More details of Obama’s Hitler Youth Brigade

More details of Obama’s Hitler Youth Brigade

A few days ago, I wrote about the scary new idea being floated around in Washington: a mandatory volunteer service corps for young people. It would require America’s youth to participate in government youth service programs, go through indoctrination education camps, and would even give them their own special uniform! Oh, and it’s unconstitutional.

As if all of that wasn’t good enough, Obama’s taking it one step further. Apparently, I missed the part where attending religious services and participating in religious events was banned.

No, I am not kidding. Check it out:

[W]e have HR 1388. The Bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) with 37 others. The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama.

This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in “engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.” That means no church attendance or witnessing.

Again, is this what America voted for? Here is part of the HR1388 Bill’s wording:


Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:


(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Yeah, that’s not unconstitutional or anything. This particular passage in our Constitution was just a suggestion:

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.

It’s funny that liberals used to mock Bush as being Hitler so often. Now, when we actually have a Hitler-esque President trying to indoctrinate our youth and infringe upon their rights, they’re suspiciously silent. How shocking.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Written by

  • Michael Fiano says:

    Thanks Cassy for bringing this to light.

    The Dims have four yrs (only four,I pray) to try and put programs like this into place, consolidate and breed more of the socialist agenda.

  • Al says:

    It’s still a bad idea, but I don’t think it’s going as far as you think. It’s not saying that you can never attend church while you are part of the program, it is saying that your “service” to the program cannot be based on propagating a religion. Which I disagree with, but I can also see the reasoning there.

    So, for example, working in a Catholic soup kitchen or food pantry would be OK, because it’s not primarily religiously oriented. But serving as a youth minister would not.

    I don’t think, for example, that Chris Smith, the leader of the pro-life caucus, or Joseph Cao, a former Jesuit seminarian who is very pro-life and socially conservative, would have voted for the bill if it did what you are saying it does. Or any of the other 68 Republicans who voted for it.

  • Al says:

    Or, to use another example, you could tutor in math, science, English, or history in a Christian school, but you couldn’t help teach a religion class. Again, a dumb idea, but not as bad as this source is making it out to be.

    Both the right and the left have been guilty of exaggerating about aspects of a bill or proposal when the truth is already bad enough. All it does is make you look bad.

  • Al says:

    Actually, scratch that last example (although I’d argue that in some Catholic schools, you can graduate without taking really meaningful classes in religion if you want to). But rest of the point still stands.

  • Coach John says:

    Al is right. I think that the idea behind the aforementioned (and quite long-winded) article 7 is to keep religion outside of the program; that is, to keep church and state separate as laid out by our founding fathers.

    Now as for this so-called “Youth Brigade”… Those who are given the funding to attend college via Obama’s program are required to commit to some sort of civic service, i.e. the military, the peace corps, or the Red Cross, in order to help pay for it. In a way, requiring these students to perform such tasks saves the government money and answers the question: “Where is this funding going to come from?” Obama made this very clear during the election and, since there is no proof outside of an article by one Jonas Clark who is NOT a journalist with any credibility on a website known as The Voice Magazine which is NOT a reputable news source, lets give the President the benefit of the doubt here.

  • Miguelito says:

    I’m willing to be the twisted logic they’ll use saying it’s not unconstitutional will be along the lines of, “it’s not required unless you want gov’t money, therefore it’s not forced.”

    “This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE).”

    Who wants to bet that they came up with the acronym first, then wedged something into it after the fact?

  • Mat says:


    With all due respect, the legal points in the areas that Cassy pointed out are quite clear. I hardly think her blog entry makes her “look bad.” There’s plenty of stuff in this bill that makes me shudder.

    The Campus of Service part is bad enough (and that’s just one example). Essentially, 25 universities and colleges will be chosen by the Secretary of Education? Granted, the states can nominate schools, but the Secretary, and hence the administration, will make the choices. My guess is that the adminstration will take some very liberal ones and sprinkle a couple of “moderate” choices to make everyone feel good.

    Or how about the “National Service Reserve Corps,” which is supposed to deal with “emergencies” or natural disasters? Doesn’t the National Guard handle those situations? That alone is creepy. If there was a group that could eventually wind up like Obama’s “national security force that is just as powerful and well-funded as the military,” this would be it. As I said in the other post Cassy did on this development, it doesn’t take much to transform the seemingly benign into something dangerous, and I used the Hitlerjugend as an example.

