as mad at the person you keep voting in as your TV has been telling you to be at the other guys!

I did my own research, that's why I'm concerned. Thanks for your rant. If you're done, feel free to join in on the conversation.

[CityOfChicago]

This takes a while to load, so pause it for a minute or so so it can.



Now, before I get the obligatory "right-wing kook" comments, I submit this only for viewing. Personally, I think the makers of this film have some deep seated world-paranoia (Bilderberg and such). But the beginning and end talk about Obama and his 'plans' for the country. Take a gander.

[CityOfChicago]

This is the oft-occurring double post. It happens because my laptop is possessed.

THEREFORE.........

You Tube

Here comes the BOOM!

[ChevySSP]

I'm not too worried about them recruiting college kids. Like anything else taken on in college, they'll get bored of it around the 3 week mark.

[Taz_bb2]

The separation of church and state is from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution!

Let me give the cliff notes version: NO ITS NOT.

Now for the longer version:

Thomas Jefferson said the following in a letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

And I quote from the Government Archives of the 1st Amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Funny, they don't seem to match. I don't see Jefferson's words in there at all.

See back when the Constitution was being drafted, and the varying conventions from Virginia and Pennsylvania were going back and forth on this very issue, they were referencing the many nations of Europe, (specifically the countries of England, Italy, and Spain) that had a National Religion (Protestantism and Roman Catholicism respectively). They observed the many injustices against the subjects of those nations and others they went to war with, all in the name of the national religion. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that in no circumstance ever did our Government engage in establishing any sort of recognized religion in governmental duties. In their actions, religion should be blind and non-existent - inasmuch as not one is view higher, better, or more right. Nor should any religion be forced on anyone, but one's personal expression of religion, public OR private, should never be hindered, interfered with, or prohibited.

The ideology of the Separation of Church and State has been bastardized over the years as gospel - which is it not. I will gladly give you $1000 if you can provide me documentation from either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence in which they refer to the separation of church and state. Are you willing to do the same?

Finally, if you really want to get technical and follow what the liberals have pushed among society whereas Christmas displays shouldn't go on Government grounds (city halls, etc)...then NO citizen of the US should have them up on their home. Why? The government owns your home and your land, even after you pay it off. Don't believe me??? Try not paying your property taxes and see who ends up with it.

Knowledge is power young man.

[CityOfChicago]

I wouldn't feel so secure with that. College kids have nothing to do with their time but drink and be activist about something. Academia combined with the raw enthusiasm of youth and the idealism that can only come from never having had to work for a living create a dangerous potionn - always have.

[Big_Montana]

to drag this back into the context of the original discussion, right wing, left wing, middle of the road whatever - a president asking people to get together and advocate for what they already believe, religious or not has nothing to do with separation of church and state (however strong you believe the wording to be). I’m saying the wording of separation of church and state is stronger than most people on this board would like it to be (apparently) and I STILL say there would be no violation of that provision in a presidential call asking people to advocate for their religious beliefs.

There is no problem with it even if he's asking them to put their faith into action. Because he has not forced anyone to believe anything, he has only asked for them to act on that which they already believe (right or wrong).

My annoyance here is despite the fact I don't like the agenda. The way the agenda is being promoted is legitimate, claims that it is not are not only of no use to the greater fabric of society, but without merit! There are lines of conversation which would be much more productive! Someone earlier in this thread cried what if someone that's religious gets hold of this tactic in the future? Wouldn’t we call that unethical or a violation of church and state?!? That discussion is past MOOT because it's already been done, there just doesn't happen to be 1 building (meeting place) per 909 people (1996 statistic) where non-Christian people can meet to discuss and form advocacy groups for their ideas.

doesn't it bother you even a little that your represenitives could write an open letter to the American people about any of these more productive subjects and or answering all your questions about the legitimacy of the current form of advocacy, and 95% of its usage would be out of context, and or used to harm a person who was only trying to make a situation understandable to you and me?


Piggy,
It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms; I’m using it as a factual parody on a subject which is more widely understood. The parody being, as unambiguously worded as the second amendment is it is LESS stable than this principal of separation of church and state that you are talking about.

And I only made the assumption you got your information from those sources because your argument is the EXACT same as those people, and mostly hype. It doesn't help that you posted an article from a well known right leaning source.

Source? i hope we're talking about the funding and not the armed part, because the armed part is just conspiritorial crap that they haven't even made up on the TV yet (that i know of from the small amounts i am forced to watch).
Also were it funded, it would be funded by the DNC not Congress, and beleive it or not the DNC's primary mission is the advancment of it's political goals, i don't understand how finding a new way to advance their political goals would be an issue...that's what they do, that's what people gave them money for.
i appligize for not having said government funded, i can see where that might confuse. and at this point i'm not saying it is or isn't funded, although at the basest levels it claims to be volunteer, i'm sure there are a few people at the top who will end up having to make it such a full time job that their efforts will demand a salary.


It’s not a rant it's a plea for intelligence.

Taz I cannot, give you the exact wording, the wording is an attempt by smart people to make Legal jargon that most don't understand easily understood. From when the constitution was written to now, people smarter than you and I have debated what the actual meaning and context was. And what they came up with to help us understand the complex meaning of the original context and meaning is "Separation of church and state."
someone quoted our biggest mis-step along that path ("in god we trust") as proof that we are a religious nation, implying that this wording voids the interpretation of what we as a nation have now come to understand as separation of church and state.

And of course you don't see Jefferson’s words in there at all excepting the fact that this specific amendment was based on The Virginia bill on religious freedom written by... (for 10 points) Jefferson...and well before the constitution was written. I guess I don't get what you don't understand about the strength of the word WALL in wall of separation. if you don't understand his meaning in the letter to the baptists read some of his other stuff, it's clear he thinks the separation should be stronger.

yes there were conversations regarding what a state church had caused other nations to do, but the basis for the idea was still understood to be at least partly Locke's

Deke