Why can't we demand Obama's resignation?

Please forgive the vanity post- I know you all hate them. But I am driven to ask this question- WHy cannot the people demand the resignation of this totallly incompetent man? And not just him- ALL his appointees and czars, AND his SC appointees, as well.

In 1973, the media, backed by a handful of leftist activists, drove Nixon from office- who had been elected in a landslide that the demonRATs can only dream of. The majority of the people did not want this to happen, but it happened anyway. Now it is the PEOPLE who want this man and his minions gone, but WE can't do what THEY did? I know, I know- there are petitions out there and I have signed a few. But I am talking a GROUNDSWELL- I'm talking a major concentrated effort by the people. Someone MUST know how to start this. If the lefties can do it, then certainly those with a brain can.

Isn't it time? Can't we DO this? This is OUR country and those with traitorous, anti-Constitutional plans can't stop us if this is what we demand. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm beginning to think we are running out of time.

I’m sorry if I came across patronizing. It was exactly not my intention. I found the question to be pertinent and something worth thinking about.

That said, I believe it would be possible if by some miracle the currently-leftist press would start actually reporting on what Dear Reader is saying and providing the context which would prove he is either insane or jonesing for Master Criminal of the 21st Century. They’re not looking like being willing to go there, so the necessary public heat is not going to be generated, even if conservative Republicans win back the House or Senate or both. The press will continue to carry water for tyrants because the mainstream press is deeply in love with the concept of being court herald to the King. They know that there’s only so many spots on that roster and they’re pretty sure that, if they keep reporting like they are, they’d be the only candidates considered for the post. The only way to make sure that happens is to support every nationalizing or liberty-depriving measure that comes along, something that suits Dear Reader just fine.

So, I’d say the answer is “I very much wish it could be so, but I believe it is improbable under current and foreseeable conditions”.

All that said, I believe that the right-wing blogosphere and columnists are doing all they can to generate whatever heat can be ginned up. That the TEA Party is such a force is partly a derivative of that effort (those folks were pretty upset all on their own, and having Sean, Glenn, Rush, et. al. joining in simply provided matter for their fury). So, there is going to be a significant political event this fall. Will it bring down the current Administration? I’m not at all sure about that. I’m almost certain that a filibuster-proof Senate is not in the cards for either party, so anything anybody proposes, including impeachment, given a significant Republican advance in November, will simply not happen. The minority in the Senate will always block it up. If that minority is Democratic, then the mainstream press will laud them, applaud them, give them airtime, bring up every ad hoc misleading element to every story necessary to taint any Republican attempt at reform.

In a word, it’s going to be ugly, but at least they won’t be piling on new disasters. The outyears of the already-enacted disasters have not yet really been felt. By 2012, the effects of what Pelosi/Reid have done will be clear and nobody will be happy. So things might well change then.

But that does mean nobody was able to force Obama to resign. I expect that this is the probable future in the case.

Of course, Obama could have a Road to Damascus moment somehow. It’s just that we’re pretty sure God only intervenes for eternal purposes and our current discomfort isn’t even on a par with what God permitted Russia to be subjected to for decades. I’m expecting Obama will be blissfully unaware and definitely uninterested in redemption or even the need for self-examination in this respect. Even if every American got down on his or her knees and pleaded, Obama will not resign voluntarily, IMHO.

“I’m sorry if I came across patronizing. It was exactly not my intention. I found the question to be pertinent and something worth thinking about.”

Apology humbly accepted.

I agree that this current crop of “media personalities” and the Hollyweird goofballs are unlikely to grow a brain. Fortunately, they are playing to a very select and very small (and getting smaller) audience. It is my fondest hope that the next generation of journalists will not be able to suspend belief based on fact enough to join this shrinking group of liars and self-promoters. Also, we have resources that weren’t available 30 years ago. I think that this has empowered us in ways the left cannot stand or UNDER stand. These people come out of college, where they have been under the control and spoon fed by committed leftists, face the legitimate questions and concerns of those who do not agree and are seriously flummoxed. It’s not a good place to start.

