Why I’m beginning to disagree with Sarah Palin about the impeachment of Barack Obama

By 18 Comments 1,127 views

I love Sarah Palin, but I’m beginning to disagree with her on impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says the following about impeachment: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach and the Senate the sole power to convict.

I’ve thought for some time that Barack Obama should be impeached. The IRS scandal alone was far worse than anything Richard Nixon ever did, or even thought of doing. Unfortunately we don’t thus far have a smoking gun. Benghazi may meet the threshold as well on the basis of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in the dereliction of duty as Commander in Chief. Then of course there is the deluge of Obamacare violations. Repeatedly the law says one thing and Obama has done the opposite.

While I have no doubt Barack Obama deserves to be impeached, I’m no longer sure that he should be. It is most certain that the Republicans in the House could gather the votes to impeach. The point of impeachment however is not impeachment… it’s conviction. Unfortunately however there is no way in hell that it would be possible today to get 67 votes for conviction in Senate. Former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards once said about his reelection prospects: “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy“. Barack Obama might paraphrase that in reference to his conviction prospects in the Senate. Although I’m skeptical that even then the Senate would convict…

It’s not because I’m afraid he won’t get convicted that I no longer believe he should be impeached however. It’s because I no longer think it’s necessary. Why? Because Barack Obama is a lame duck. Not just lame in the traditional sense of presidents being lame in their second terms. But lame in the sense of being broken. Today his approval rating sits at 39%, the lowest of his presidency. While there seems to be a subset of Americans, about 40% of the population, who seem incapable of recognizing, or refusing to recognize incompetence when they see it, Barack Obama is making it much more difficult for those misguided souls to keep their heads in the sand. His incompetence and perfidy are becoming legion. Obamacare alone would make the case… and consumers will be livid when their subsidies evaporate. Then there’s the administration’s stonewalling in the IRS scandal investigation as more and more information emerges demonstrating its betrayal of our Constitution. Then there’s the chaos in Iraq and reversals in Afghanistan. His bludgeoning of Israel in its battle with Hamas. His impotent response to Vladimir Putin’s aggression and the shooting down of flight MH17. But perhaps most of all, Barack Obama’s betrayal of the American people can be seen in his efforts to “transform” the United States into a third world country by essentially eliminating our southern border while simultaneously inviting every Central American child to swim across the Rio Grande and become a Dreamer.

And that’s the reason why Barack Obama should not be impeached. Because while the country and the world are in the grip of chaos and worse, he’s busy… playing golf. He’s attending fundraisers. He’s going on vacation and buying a $4.5 million home in Palm Springs. And Americans can see that. They see his indifferent attitude towards actually solving problems or leading, whether it’s the collapse of the border or the fires burning across the footprint of the Ottoman Empire. Even those predisposed to worship at the altar of Barack Obama can’t help but recognize his disinterest in the duties of actually governing. And that’s the point. To paraphrase Napoleon, When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, don’t interfere.

Were the GOP to impeach Barack Obama now they would not only be interfering with Barack Obama’s immolation of his legacy, they would be throwing him a life preserver. The debate would suddenly shift from the reality of Obama’s incompetence to the fiction that he is being persecuted because of his race. That is perhaps the only thing worse than the nation collapsing under Barack Obama’s stewardship… the nation collapsing under Barack Obama’s stewardship and no one paying attention to the fact that it’s Barack Obama who’s causing the collapse.

Now this calculation could change. If we find an IRS smoking gun with Obama’s prints on it that even hardcore leftists can’t ignore, then impeach him. Absent something like that however there is no reason to rescue Obama from the morass he has brought upon himself. Doing so won’t help the country and will only turn him into a victim and help obscure his reputation for posterity. And that would be the ultimate disaster as future generations would never see the abject failure that was the anti-American presidency of Barack Obama, but instead would read about the heroic legacy of a black man persecuted for his race who was never given a chance.

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.

18 Responses to “Why I’m beginning to disagree with Sarah Palin about the impeachment of Barack Obama”

  1. 1

    mathman

    Don’t impeach. Not now. Not yet.
    Cut off the money. Now. All revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives.
    But don’t impeach yet. That would be racist.
    Of course he is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance. But we knew that in 2008. He had a record then of not serving the public. That much is nothing new.
    Let him hang himself by his Cloward-Pliven antics. Enough illegals secretly moved to enough locations, and the immigrant problem becomes personal across the country. It is individual communities who will be bankrupted by this regime.
    “The mills of fate grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine.” Probably misquoted, but still apt.
    His legacy: elect a boob, get a boob.

  2. 2

    This one

    All you ever had were half cooked scandals fabricated by the lunatic (and yes, racist) right. And if Palin is your inspiration it’s obvious you really do have problems with reality.

  3. 3

    Bill

    In the budget debates, I have suggested that the Republicans should have just stepped aside and let the Democrats spend what they will on what they will; it’s what was going to happen anyway. By thus, when the failure eventually comes, there can be no argument of Republican obstruction, Republicans hampering all of Obama’s good deeds, Republicans blocking efforts to help the middle class, etc, etc, etc…. All you would have is a purely liberal policy and the results. Obamacare is an excellent example; it has taken almost 6 years, but more and more are seeing the results of liberals running things.

    The same is true with impeachment. In the first place, it will never happen (not removal, anyway). Secondly, the only known cure for liberalism is liberalism. Let those who think that is such a wonderful way to conduct business get a good, healthy dose of it and they will be cured…. well, for a couple of decades, anyway. Obama has wrecked the prospect of single payer, he has wrecked immigration reform (all by doing it his way), so let him wreck liberalism as a whole. It’ll only hurt for a little while.

