The stories in the Washington Post and other compliant media outlets were damning:

The Capitol switchboard was on the verge of being overloaded with calls from across the country Tuesday morning after President Obama called on Americans in an address to the nation Monday evening to contact their members of Congress about the high-stakes debt battle playing out in Washington.

Of course, as the stories unfolded, it turns out that a whole lot of those calls were from Americans warning their Congressmen not to cave-in to the President’s demands and to hold firm on the debt ceiling and the tax increases Obama desires. So much so that by the end of yesterday afternoon, the 80-strong freshman class (who were sent to Congress largely by the Tea Party voters intent on finally changing Washington and the establishment GOP) held strong and withheld support for Speaker Boehner’s debt plan. The President’s plan to intimidate a tax-laden compromise out of the House backfired.

Clearly, the wrong people got the message in the President’s speech and somehow those Tea Party extremists learned how to use a telephone.

This will never do. Don’t you people realize that when the President calls on Americans to contact members of Congress, he’s really just talking to his radical and dedicated base? Don’t you realize he really only means that the agitators and “No Justice, No Peace” radicals are the ones who are supposed to make noise and push the agenda?

In an attempt to rejuvenate their community organizing mojo, the President’s own “Organizing for America” apparatus (now the Democratic Party’s web site and mailing list) sent out a round of e-mails this morning to their loyal followers encouraging them to get on the line and call Speaker Boehner directly.

As Joel Pollak noted yesterday, this is Community Organizing 101. If you don’t have the people on your side (which according to the President’s plummeting approval ratings he clearly does not) get enough loud-mouths to stir up a shit storm so it appears like you DO have the people on your side. Or just make enough noise and annoy enough people so they will give you what you want just to shut you up. Either way, it’s a win-win for the Alinsky-ites.

Unfortunately for the President, he has been so ham-handed and clumsy with his class warfare demagoguery during this entire debt ceiling debate that he is telegraphing his moves like an amateur boxer. We can see the left hook coming from a mile away.

If the sad members of the OFA mailing list actually heed their command and call Speaker Boehner all day today, it will be interesting to see if the media report on the e-mail alert (that surely all of them got just like I did) or if they go along with the Kabuki dance the President is choreographing and merely report that “angry citizens are making their voices heard.”

Ultimately, these community organizing tactics only work if the target is weak and has no will (are you listening Speaker Boehner) and if the media go along with the lie. I fear that both may be true in this country.

Others counter that Pontius Pilate tried to free Jesus.  He gave a crowd what should have been an easy choice:  free Jesus or free an infamous murderer Barabbas.  Upon this offer of freedom for Jesus, several community organizers incited the crowd to yell: Crucify Jesus!  Free Barabbas!  These people argue that these community leaders acted like Acorn-styled community organizers like the organizers in Wisconsin and other states.

What say you?

Qaddafi has continued his reign of terror throughout the past 25 years, yet, as of March 1st- just a few weeks ago- the United Nations’ Human Rights Council was set to adopt a report which praised Libya for its human rights record. UN Watch, a nongovernmental organization based in Geneva, documented the path of the report, and ultimately urged the Council to reject it. The organization exposed the words of praise for Libya, in the report, from countries such as North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, among others. However, in his review of the report for the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto sarcastically recommended that the council “ignore UN Watch’s advice and approve the report praising Libya. For it tells us a lot about the U.N. Human Rights Council.”

Indeed, UN Watch Director, Hillel Neuer, observed that while the Human Rights Council was praising Libya, the U.N. Security Council was simultaneously approving a tough set of sanctions against the Libyan regime.

As the various councils of the United Nations operate at cross-purposes, so, too, does the current United States President, who holds the organization at the highest level of esteem. So much so, in fact, that President Obama has involved the nation in a third Mid-Eastern war, with no clear mission and no exit strategy. Yet, these serious deficits seem lost on the American president who would prefer to have the permission of the U.N. over that of the United States Congress to utilize the nation’s human and financial resources in an act of war.

Although some are rightly concerned about the specific constitutionality of the president’s failure to seek authorization from Congress to initiate the joint attacks on Libya, it is hard to imagine this young president, who has demonstrated little experience in governing, would venture into military action without the benefit of the valuable insights of some of the members of Congress who likely could have provided counsel about the very issues which are now problematic. Not to mention the obvious fact that the Congress represents the American people, who are entitled to a debate before such a monumental decision.