I guess I agree that there is nothing to be done about this phenomenal mistake that is the Obama administration. But it cannot be forgotten that he is simply the “head” of a pimple that has been growing for a very long time. It will be a while before it, and its scar, are a memory. I swear, I must stand before God everyday and beg His forgiveness for the hatred I bear the left. I guess I was just reacting out of absolute frustration when I originally posted. The latest outrage- the DOJ and the Black Panther case- is just my most recent howl “How much MORE can we stand??!”

We are headed for DC on Aug 28 for Glenn Beck’s rally and I am hoping that it is, at least, as big and amazing as last year’s Tea Party. My guess? It will be huge. I’m begging everyone I talk to to stay fired-up. We have so much to lose if we don’t.

Now now,.. let’s not be petulant-it gives no strength to effective discourse. I have followed the discussion fully. The original question came from someone asking “can’t we demand a resignation”, and then morphed into what forms of power would be needed to demand resignation. There are lots of things that our dear liberal friends could call “illegal” so the notion of “legality” becomes semantic. We make the laws. Government should fear us. The potential for a constitutional response by the citizens and citizen-soldiers together is something that has happened in the past and if needed, will be in the future. One of the best ways to get representative attention, it is a matter of fortitude and courage, much lacking in these times. Praise be that the Constitution gives us, the people, the latitude to throw off the bonds. We should also be aware that the police state of socialism being created by obambi will not care one bit about constitutionality or legality- they have already shown that. We must rely on our natural rights and be disobedient to the “new order”.
By the way this idea of natural rights was central to the Kagan sideshow today, when she refused to acknowledge to Sen. Coburn (because of course she does not believe in the documents but that law is whatever “da judge says”) that the Declaration of Independence is interlinked with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights- a fabric of our Founders. They don’t teach that at Hahhhvahd, and not having ever tried a case of her own there is no practical reality to a extremist like her- only politization of the bench which has to happen to force the will of the left on us all. Of course it is way past time for glittering chains of legalities, and rigorous tongue lashing of knee jerk debate. As upsetting as it may be to the halls of liberal academe (alles ist in ordnung like all good orderly socialists), it is time for people of action and conservative activism to take back our freedom and exercise our rights. It is even dawning on some democrats, because they will come for them also if this Alinskyism persists.

You should be very proud of family members who join a “criminal conspiracy”. Hayes election removed all restraints from the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, the KKK, and the dregs of the RAT Rebellion went on a murder rampage to restore the party’s power. Of course, the deluded and foolish cheer that black spot on our national honor.

Who or what they fought for is irrelevant if it is wiped away by treachery as part of a TRUE criminal conspiracy circa 1861-5.

Naturally you have no regard for those who gave their whole life fighting for and strengthening this nation. Believing instead that the snake Jefferson was preferable to Hamilton and Washington shows that you have no real knowledge of the era 1790 to 1800 or of the ideals which motivated the best of that generation, the Federal Republican Party. Whereas Jefferson’s enemies, W and H, were statesmen of the highest nature and the latter wrote the majority of the greatest political philosophy since Aristotle Jefferson’s political theories were absurd at best and his economic theories even more so. He didn’t even have the guts to directly attack his opponents being a coward at heart and used others to do his dirty work.

Jefferson was definitely one of the greatest manipulators of the stupid and gullible and his party, the Democrat, remains true to his form. It began with lies and has never turned from the tactics of raising false issues and using class warfare to divide this nation. The more one learns about J the less one (if there is any integrity in them) thinks of him. He is the greatest hypocrite this nation has ever elevated to the presidency and easily the most overrated president we ever had.

Lincoln did little that Jefferson Davis did not do or the perpetrators of the RAT Rebellion would not do.

As one who was born and raised in the South I am quite familiar with the absurdities some there still believe about the RAT Rebellion and the evil it unleashed on the region. The Slaveocracy cared NOTHING about this nation or their fellow southerners. It cared about ONE THING, slavery and its perpetration, and its blather about “rights” was nothing but rhetoric. It was hooked on a economic system hundreds of years out of date one which did not include the vast majority of the whites of the region who were DRAFTED to defend it. Only because of the tremendous ignorance of the lower classes were the Slavers able to use their false concept of what the Union was and what the Constitution meant. Jefferson is to be thanked for that.