  4. 4

    John

    Perhaps you would also wish to courts martial all the officers in the military who testified under oath that Obama have them free reign to handle Benghazi!! 4 Americans died in Benghazi!!! How much worse was Iraq?
    Loud Lerner was appointed to her position by Bush not Obama
    After Bush continually misinformed the
    USA about Iraq and it’s WMD Pelosi immediately said impeachment was off the table
    Bush’s approval ended at 50% lower than Obama’s
    Picking one poll to support your argument is pretty weak. Rasmussens last poll gave Obama a 47% approval rating
    I prefer realclearpolitics avg which gives a 42%
    Many progressives disapprove of Obama for being too moderate and that contributes to his disapproval rating

  5. 5

    Skookum

    A president cannot be impeached for being stupid, lazy, incompetent, a dilettante, an ideologue, or a piss-poor leader; these or not crimes. However, he cannot be convicted for any crime when a sycophantic bunch of Democrat Party Loyalists control the Senate. The question of impeachment becomes a rhetorical exercise that may have unintended consequences among deceased Democrat voters during the 14 elections. Everyone is aware of the Left’s ability to animate and revive the graveyard lobby, let sleeping Democrats continue to lie.

    Obama has lost the confidence of the country and the world; if we continue to investigate and turn up more instances of malfeasance and political corruption, not only will Obama be destroyed, but the Progressive Machine will be considered little more than a crime syndicate to Americans.

    Obama is trying to create a mystique of the great benevolent emancipator by throwing open the Southern Border to the indigent population of South America to salvage something for his legacy, but there is no plan except for taking advantage of America and somehow increasing the Democrat rolls after they lose the Senate and people are required to identify themselves to vote.

  6. 6

    jainphx

    Oh so we go on our merry way and allow the illegal activities to continue? Yea lets just give him a pass for silly political gain all the while, we as citizens suffer this autocrat to destroy the constitution and ignore court rulings etc etc etc. Look if we, as a people, have no stomach to stop all this, then we are done as a free people. Lets go on allowing Holder to pick and choose who is a law breaker! Lets allow Obama to destroy our way of life! For what? THERE IS NO GOOD REASON not to impeach. The media ( the tool of the left ) will go about propping him up no matter what we do or don’t do. The German people did nothing to stop Hitler and where did that get them and the world. I’m just sick of the nay sayers that for any reason refuse to combat evil for any reason. Evil is evil and must be fought period.

  7. 7

    jainphx

    @Bill: Most people don’t see the ultimate reason for all this. The real reason has been in the works for over 50 years, and that is to make one country of the Americas and Canada. You destroy the boarders as the first and most important step to that end. The elites see them selves as RULERS of this new super country. It’s an off shoot of the World government agenda, but just now under the most miserable POS to come to power in this country, is the movement gaining steam. Can we stop it? Yes if we see it for what it really is, but not before.

  8. 8

    Thirteen

    @John:

    “After Bush continually misinformed the
    USA about Iraq and it’s WMD”

    Alas, if those cartoon dreams about Bush were true, but it was the dems who drew the map for WMD starting in 98.

    “The only mistake Bush made, was listening to the Democrats about WMD.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUeIrUsApuE

    Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

    19 famous statements starting with Bill Clinton on Feb. 4, 1998

    http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
    — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

  9. 13

    David

    Yes, he’s been derelict in his duty. He has overstepped his authority, implicitly and explicitly. While removal for being unfit makes sense, at the same time it needs to be considered on a practical level.

    The House can impeach, but the trial and conviction is another matter. Suppose there are 52-57 votes for conviction, he remains in office because the 2/3 required for removal from office is not reached. Some would say this would be a symbolic win, or having fought the good fight. But, it will leave him so wounded, he’ll be more likely to take “executive action” on everything and anything. Failure to convict also throws him a life preserver (a la Bill Clinton) – something I wouldn’t toss.

  10. 14

    Bill

    @This one:

    All you ever had were half cooked scandals fabricated by the lunatic (and yes, racist) right. And if Palin is your inspiration it’s obvious you really do have problems with reality.

    Such as?

  11. 16

    AdrianS

    Those who choose to ignore the FACT that Barack Hussein Obama WILL BE IMPEACHED and REMOVED are the MOST ignorant people in the country. You have to literally stick your head in the ground not to realize that Obama, not only is the worst but, Obama is illegitimate and a constitutional outlaw no different than Pancho Villa, as an OUTLAW. These type ignore the OBVIOUS Constitutional rules, the law of the land in the U.S., in order to promote their SOCIALIST goals; however THEY DO SO AT THEIR OWN PERIL.

    And people who say Obama should not be IMPEACHED and REMOVED are themselves accomplices in Obama’s illegalities. To be mindful of the Constitution is to DEMAND that Obama be impeached and removed. It is coming to a head. With so many U.S. Citizens waking up, learning about Obama’s illegal actions, and putting their FOOT on Obama’s throat, we are closer and closer to removing someone very much like Stalin, Hitler and other despots who not only violate the laws of the land, they, as Obama, ignored the law and forced upon citizens their own brand of anarchy and despotism. Obama is a despot. WE WANT NO SOCIALISM AT ALL.

    IMPEACH AND REMOVE OBAMA NOW.

  12. 17

    Indigo Red

    I, too, was for impeachment before I was against it.

    My point is that at this late stage of Obama’s* WH occupancy presents the specter of a Vice-President filling out the term, but not having served long enough for that term to be a full-term thus allowing that President to run as a siting President for two full-terms. Had Obama* been impeached, convicted, and removed from office earlier, the Vice President filling the office would have been considered to have served one term and eligible for only one election cycle to the high office. As it stands now, VP Biden could be President for as long as a full decade rather than just eight years.

Leave a Reply

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