David

Karki

Read David's bio and previous columns here

July 21, 2008

Obama: The Creepiness Factor

Over an otherwise slow news period encompassing the recent Independence Day holiday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made a couple statements that serve to highlight what gives many of us pause about his campaign. And whether it's borne of mere inexperience or something more intentionally sinister, it doesn't befit someone seeking the most powerful office in the world.

Here is the first one:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."  – Barack Obama, July 2, 2008, speaking at the University of Colorado

What on Earth is he talking about? An entire second military? Made up of whom? Beholden to whom? Would there be conscription if too few chose to participate? And just what would its main purpose be? The possibilities range from fairly benign to downright frightening.

The list of questions this comment raises goes on and on. But not only has the mainstream media, which is completely in the tank for Obama, refused to ask him for more detail about this enormous plan, they have let the Obama campaign get away with pretending he never said it. You will find no evidence of it on Obama's web site, nor any other regular media outlet. The only reason the content of that speech survives is that it was posted on YouTube.com. (Thank God for the Internet!)

It's hard to give the benefit of the doubt to someone when they so quickly and furtively bury something that otherwise sounds like a major initiative. And then there's the historical parallel – more on that later.

Here is the next one:

“When I’m president, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you’ll have done 17 weeks of service.”  – Barack Obama, same day, same location

He doesn't actually say the word, of course, but what he's talking about isn't a “goal” but a requirement. And one presumably backed by the force of law, resulting in punishment for non-compliance. I find it ironic that a black man would be proposing something that, in principle, is slavery. But that aside, this is really just more nanny-state liberalism. Just as they'll tax your money away to spend it better than you, they'll take your time away to spend it better than you would.

And naturally, there's the euphemism to hide behind. Just as taxes aren't theft but “investments,” indentured servitude is a “goal.” What is it about liberals that have them so convinced that compassion is a derivative of government force? Whether time or money, no end whose means are founded upon seizure or compulsion can possibly be moral. True compassion is freely shown, and that is what gives it meaning. Obama's proposal is but a weak counterfeit of the real thing.

This one was at least not covered up by the Obama campaign, though they did back away from it somewhat. (Given Obama's steady stream of gaffes, they have had much practice in doing this smoothly and effortlessly.) Again, there is an historical parallel here that is hard to ignore.

Finally, there's Obama holding his acceptance speech on the final evening of the Democratic convention at Invesco Field rather than at the site itself. Ostensibly, this is so more and regular people can attend – and, no doubt, to artificially boost the attendance figures. But given the whole Obama-as-Messiah thing, one cannot help but wonder if this isn't his version of a Billy Graham Crusade. And that is but the less creepy of the plausible comparisons here.

Add it up – civilian national security force, mandatory youth service, nighttime stadium rally. As much as I don't want to, it's impossible not to briefly think of the S.S., Hitler Youth and Nuremberg. That Obama and his staff would seem to be so oblivious to the similarity is shocking. Oh, I'm sure they're dismayed at me for even bringing it up (as many of you reading this likely are), but if it's so bad of me to consider it, why didn't they think of that beforehand and alter things so I wouldn't have to?

Whether they were simply ignorant of or knew full well and were fine with the parallels, it all demonstrates how unfit Obama and his followers are to hold power. Obama says and does things that are extremely disturbing, with neither cognizance of nor regard for historical perspective. This is evidence of, at best, staggering incompetence – at worst, it's something malevolent. I neither know nor care which, as both are disqualifying.

Or should be. Hopefully, enough Americans will see through the media “blitzkrieg” on Obama's behalf before a terrible mistake is made and possibly irreversible damage is done.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK131. Request permission to publish here.