    Overall, I see an awful lot of power being placed in the hands of the executive office (I’d be equally concerned if a Republican attempted this legislation). Not a good sign in general, but Obama’s really been trying to concentrate power in a very short amount of time.

  • Coach John says:

    I see your points, Mat, but they are formed under the premise that this “brigade” actually exists outside of the minds of one Jonas Clark and his right-wing cohorts. The simple explanation of the rules listed above that has everyone in a tizzy is that, a) in order to receive assistance with your tuition (outside of student loans) you must b) pledge to at least 3 months of community service so long as it does not c) break the silent code that separates church and state. Yes this may in time include Obama’s National Service Reserve Corps, but it also extends to the Peace Corps, the Red Cross, your local Humane Society- anything that improves the quality of life for us all and does not preach religion to someone who doesn’t want to hear it. How that got twisted is beyond me. C’mon people. Do some research!!!

  • CaptDMO says:

    Golly, I seem to remember a youth group that required service to the community, including the not-so-glamorous, as a facet of continued voluntary membership. They have spiffy uniforms too. Alas, only members of proved moral, ethical, productive, and patriotic fiber are deemed qualified to advance to leadership positions.
    The United Way won’t endorse them, unless, of course, they change their basic values, yet the NRA does. Young folks can quit at any time, without prejudice or penalty. NO ONE is required to volunteer for anything against their grain. Values set fourth in The Constitution are most certainly set fourth. Practical life skills are taught, with subsequent practice encouraged and recognized. Parents are highly encouraged to participate, and maintain close supervision of activities.

  • JFH says:

    I don’t know, Coach John, this is a slippery slope once you designate what does and does not account for voluntary service. Our church does a lot of “community service”, but there is always a bit of religion in it. For example, if you say a prayer before serving a meal at a soup kitchen does that count? If you invite the family you are building a Habitat for Humanity house to come to your church to worship, does that count?

    Requiring community service by the government is essentially a national draft and we all know how well that worked in the post WWII military.

  • physics geek says:

    Cassy, this post is RACIST!!! How dare you criticize someone who farts cinnamon scented rainbows.

    I had a discussion with Michele Catalano about this some months ago and I guaranteed to her that “mandatory volunteerism” would find its way back into legislation. Excuse me, looking at the mandatory requirement. Never occurred to me that it would happen so fast.

  • WayneB says:

    OK, I have a question: Do these prohibitions apply only to actual WORK time of this volunteering, or does it apply to the entire calendar time of it? Because I don’t have a big problem saying that you have to manage your worship and speech activities around your work schedule, but it looks to me like you can’t do these things AT ANY TIME during the “volunteer” period.

    That means that a youth minister or other young church leader would not even be allowed to perform services ON HIS FREE TIME. If you notice, it also prohibits free speech the same way, because “volunteers” are not allowed to participate in petitions or boycotts. Which basically means that they can’t protest anything they are asked to do.

  • J David says:

    Michelle Malkin says that there only 14 senators(Republicans) opposing this in the senate. Which means that all of the rest of them are traitors, and should be put out on street corners in stocks to be caned and have rotten fruit thrown at them. WE ARE BETRAYED!

  • Darby Shaw says:

    How can something be voluntary AND mandatory at the same time. I can’t wait for this. I’ll be able to go down to my “Operational HQ” and have one of the “cadre” pick out a nice brown shirt for me. I especially like the spiffy armband, it’s so hip.

  • Mat says:

    Coach John,

    Regarding the research, I actually read the damn bill, line by line, including the other U.S. Code sections that the bill amended (there were several of them).

    We’re not talking about an organization set up with federal backing, we’re talking about 25 campuses nationwide selected by not just the government, but the executive office. What part of alarming do you not understand? This will put an incredible amount of power in the hands of the president.

    This is fact: In July, Obama said he wanted a national security force just as powerful and as well funded as the military. It’s on video. Check YouTube, if you choose to see it. The National Service Reserve Corps is designed primarily to deal with “emergencies” or “national disasters.”

    Now, I don’t know about you, but I think “emergency” can be construed to mean a whole lot of things. As I said before, the National Guard handles those situations along with local law enforcement. What this essentially amounts to is a possible replacement of the National Guard with a “Reserve Force” that is under the control of the executive office (in this case, Obama).

