Here's some pork we can do without:

Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical....

And while Public Allies might deny it, there's plenty of indoctrination -- which the Obamas seem to support wholeheartedly:

Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" -- future "social entrepreneurs."

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."

Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.

The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military -- and stick American taxpayers with the bill.

However, is there a right to engage in Marxist, anti-military activism and force people who don't agree with that to pay for it -- just because some people think such activism is right?

The idea that my money is funding something like "Public Allies" violates my conscience.

Thomas Jefferson had a very pertinent thought on this subject which I've quoted before, and I'll quote him again:

...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.

This is not just pork; it's noxious ideological pork.

Aren't ordinary pork projects bad enough?

MORE: Regarding the contention that "heterosexism" is a byproduct of capitalism, Dave Kopel asks some good questions:

...do VC readers know of any serious research about a link between heterosexism and capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege? My initial impression is the cause and effect theory of heterosexism is quite wrong. Communist dictatorships, for example, are often quite hostile to homosexuals; yet Communist states are not capitalist, generally have legal equality of men and women, and (outside Europe) are run by non-whites. Conversely, ancient Greece was relatively tolerant of some forms of homosexuality, and yet was patriarchal, dominated by whites, and had a primitive free market.

So, is there a serious intellectual argument for the Public Allies theory of the causes of heterosexism?

Considering that the Communists were calling homosexuality a product of "bourgeois decadence" for many years (this was standard Marxist doctrine; even the Socialist Workers Party refused membership to gays), isn't it more likely that capitalism is actually the root cause of homosexuality?

Or have the Marxists revised their thinking in order to harness for their own ends the power of the "bourgeois decadence" they condemn?

(This might explain why only left-wing homosexuals tolerated.)