A ‘democratic’ revolution is indeed led by the people (small ‘p’) as opposed to the People (capital ‘P’ as in the Constitution). There is the difference. The Framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that all citizens were gauarnteed the same set of rights, privileges, and opportunities to influence representative decision making. The People are as much a part of the Constitution as the three branches and several States. This was accomplished with the Bill of Rights, other amendments, the Declaration of Independence’s stating “all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights” and the individually written essays and diaries detailing intent of our founding. ‘We the People,’ e pluribus unum, and others. However, without a doubt, the original document was weak in providing rights to blacks and women.

On the other hand, a network of like-minded organizations which seek power, influence, and, in some cases, control over policy decisions does not represent the will of the People; it represents the will of the people subscribing to those like-minded agendas. They influence policy not as if another branch of government but as coercers, protesters and instigators. Vladamir Lenin organized unemployed industrial and manufacturing workers raising their objectives to the forefront of debate. Did all Russians have equal influence in the negotiations forming the Soviet Union? No; the organized had influence. For that matter, did all American colonists have equal influence? No; the organized had influence.

A Harvard definition of ‘community organizing’ seems benign enough as words may be parsed to reflect a democractic movement familiar to Americans. Interestingly in the white paper (link below) is a hand-drawn chart which clearly indicates the intent of community organizing is power. Power for who? The organized. In the chart, power rests with ‘Resources.’

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/organizing/tools/Files/What_is_Organizing.pdf

So, who is being organized? Obviously labor unions are already organized with objectives of improved work conditions, pay and benefits. Minorities are organized in a thousand different groups designed to promote unique culture differences. The low-income are organized into welfare groups based on lack of employment, lack of healthcare insurance, lack of affordable housing. The people have been organized to stifle dissent by evicting mall kiosk owners selling opposition stickers/t-shirts, allowing teachers to lead sing-a-longs praising an individual president, and listening to a bias media full of half-truths or just omit credible details (many times the media simply do not cover stories which may reflect negatively upon the administration).

The sooner we all recognize a ‘democratic’ revolution is occurring in the US, the sooner each of us can decide, in good faith, to either support it or denounce it. 

I’m nearing a breaking point regarding the incessant race-baiting coming from liberals. Is it really true that anyone sharing an anti-Obama opinion is racist? I’m pretty sure not. Wasn’t it Obama himself who said “they’ll try to tell you that I don’t look like all the other men on the dollar bills?” Up to that point, and after that point, I never heard McCain/Palin, or any respectable Republican, call attention to Obama’s skin color. And still haven’t.

Just today Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) equated Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during Obama’s joint session as klan-like. What? Wilson called Obama a liar not a (insert non-PC term here).

Maureen Dowd wrote that Wilson “clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.” What?

Derrick Jackson provided the Boston Globe a glowing expose linking the GOPs choice of Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) for post-address comments as part of a polarization strategy in play since 1969. Jackson writes “You do not have to wonder why, when Louisiana was one of the most polarized states in the presidential election. Eighty-four percent of white voters voted for Republican John McCain, despite the disastrous economy and two wars handed them by McCain’s standard-bearer, President Bush.” Hear that Louisiana? Start believing the bad economy was Bush’s fault and middle eastern freedom isn’t worth our time or you will be branded a racist. Well, too late, you already have been.

Does Jackson know that approximately 95% of blacks in North Carolina voted for Obama? Aren’t those blacks equally racist in supporting a 140-day Senator with no executive experience charged with fixing a bad economy and fighting two wars? 

And over the week-end, on a local message board, a poster listed several facts regarding Obama’s policies and affiliations (which are not flattering by any sense of the word). A responder all but called him/her a racist.

So allow me to pon-pon-pon-pon-pontifinicate on the matter.

Obama supporters, whether black, white, Democrat, independent, etc, have erected a persona of a man that simply does not exist. Sure, he is educated and a good orator. He is a visionary, good father and probably a pretty nice guy with which to drink a beer. But he is also a politician and like all politicians before him, he is only as honest as he needs to be to fulfill his administration/party’s agenda.

He has not been transparent as he had promised. He has not been bipartisan as he had promised. He has not been fiscally fugal as he had promised. He has not turned his back to lobbyists and special interests as he had promised.

Many plain ole Americans simply do not like the fact that he interjected himself into GM’s bankruptcy. They don’t like GE’s CEO Jeffery Immelt sitting on the board of New York’s Federal Reserve. They’re not comfortable that a radical like Anthony Van Jones was appointed to any post in the administration. They don’t like our foreign policy appearing weak in the knees. Oddly enough, some don’t want the federal government messing in healthcare, not ensuring enforcement of illegal immigrant’s non-participation until being called a liar during a joint session.