    Yes, I’m aware that there are many other organizations that will be affected by this. I’m not particularly concerned about them. I am concerned about the NSRC because that has the greatest potential to become a Presidential paramilitary force.

    BTW, I don’t particularly like Obama because of his ideology, but I never said the guy was stupid. He has relied on misdirection throughout his entire political career and I think this is simply another of those situations. When you want to create a “national security force” in this country, you’re not just going to plop it in a bill and say “I want this force.” You stick it in innocuously with a whole lot of other crap to get it through (think porkulus package). Once the bill is passed and into law, then he can do anything he wants with it. The bill already talked about military discipline training. First the discipline, then the weapons. And then we’ll have that friggin paramilitary that we can all be proud of. All for our protection, of course (note, heavy on the sarcasm here). What annoys me is that people like you naysay until it does actually happen, and then you’re the first to bitch about it. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

    Cpt. DMO,

    Well, golly, I didn’t realize the Boy Scouts were under presidential control. That’s news to me. They’re a private organization and they can do whatever they want. That truly is voluntary. Unlike other things in this bill…

  • WayneB says:

    Mat – I don’t think Capt DMO was implying anything of the sort. He was (in my opinion) pointing out that there shouldn’t be a need for this new organization, except that the Boy Scouts actually have, you know, STANDARDS, and expect their members to have honor.

    Regarding the “campuses”, does it bother anyone that, in the first draft of the Bill, they were referred to as “camps”?

    See this for reference.

  • Mat says:

    Wayne B,

    Maybe, but the NRA comment was snuck in there, so it’s hard to say whether it was sarcasm or not (I’m sticking to my original position until otherwise notified). That message, at the very least, needs to be clearer to avoid confusion in the future.

    With regards to the camp, yeah, I saw that too (freudian slip on their part?). You also have references to military-type discipline (in a good way of course…at least that’s how they put it, I think), brigades, cadres, fusion HQ (something like that, I do remember the fusion part, I’ll have to recheck the bill). The wording of some of the stuff alone gives me the creeps.

  • alanstorm says:

    Sorry, Al and Coach John, the phrasing Cassie used is exact. It may be that the INTENT was to prohibit various activities as part of the “voluntary” community service, but that’s not what the language says. It says that a participant in the program may not engage in certain activities, period.

    And how exactly does the elementary and secondary school “service-learning” corps fit into the idea of doing community service to pay for college?

    I will not give the President (or Congress) the benefit of the doubt. He has shown and stated his intent, and his ideas of how the country should be “improved” are improvements only if you think unlimited government power is a desireable thing.

  • Jim Treacher says:

    Veiled as

    I still can’t believe Michele tried to defend this crap.

  • Rash Manly says:

    Dear Cassy,

    Keep up the great work,
    you are a great American!

    Rash Manly

    The Barack Obama Song!

    Sung to the tune of
    “That’s Entertainment!”

    Tax –
    We just can’t pay enough
    And the facts –
    We don’t hear for the fluff
    Just relax –
    Give the poor all your stuff!

    That’s Barack – tainment!

    Cash –
    Uncle Sam wants it all
    Hear the crash –
    As the stock market falls
    In a flash –
    Your tax bill will grow tall!

    That’s Barack – tainment!

    Lazy bums
    Will leave you crumbs
    So we all have the same,

    It’s only fair
    That we all share
    What work made you gain,
    If you complain
    You’re insane,

    Give all to the needy –
    Or are you just greedy!

    Poor –
    We must all be that way
    To have more –
    Is a sin so they say
    Just ignore –
    The Constitution and pray,

    You still have a job,
    To pay lazy slobs

    That’s Barack – tainment!

    Written by Rash Manly

  • Michael says:

    Your ability to make yourself seem credible and contort a bill which 68 REPUBLICANS voted for makes me associate you with hitler more than obama, whom you so tastefully dressed up in the nazi uniform. what motivates you to act this way? certainly a serious event in your life has jaded your perspective so much that you feel compelled to garner attention through sensationalists coverage of mundane house bills. i know you wont publish this comment, but feel free to respond to me by email. god bless.

  • Michelle says:

    Thank you for posting this.

    This is rather scary to think about.