Instead, the president values more the judgments of the “international community,” while his “follow the bouncing ball” decisions leave a trail of questions and resentment on both sides of the political aisle in his own nation.

The “global” and “international community” rhetoric seems to serve a purpose that fits in with the president’s method of operations: that there is always someone else to blame for the decision. Indeed, the “coalition” appears to be already falling apart. First and foremost, the president, sensing immense disapproval, has backed away from the idea that the United States “lead” the military effort by stating that the nation is transferring the leadership to the other coalition countries “within days, not weeks.” He has also denied that U.S. ground troops would be engaged in the war effort.

Despite these public statements by the administration, there is evidence to the contrary.

Second, some of the Arab League nations do not appear to have received the memo about the extent of the mission. These nations have complained that they were unaware the “creep” of the mission would go beyond a no-fly zone to include actual bombings, and, strangely enough, that they had no idea people on the ground would be killed. People getting killed in a war? How odd.

And it appears the president’s “U.N. permission” is slowly being rescinded as Russia refers to the Libyan war as a “medieval crusade,” and there is suggestion that President Obama return his Nobel Peace Prize, while Brazil and China both call for a cease-fire. As resolutions go, why anyone would put our money on the U.N. is beyond comprehension.

While the Libyan effort falls apart, the president and his adoring media still express pride in his ability to “organize” the nations of the world into a “one for all and all for one” operation. Cool. But the fact is that when there is no leader, most things fall apart.

Barack Obama is still living the life of a “community organizer.” Only now, it’s on an international level.

There’s so much wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to start.

First and foremost, the President has no right to declare something unconstitutional.  You don’t have to be a “community organizer” turned “constitutional scholar” to know this.  Heck, anyone who’s seen even five minutes of Schoolhouse Rock is probably aware of the three branches of government.  The Judiciary branch is responsible for determining constitutionality, not the Executive.  Pronouncing the law unconstitutional, without due process, is a gross overextension of Presidential authority.

Second, both the President and the Attorney General have sworn an oath to uphold the nation’s laws.  It’s not their place to determine which ones they view as being worthy of defense of implementation.  If the Legislative branch chooses to pass a law doing away with the Defense of Marriage act, that’s their prerogative.  The President can sign it as he sees fit.  Otherwise, Holder is there to enforce and support the laws as they exist, not as his boss wishes they did.  In refusing to defend the law as written, both Obama and Holder are willfully derelict in their duties.

Finally, since when is Obama so concerned with Constitutionality?

His signature health care law has been ruled unconstitutional by two separate federal judges, yet he’s proceeding with its implementation.  If, as Obama seems to believe, the government should stop the defense of unconstitutional laws, why isn’t he abandoning his dream of an Obamacare utopia?

Again and again, Obama has stated his view that marriage is between a man and a woman.  For a year during his campaign, and for two years of his presidency, he’s done absolutely nothing to suggest that his opinion has changed. Despite constant complaint from gay rights advocacy groups, he has staunchly stuck to his belief that gay marriage was wrong.  So what’s changed?

The obvious answer is 2012.

Over the course of the last two years, the President has seen the voting block that elected him in 2008 dwindle.  His support among independents has all but vanished, and the good will he enjoyed during the campaign has evaporated completely.  As chaos erupts throughout the Middle East, Obama has been weak, confused, and ineffective.  As gas prices skyrocket, his approval numbers fall.  According to Rasmussen, Only 26% of likely voters believe the United States is on the right track.

Now, all across the country, public sector unions are on their heels.  Big labor has finally come under the public microscope, and to chagrin of high level Dems, it looks like they may actually lose their battle.  This means the deepest of the deep left wing pockets are in jeopardy.  Should the unions finally be broken, Democrats will face an epic financial implosion.

So, in true Obama form, he’s decided to pander.  When your allies and re-election hopes are fading away, it’s time to find a new source of votes.  If that means throwing away an obvious core belief, so be it.

Obama desperately wants a second term and it’s becoming clear the administration fears it may not get one. His decision to support a group to which he he’s traditionally turned a cold shoulder should serve as proof of how politically bad things really are for the President.

