Obama said, "Your own story and the American story are not separate. They are shared. And they will both be enriched if we stand up together, and answer a new call to service to meet the challenges of our new century. I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency."
While this is nice sounding rhetoric, it is inaccurate and deceitful. Obama seeks to change the meaning of what this country was to fit his socialist ideal. This country was made great, not by the government directing its journey, nor by people collectively pursuing a collective goal. This country was made great because individuals were allowed to pursue their own dreams and goals. America's story of success was not the shared ideal that Obama and all socialists love. It is the story of millions of individuals pursuing their happiness in the way they saw fit. They were serving their country by being productive of their own free will because it would enrich them. Shared prosperity is nothing more than socialism. Socialism is not as productive as free markets. The success of the United States proves that point. The United States became successful in raising more people out of poverty because its citizens were able to pursue their own dreams and hopes without the interference of the government.
His service plan is almost laughable because he fails to recognize that service existed before the government got involved, so why would we need the government to provide service opportunities. It is just another example of government waste and excessive spending. What do we have to gain from the government getting involved in service? Is it truly service if the person who serves is getting paid via scholarships, direct payments, etc.
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: Obama will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and double the Peace Corps and dedicate these positions to addressing America's common challenges. He also will provide new service opportunities for working Americans and retirees.
WHAT IT MEANS: Just what this country needs, more people on the government payroll providing goods and services that people do not want. Who's going to feed all this unproductive labor? What common challenges is Obama referencing here?
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: By leveraging federal dollars, Obama will foster the use of best practices of the private sector to nurture innovation in the nonprofit sector.
WHAT IT MEANS: Innovation primarily comes from the private sector, motivated by the profit factor. It does not come from the non-profit sector. Why would we put more money into non-profits when they are inferior to the private sector when producing innovation? The only reason to do so is because the non-profit sector is primarily made up of a bunch of lackeys that support big government. Call them socialists, Marxists, progressives, liberals, or whatever you might. They are all the same. They seek to impose their will upon the majority through policies such as taking money from the private sector and giving it to the non-profit sector.
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: America not asked to serve after 9/11: President Bush squandered an opportunity to mobilize the American people following 9/11 when asked Americans only to go shopping.
WHAT IT MEANS: What is Obama talking about here? People sent hundreds of millions of dollars to help those who suffered from the attacks. They donated countless hours to service, as Americans often do. Americans have big heart and wallets. People joined the military to fight against those who attacked us. I'm not sure what planet Obama lives on, but it doesn't seem to have much reality on it.
Obama's plan for service is nothing more than an attempt to put more people under the government payroll and enrich government supporters who work in the non-profit sector. This will effectively lessen the voice of the people by putting more power in the hands of those who do not serve the people, but who instead serve the government. This is a subtle anti-freedom policy at its best, a policy that any proud socialist would be happy to defend.
The best form of service that any man or woman can render is being a productive, self-sufficient citizen that does not need a government handout. Creating government sponsored service creates citizens that depend on government largess. Why does the government have to stick its slimy hands into the service arena? Liberals often invoke the term "public good", but what does this phrase mean exactly? It is never defined, but I suspect that it means whatever the proponent of some government policy wants it to mean. Socialists often use the term "public good" to hide the true purpose of the programs they espouse. That true purpose is to enslave the people, making them dependent upon the government for their well-being.