Naturally the railroads and Western expansion were concerns of everyone including Southerners, but they did not have the ability to create an extensive RR system because those who controlled the South were not men with modern views or understanding of historical change which this nation represented.

Obama has nothing to do with Lincoln and your allegation wrt Lincoln’s statue has less to do with any ideas of his than it does with the fact that he freed the slaves.

Your use of concepts such as totalitarianism does not change your statements from crap to gold and virtually every allegation is entirely false. And those who actually do have extensive knowledge of our history can easily see that your hysterical nonsense is only that not to be taken seriously by those with a regard for the truth.

Even more laughable is your use of “elitism” while defending people who were complete elitists such as the aristocrat, Jefferson. No wonder you swallow the bilge of crackpots such as DiLorenzo and use it to fuel your insane hatred of one of our greatest, if not the greatest, president.

BTW when Abe was elected the federal government was TINY certainly nothing capable of “tyranny” of any type nor of any threat to the South. Only because of the Slaver attempt to destroy the Union did it grow to defend it.

Uh, you may have been born in the South- you sure weren't raised Southern, as you apparently never learned anything about heritage or history not taught to you by some other school of thought. Quite a disparate tirade as a result. You are full of a lot of rewritten self-aggrandizing puritan elitism of your own. I'd ease up on wherever that comes from and also ask you not make assumptions about people you do not know. Generalizing from a specific is extreme laziness in logic. To that point my family has fought and died for this country, strengthening it for the entire life of the nation— so your assumptive comments in that regard are an insult which can be explained by ignorance. I daresay, as from generations of Marines, we do not countenance trashing Thomas Jefferson who created the service to prevent mutiny on naval vessels. We came from Jamestown and the Ulster Plantation migration- we made this nation.

If you love Hamilton, then I'm sure you like the Federal Reserve, and FDR and JPMorgan for that matter. If you love Lincoln, because, uh.. I guess you HAVE to, since he wears the Union label, then one can understand the confusion and breakdown. The war was unnecessary. Slavery was going away in a generation in the wake of industrial farming, and many in the South tried to prevent war— it was not to be. The selective tariffs and rise of the English empire, and the desperate conversion of northern mills from wool to cotton to compete with it, was not going away. The South was going to become very powerful. What the war was- it was an opportunity for the northern oligarchs, and the original slavers of Boston to maintain their grip on industrial might and westward expansion and to seize the natural wealth and property of free citizens which they continue to do to this day. Jefferson contributed mightily to that westward expansion. So many are confused by big versus little “R”. The “party of Lincoln” is now the present day Democrat party, not the Republican— true Southerners understand that rather well as it took 100 years. And we live every day under the assumptive self-righteous liberalism and white (and black) guilt foisted on us by the masters at Harvard and Yale. These same mongers gave us our current puppet present..dent, with a statue of Lincoln on his dais under the delusion that Lincoln “freed the slaves”,because it helps delude black voters and gives an empty nothing man something to use that way. Lincoln did not free anything— he made a political statement in desperation calculated to foment revolt and chaos and save his election. It took an Amendment to the Constitution to “free the slaves”. Lincoln would have been happy to have shipped all slaves to Liberia. What was most important to him and his, was strong central govt. control. So now we are treated to Clinton describing Byrd as having a “fleeting” relationship with the Klan (a lifetime one) the classic Klan democrat from the past, and a Union state, WV so he could "get elected". Imagine the kind of loonie mind that thinks that was "ok" and says it. Always present is the underlying knowledge that regardless of the “parties” at hand— it is the oligarchs in control dividing us from true conservatism and a Constitutional republican form of government. The South fought to retain rights far beyond slavery, and the country is reaping the harvest of a nightmare of generations of progressivism that began with Lincoln- income tax, welfare, eminent domain ..all just the start.
One has to be very fearful of freedom to want to control people so much— your discomfort is evidenced by your verbage. Such “conservatism” is happy with ever increasing controlling bureaucracy, leading to the permanent government employee type of conservative- a sad lonely figure with no challenge of private commerce.