John Hickenlooper, the Denver Mayor and Democratic Party candidate for Governor of Colorado said this about Obama in 2006:

Let me say, let me say very quickly that anyone who’s read his 1995 memoir, ‘Dreams from My Father,’ know that he is part-philosopher, part-sociologist, part-historian, but 100 percent community activist. Let me introduce one of the greatest men alive in America, Senator Barack Obama.

Stung by the attacks on his competence, character, and emotionlessness, Obama contrived some “passion” the other day.  In an interview with the “Today” show, he said, “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar.  We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

Oh no!  Anything but a Bama ass-kickin’!  The terror of that prospect I’m sure has BP shaking in its boots. (By the way, running college seminars is ALL the Bama knows how to do, so he probably should be doing that.  Maybe some college senior somewhere has a Descartes-inspired idea on how to plug the damn hole.)

Rule #1 in politics:  Do not try to be something that you’re not.When President George H. W. Bush was running behind Bill Clinton in 1992, he went into a grocery store and pretended to love beef jerky.  You know: to demonstrate that he was just a regular guy.  The problem was: he wasn’t just a regular guy.  He was Andover and Yale and the Eastern establishment.  His father had been a U.S. Senator.  Bush didn’t even know what beef jerky was, for crying out loud.  He lost the election.

Obama trying to show he’s an angry avenger when he’s essentially an automaton isn’t going to work either.  He is Carlton Banks, not Suge Knight. He’s a navel-gazing, community organizing law professor, not a put-a-cap-in-your-ass gangbanger.  He should stop with the phony theatrics
and be who he is. The problem with that is that he’s a community organizing law professor, not an American president.

Of course President Obama will deny this.   He told Businessweek magazine in a recent interview that he is not anti-business and that he believes in the private sector.  But the evidence is overwhelming,  and it helps explain why he is pursuing kamakazi-like economic policies that will damage the private sector in America.

Obama has demonized just about every business sector in America.  Through the 2008 campaign to the present,  he has gone after credit card companies, the coal industry, mortgage companies, real estate companies, steelmakers, utilities, drug companies, doctors, oil companies, Wall Street, defense contractors, and health insurance companies, just to name a few.  In each case he has dinged them for greed, taking excessive profits, and failing to put people first.  His criticisms have not been over minor matters but over their basic core functions, and their values or lack of them.

Obama demonstrates almost complete ignorance about the private sector and it’s no wonder:  he has so little experience in it.  He has spent his adult life in college, teaching college, and organizing communities.  The one private sector job he has held, for a consulting firm in New York, he recounts as a terrible experience.  In his memoirs he describes the experience as working for a private business “like a spy behind enemy lines.”  He also recounts in his memoirs that the multinational corporations in the Indonesia of his youth were propelling the average worker “into deeper despair.”  He likened the presence of corporations in his native Africa to a form of “neocolonialism.”  Michelle Obama has beseeched young people, “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we are asking young people to do.  Don’t go into corporate America.  You know, become teachers, work for the community,  be a social worker, be a nurse….move out of the money-making industry, into the helping industry.”

This is, of course, the Obama Cosmology.  The private sector is largely populated by devils, who are self-oriented, concerned about personal gain,  and unconcerned about others.  The government, on the other hand, is made up of people bathed in altruism, whose only concern is you.  Thus it is quite easy for Obama to recall the divide between the private and public sector as “enemy lines”  even though he would never call the Iranian Mullahs, Hugo Chavez, or Vladimir Putin an “enemy.”

All of this begs the question:  does Obama’s demonizing of business simply reflect his lack of experience in the private sector or is it based on a well-thought out analysis?  In short, is it based on ignorance or ideology? While we can’t know what Obama’s deeper thoughts actually are, it does seem pretty clear that Obama has at least some sense that the free market is people voluntarily exchanging money for a good or service they want.  After all, this is a man who has made millions selling books.  Surely he has to understand basic economics? The darker interpretation of this is the Obama knows that the private sector creates wealth and prosperity and that it wages war on it anyway because his ideologically driven agenda is more important to him that the economic health of the country he is supposed to be protecting.   Say it isn’t so….