Van Jones said this in 2008:

“We want to go beyond ex-systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But that’s a process and I think what’s great about the movement that’s beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary. And so the green economy will start off as a small subset and we’re going to push it and push it and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.“

He also said that whites were intentionally directing poisons into minority neighborhoods. 

Don’t forget Van Jones and don’t forget our President appointed him. Don’t forget that Valerie Jarrett admitted to having “followed” Van Jones since his work in Oakland where he organized protests against the imprisonment of a cop-killer.

It’s time to hold all the non-firmed czars accountable, and the President as well. A challenging feat when the media refuses to ask.

Beck ran video clips of these individuals and quoted from their works. He connected organizations by identifying specific individuals who have participated in them. He informed America which is something so many of us have struggled to accomplish. I have written at length about these influences from as early as 28 October 2008 and will not reiterate them here. But Beck has the ear of the White House, I do not. He presented a series of reasonable questions that any decent journalist would ask and any transparent administration would answer. The White House offered that Peter Orszag is not a czar because he was confirmed by the Senate. Thanks for that clarification guys. Left-wing bloggers pointed out a misspelling.

Obviously, some of us are aware of the raging battle for liberty and have been throwing our hat in the ring whenever possible. What about the moderates and the disengaged? When will they break for a side and really shift momentum? What will it take for them to look up from their daily lives and engage in decisions which will impact their ability to ever again be submersed in their individualism?

Now that we know the facts of who is influencing policy, I pose a question to Obama supporters of 2008; is this what he promised you? Did he tell you he would appoint communists, socialists, and anti-capitalists to key advisory roles? Did he tell you he would consult with views of population control, internet police, placing a dollar value on human life, and global governance for the environment? Did he tell you these things? Are these the platform pieces that attracted your vote?

If so, stand proudly for these ideals as you have that right. If not, call your representatives, write them to express your concern, email them. You will not sound crazy! These are facts!  Always be respectful but brief when writing them.

Our hands are bound by the Constitution until election-day but these leftist ideals cannot infiltrate further. The People’s power rests within the States and the Congress which have checks on the Executive Branch. They cannot allow this administration to advance policy. 

Let your voice be heard.

The above quote is long and cumbersome so I’ll break it into bite sized pieces. In the beginning, Obama states his belief that the Constitution constrains “redistribution of wealth and…basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

He adds that the Warren court interpreted the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties.” Obama then expresses his belief that “one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement” was it having become “so court focused.”

The court had ”a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that."

In summary, Obama shared his view of the Constitution in that the Warren court should have broken “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.” He specifically said “it doesn’t say what the federal government…must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted…”

I interpret the above to suggest Obama would prefer a court which would “break free” from the Constitution in order for the government to do more “on your behalf.” On whose behalf? The minorities who did not benefit from the civil rights movement as much as Obama thinks they should have.  I suspect a wise latina woman would fit in quite nicely.  However, the sooner we stop drawing attention to our differences and begin seeing all as Americans, the sooner we can get past racial divide. We are the people, no matter of skin color. Why should any group prosper from the sweat off another’s brow? 

Zelaya had been freely elected by the people as are the Honduran Congress and other government level officials. Just as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had done several months ago, Zelaya moved to repeal term limits on his office. His suggesting the repeal is not of issue. When he couldn’t gain political support for the motion, he chose to import counterfeit ballots to be used in the upcoming election. The Congress and military thus removed Zelaya from office, installed a temporary President and intend on holding elections earlier than scheduled. Fortunately for Zelaya, he was flown to Costa Rica instead of being arrested. However, if he returns to Honduras, arrest is eminent.

Within hours Obama offered the same position as Castro, Ortega and Chavez; Zelaya should be restored to power and such a coup is illegal. So much for not wanting to meddle in democratic uprisings. Maybe Obama has plans regarding his term-limit. 

In 1967, the many States ratified the 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution. In essence the amendment details presidential disability and succession including a procedure with which the president can be removed from power. Yes, just like Denzel Washington’s character in “Crimson Tide” took down Gene Hackman from the con.

Here’s how it goes: The vice-president and majority of principal officers of executive departments inform both houses of congress, in writing, that the president is unable to meet his duties. The vice-president assumes power. 

If the president informs both houses, in writing, that no inability exists, the opposing faction has four days to counter whereas congress will decide the issue. The congress is to convene within 48 hours but should they refuse to convene within 21 days or agree within 21 days by two-thirds vote of the president’s inability, the vice-president will assume power. In other words, for the president to save his job congress must convene and decide within 21 days; and within congress the president would need one-third support plus one.

This amendment is intended to backstop medical, mental, and personal issues with which the president may be faced. Could it be used for ideological differences? Would that be constitutional? Yes and yes.

I would never insinuate that Joe Biden would exercise the 25^th amendment to assume power…only Hillary has this kind of influence. Wasn’t the potential for a Biden resignation a campaign rumor? We would be so lucky if these dots get connected.