Speaking of what you state is delusional thinking, how about a fact: Washington distrusted Hamilton completely and agreed with Jefferson's (his Sec. of State) opinion of Hamilton that equated him and all the Federalists with Tory monarchists who threatened the new republic. The elitists were the monarchists not the Jefferson republicans and Washington. I'm gathering from reading and answering this screed, that there is something else driving this emotionalism and lack of clear understanding— a script of thought interspersed with “facts” that are essential to the false narrative. I would contend that the most difficult position of all is for one to try be a conservative in the North, there being all kinds of axles one must wrap one’s self around. Perhaps that's what it is. Like being a black conservative, vilified and ostracized for believing what our Founders meant for every person and not a tyranny predicated on judging historical figures on the basis of modern moralism. As I've said, generational experiential memory brings powerful meaning to totalitarianism. Southerners who know and do not hate themselves or comfort themselves with revisionist history,can still remember and be prepared for what is to come. Signing off. Deo Vindice

Your description of Washington's relationship to Hamilton is not only entirely false but laughably so and 180 degrees from the truth. Such an understanding comes from reliance on sources which are not even close to the truth as your “explanation” of the situation surrounding the RAT Rebellion. Hamilton was the son that Washington never had and he treated him this way throughout his entire life after their meeting. Washington loved the man and trusted him implicitly. The FACT that he consulted H first on any issue and almost always followed his recommendations drove J to a frenzy of hatred which underlay much of his opposition to W's administration. H. was one of Washington's closest advisers and almost his alter ego from the earliest of days. Both were military men at heart and both played critical roles during the revolution with H handling the majority of W's significant writing during the period. The idea that W distrusted the man who was his closest aide through most of the war and to whom he turned to fill the critical post during the trying days of establishing our nation could only come from one who ignores real evidence or who has no idea of the history of that era. W ended his life refusing to allow J's name to be uttered in his presence he was so disgusted by the man and his followers.

Jefferson, on the other hand, hated the military and did all he could to cripple it until the Moslems forced his hand and, after spending his entire political life sabotaging W's and H's attempts to build a strong military, turned to it to salvage the national honor from Islamic terror.

Neither W nor H were “monarchists” both spent decades fighting for this nation's independence from kings. The reason we have a republican constitution is as much due to Hamilton as any man, if not more. His desire for a strong executive at the government head was twisted to stand for wanting monarchy. It is a contemptible lie perpetrated by Jefferson's press dogs. Nor can you find one line written by H suggesting a monarchy. The best evidence supporting this miserable lie is his idea that the president would function like a monarch as the symbol of national unity and the head of state. This outrageous lie surfaced early in his career and he tracked it down to the source and forced a retraction of it.

Fortunately this nation was first led by W and H and they implemented the latter’s brilliant policies which laid the ground work for the wealth which then flowed into the nation and the power it created. Our nation would not have survived had Jefferson been the president with his utterly unrealistic ideas of the role of government, the military, foreign policy and what the constitution meant. Part of the deal which J made with H to attain the presidency in 1800 was that the financial system would be retained and the military would not be reduced. Of course, this was a major factor leading to H's death at the hands of that prototypical democrat politician Aaron Burr whose crooked ways produced the J/B win in the 1800 election. Jefferson remembered Burr's attempt to seize the presidency and, J being the most vindictive and vengeful of men, did not allow the law or justice to stand in the way of trying to destroy his vice president after replacing him in 1804. It couldn't have been more well deserved.

Modern minds like Hamilton's, and he was entirely modern, understood that our wealth and power was dependent upon the full development of industrial capitalism. Jefferson, on the other hand, was a dreamer and a dilettante with no significant writing to his name in contrast to the thousands of pages of political writing from Hamilton. J's economic and financial understanding was limited to wandering around in his dirty robe muttering maledictions upon "banks". H. understood that banks are critical to the most efficient operation of capitalism. The only area wherein J surpassed H was as a furniture maker. And, no, the Republican party of the 1860s was not the democrat party of the day. It was devoted to capitalism and free enterprise and most of all it was devoted to America and believed it needed a strong military to protect it in a hostile world. Nor is your explanation of the RAT Rebellion's origins anywhere close to truth. Even if the war was brought by the North as you theorize, the Slavers had to be dumb as a box of rocks to START the thing. Of course, there is no doubt that the North did not want a war and did everything it could to avoid having to confront the lunatics until its hand was forced by attacks on federal facilities. War was so far from the North's mind that the Union's military was tiny and completely unprepared for such an eventuality. Your amateur psychoanalysis of my motives and actions is limited by your extreme ignorance of my life and experiences hence knowledge is replaced by fantasy and fevered imaginings but thanks for trying.

Excuse me professor, but methinks you doth protest too much, couched in arrogance borne of repeated mantra. Virginia vs. Hamilton... something yankees don’t understand. Hamilton was a bastard, an outsider. But I’m done with this- I work for an honest living. Enjoy your own fantasy. We’ll still be here long after the oligarchs and RINOs who “say” they are conservatives who love Lincoln are gone. Here’s another net result of this tyrannical progressivism and Union statism, and while you’re reading it try to juxtapose this with our “dialogue” on Lincoln, the anti-slavery tactic and the WBTS. It quotes your “hated” DiLorenzo (that is, people who know something of real history):
Liberal Bipolarity
American Thinker ^ | July 17, 2010 | Keith Riler

Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:10:11 AM by neverdem

We live in a temporary moment of liberal bipolarity, in which Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting progressivism has run smack into Barack Obama’s too-big-to-fail statism. Truthfully, the liberal vote has been cast for statist corporatism, and only the odd, dim, and sentimental liberal still thinks he supports the little guy.

This bipolarity, then, is in form only, not substance. What remains is a marketing ploy that falsely suggests support for the underdog, the undercapitalized, and the up-and-comer. The ruse is dishonest, but, as Ernest Sternberg wrote, today’s liberals have “proven their remarkable imperviousness to self-reflection.”

Modern liberalism entrenches the mega-corporate. The economics of costs and scale make this so. Any incremental regulation or tax increases the fixed costs of the target industry. The bigger the company, the more units of production over which those new fixed costs can be spread, the less per unit price impact. Although all companies’ costs may increase, the biggest company can pass these on and crush smaller competitors through price competition. As taxing and regulating liberals succeed, consumers will suffer an increasing cost of living, and smaller businesses will disappear.

For proof, look no farther than Walmart’s support of ObamaCare. Why would Walmart favor adding health care costs? Given Walmart’s duty to its shareholders, altruism is not the answer. Walmart supported ObamaCare because greater across-the-board health care costs disadvantage smaller competitors, magnify Walmart’s price advantage, and increase its market share.

More proof is in the disparate impact of tobacco legislation. Phillip Morris was a supporter of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Ted Kennedy disingenuously claimed Washington had “finally said ‘no’ to Big Tobacco.” Through this legislation, Phillip Morris saddled smaller competitors with extra costs, regulation, and limitations on promotions. Kennedy really said “no” to competition for Big Tobacco.

The post-November 2008 liberal knows that Teddy Roosevelt-style company-busting is inefficient when the same company may be appropriated as a vehicle for his anti-human, enviro-pagan, socialist, plaintiff attorney, labor platform, and favor bank. So the tactic has evolved, with big corporate management offering assets to the administration in exchange for entrenchment. If not for property rights, the personhood of shareholders, that stealing is wrong, and it being a deal with the devil, this corporate “co-opting” might make sense. Also inconvenient is that such corporatism was embraced by National Socialists.

So far, the administration’s hunt for big corporate game has been accomplished two ways — outright theft and the imposition of a public utility model. In Chrysler/GM, theft was the route. Centuries of contract law and payment priorities were upturned to bequeath big auto to the administration’s labor operatives.

With ObamaCare, the regulated utility model did the trick. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid decreed that insurance profits would be federally regulated, certain spending mandated, and minimum policy standards established. In other words, health insurance pricing, profits, and products are now determined by government, just like any other cost-plus public utility.

There is little difference between one government-run company (Chrysler/GM) and companies whose pricing, profits, and products are determined by government (health insurance). The theft and regulated utility models produce the same result.

BP will be interesting. The regulated utility tact is underway via voluminous regulations, fees, and taxes on the offshore industry. Morgan Stanley wonders what companies will be “big enough to drill.” In rare candor, the Obama administration’s Carol Browner echoed that sentiment, saying “smaller firms might no longer be able to drill in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of legislation moving through Congress[.]” Morgan Stanley[1] predicts:

We foresee more exploration consolidated into the hands of fewer players. ...We believe small players (sub-$10 billion market cap) will exit ... and Super Majors will be consolidators. ... As a group, the large cap names (ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) could well emerge as victors[.]

The Houston Chronicle agrees:

The irony is that in an attempt to make things safer, Congress may create an oligopoly in the Gulf. In doing so, it would reward one of the companies at the center of the current crisis at the expense of those that had nothing to do with it.

There’s more. If, as Alpha magazine says, a BP bankruptcy is unavoidable, then we should expect a second step. In the event of bankruptcy, the trap has been laid for a BP asset theft that will be much cleaner than the GM/Chrysler conversions.

In a BP bankruptcy, various parties will seek payment assurance — contractors cleaning up the Gulf, municipalities/states, and claims in excess of the established fund. Given these claims, another too-big-to-fail moment will be irresistible for Obama. The administration will almost certainly guaranty these obligations in exchange for ownership of BP assets.

Such a nationalization can happen without any of the rule-of-law flack experienced in the auto takeovers because a mechanism was established with the creation of the $20-billion fund, to which BP pledged its oil and gas properties as collateral. Should the Obama regime step up in a BP bankruptcy with a guaranty, the liens are already in place to effect a foreclosure of BP assets, thus circumventing any criticism about payment priority. Maxine Waters will be proud.

The Obama/BP two-step is clearly about using BP assets to fund the enviro-religious shutdown of drilling, fishing, and shrimping; a font of plaintiff attorney contingency fees; and the nationalization of an oil company on the backs of Louisiana and its formerly employed residents, who will be transferred to a dignity-crushing public dole. In this scheme, Louisiana’s people are simply a necessary sacrifice, and we already see Obama’s disregard for these people in his obstruction of boats, berms, and skimmers.

Thomas DiLorenzo says this liberal corporatism shares much with National Socialism:

Government-business “partnerships” were a hallmark of both Italian and German fascism. As Ayn Rand once noted, however, in such “partnerships” government is always the “senior partner.” Government-business “collaboration” was supposedly needed in fascist Italy, explained Fausto Pitigliani in his 1934 book, The Italian Corporatist State, because “the principle of private initiative could only be useful in the service of the national interest.” It is this “service of the national interest” that is the intended work of the newly appointed “Car Czar” in the Obama administration (along with twenty or so other “czars” so far). It is inevitable that the end product will be the world’s worst cars, endless subsidies and bailouts, and mind-boggling debt piled onto the backs of the taxpayers.

Horrified liberals will howl on cue that they’re not anti-Semites. That may or may not be true and is an interesting question, but it is insufficient to disqualify the comparison because both movements vilify the middleman trader and banker classes. The early version associated the profitable middleman with Judaism; the modern version explicitly does not. Nonetheless, both movements demonize a class of people.

Antipathy to some “other” is common in utopian schemes like liberalism and National Socialism, because such worldly schemes lack a positive eternal rationale (unlike our country’s founding) and thus often require the motivation of someone to hate. Modern liberals don’t appear to be race-based homicidal maniacs, but scapegoating fits well with their fondness for class envy.

It is time for disingenuous, sentimental liberals to ditch the act. Actions speak louder than words, and modern liberalism is the enemy of the small guy. In that regard, it shares more with individual-crushing regimes like National Socialism than is generally advertised.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.