  • nick g says:

    you fucking idiots sit here and talk shit while it all falls apart around you. you offer nothing in the way of a solution. you think mccain would have been better? how about that jerk off mormon rooney? fucking idiots. what the fuck is wrong with excluding organized religion? i wouldn’t want to have to sit off some where while part of my class was mumbling bull shit at an imaginary being. have you fucking retards even read the bible? have you bothered to critically analyze ALL THE FUCKING RETARDED BULLSHIT AND CONTRADICTIONS???? your religion is a JOKE and if you’re so stupid you can’t see that for yourself I just don’t know what to say. if you actually take your religious texts, the same ones that have caused innumerable deaths and untold suffering over the ages, if you insist to take their fairy tales literally instead of just seeing them as lessons about life than you’ll just keep playing into the hands of your puppet masters. so go ahead and blame the liberals, blame obama. blame every fucking person you can but JUST DONT BLAME YOURSELVES. this reminds me of something Jesus supposedly said. something like, “he who is without sin cast the first stone.” something like that…. ass holes. after yesterday, every time i read shit like this i’ll picture you guys as the dude in pittsburgh who shot up those poor cops. all living with your mom, single and crazy as all fucking hell.

  • The Him says:

    Nick, Nick, Nick.

    I think you may have been able to squeeze in a couple more swear words if you had tried just a wee bit harder. You miss the overall point, though.

    It’s irrelevant whether or not you believe in God, or can even act mature enough to be civil to those that do, it’s only relevant that the government isn’t supposed to be telling people what they can do in their free time.

    Separation of church and state is a good thing, but it only applies to official legal policy. If not, we would have to impeach Obama (and every other president or public officer) for citing God so often. That’s the point of individual freedom, it’s not up to you or me, or anyone else to tell people they can or can’t believe.

    I’m not religious myself, but leftism has killed more people and caused more suffering than any religion, yet we allow the Communist Party to exist in the U.S. They are free to exist, and others are free to criticize.

    The partisan bickering aside, you know very well the kind of outrage that would be ringing out through the media if Bush had tried anything like this.

    As for Michael,.. Maybe it’s been the eight years (plus) of having eveyone who doesn’t walk in lockstep with liberals compared to Hitler for no good reason that makes people react this way. And, who cares if 68 Republicans voted for it? A bad idea is a bad idea.

  • garry says:

    Looks like nick G. is offended, I think you have issues you need to control your anger, it is making you look like just another fustrated angry liberal. A man with your intelligence should–(there must be something there you wrote that offensive mess)–use all that angry energy of your`s and accomplish something constructive then maybe the world would be a better place. I am not a paticular religous person. I beilive in indviualism, indipendance, freedom and to cause anyone to be subjected to any manditory service(other than military service) is unconstitional and wrong. As far as I am concerned it is slavery. OH–the one who shot the cops was a angry liberal.

  • Joe Bunda says:

    Gee, it’s a shame that you never learned how to read IN CONTEXT. You left out the leading paragraph of that section, which states “Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following” WHICH MEANS that someone OPERATING IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY in a national service position may not engage in these activities. IT DOES NOT SAY that people serving in these national service position may not do these things on their own time. I definitely do not want someone working in a position funded by U.S. taxpayers doing ANY of these things. Here’s to whole list, just to keep the record straight:

    “(a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:

    (1) Attempting to influence legislation.

    (2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

    (3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

    (4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

    (5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to Federal office or the outcome of an election to a State or local public office.

    (6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

    (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.

    (8) Consistent with section 132, providing a direct benefit to any–

    (A) business organized for profit;

    (B) labor union;

    (C) partisan political organization;

    (D) nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

    (E) organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless the position is not used to support those religious activities.

    (9) Providing abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services.

    (10) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

    (11) Carrying out such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.”

    In NO SENSE does it say that folks cannot do these things ON THEIR OWN TIME. Sheesh!

  • Ray Bowman says:

    Guys, I appreciate all of you taking the time to jot down your thoughts, but really, it’s OVER. There is nothing that can be done to stop this but to get down on our knees and PRAY. That’s it. Barry has assumed control and NO ONE is going to stop him. The reasonable course of action is to prepare for what is to come and do whatever you can to protect your children.

    That having been said, I will give two predictions you can bet your life savings on:

    1) In the end, Barry will be the most disgraced person ever to hold office in America. I can add a second part to this prediction but will not for fear of the power he has amassed already.
    2) There will never again be another African-American elected to the presidency in America.

    Now, everyone get down on your knees and pray for GOD to have mercy on us all.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner