Should President Obama Be Impeached?

Right From the Start

Right From the Start

I am a huge fan of Gov. Sarah Palin. No, I don’t think she should be president (or vice-president) but she certainly could not have done worse than the present occupants of those two offices. My enthusiasm for Ms. Palin is based on her ability to give relentless and unapologetic voice to a vast swath of the populace generally ignored by a press corps that believes that all wisdom is found within a sixty mile swath surrounding Washington, D.C.


And even more so because of her ability to drive liberals crazy – and I mean stark raving, red-in-the-face, frothing-at-the-mouth, snot-slobbering, eyes-rolled-back-in-their-heads, hair-pulling, shut-the-door CRAZY. Ms. Palin gives liberals the opportunity to exercise all of that pent-up sexism they have had to repress in the name of “political correctness.” She fuels the rage they feel when they see an attractive woman espousing conservative ideas and realize they are stuck with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as their “public face.” It is the opportunity for us to laugh uproariously at their hypocrisy.

To make the point, at a reception we attended recently a liberal friend of mine (yes, I have them) approached me and almost immediately began his vigorous condemnation of Ms. Palin. My friend is normally an intelligent, soft-spoken and thoughtful person but, like so many liberals when discussing Ms. Palin, he abandoned reason almost immediately. He started by asserting that Ms. Palin had cost Sen. John McCain dearly in the Republican presidential primaries of 2008. I reminded him that Ms. Palin did not appear on the scene until the Republican National Convention – well after the end of the primary season. Undeterred he than asserted that Ms. Palin had hurt Mr. McCain significantly in the presidential election. I responded by indicating that there was no proof of that and that given the extraordinary dislike of Mr. McCain by conservatives, such as myself, the probability is that many conservatives who would have otherwise stayed home turned out to vote for Ms. Palin and the Republican ticket thus decreasing the margin of victory for President Barack Obama. But like a “super ball” caroming off at odd angles, he continued an attack that became more rabid and less coherent until my wife, gratefully, extricated me from the discussion.

And all of this occurred prior to the point to be made in this column.


Recently, Ms. Palin called for the impeachment of Mr. Obama. She reiterated that call in a speech before the 2014 Western Conservative Summit in Denver this past week and, as reported in the Denver Post, upped the ante by challenging members of Congress:

“’These days you hear all of these politicians, they denounce Barack Obama, saying he is lawless, imperial and ignores court orders and changes laws by fiat and refuses to enforce laws he just doesn’t like,’ she said.“’That’s true. But the question is, “Hey, politicians, what are you going to do about it?”’ Palin said, as the crowd in the Hyatt Regency ballroom roared.”

A recent Huffington Post poll indicated that thirty-five percent of Americans thought Mr. Obama should be impeached. Independents were evenly divided while nearly seventy percent of Republicans concurred. (Not surprisingly these are about the same numbers who thought President George W. Bush should be impeached in 2007 with Democrat and Republican roles reversed.) It might be said that popular sentiment towards impeachment, in both cases, is reflective more of the populace’s inability to effect change in the conduct of their leaders than it is a demand that the serious consequences of the United States Constitution be invoked.

Let’s understand a few things about impeachment. First, the process is purely political – not a civil or criminal process. The Constitution states in Article II, Section 4:


“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.”Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the Congress decides them to be during the process and those decisions are not subject to review by the courts. (Nixon vs. United States, 506 US 224) The House of Representatives provides “articles of impeachment” when voting to impeach and the Senate decides whether the president actually performed the acts AND whether the acts rise to the point of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”


So political can the process be that during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, Hillary Clinton, then a lawyer for the Watergate Committee, sought to deny Mr. Nixon access to counsel for the proceedings. interviewed her then-boss, Jerry Zeifman, about it and wrote about Ms. Clinton’s brief asserting that there was no “right to counsel” for the president during an impeachment proceeding:

“The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“’As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,’ Zeifman said.
“The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“’Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,’ Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.”

Mr. Zeifman subsequently fired Ms. Clinton for lying and unethical conduct. He has opined that if she had done the same thing in front of a judge she would have been disbarred. It wasn’t the last time that public documents that contradicted Ms. Clinton’s view of the world disappeared – it is, in fact, an oft-repeated act that shields Ms. Clinton from accountability.

The point is that impeachment is an arbitrary process and subject to the whims and caprice of politicians – some, who like Ms. Clinton, are more than willing to exercise that power to advance their political purposes rather than to protect the nation. The nation is better served when the process brings forward “men/ women of the moment” who act solely for the benefit of the nation.

Watergate involved a third-rate burglary and a subsequent massive attempted cover-up. The investigation demonstrated that the burglary was led by Administration personnel and that the cover-up was led directly by Mr. Nixon and his senior White House staff. When Congress impeached Mr. Nixon, the nation was well served by the likes of Sens. Sam Ervin (D-NC) and Howard Baker (R-TN) who stuck to the facts, put the nation’s interests before their ambitions and secured an orderly and transparent process designed to reassure the citizens as much as secure the removal of Mr. Nixon.


We are not there yet with regard to Mr. Obama. The actions leading up to and after the assault on the Benghazi embassy and murder of the ambassador and three others; the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to silence political opposition; and the use of the National Security Administration (NSA) to spy on American citizens, individually or collectively, if tied directly to Mr. Obama or his senior staff, are more than sufficient to justify Mr. Obama’s impeachment and removal. But we are not there yet.

And we aren’t going to get there so long as members of Congress dither and refuse to authorize a special counsel. (I would prefer that Mr. Obama acknowledges that his presidency has failed, that his accomplishments were based on a series of lies, and that he lacks both the skills and the interest to continue and, therefore, resigns. An honorable man would do thusly, but this is Mr. Obama and he can neither recognize nor act honorably.)

Which brings us back to Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin is not a member of Congress. She cannot introduce a resolution of impeachment, open an investigation, hold a hearing, vote on articles of impeachment or sit in judgment in a trial of impeachment in the Senate. She is a private citizen. But by virtue of her popularity, her personality and her insistent demand for accountability, her megaphone is a lot bigger than most. And she is using that megaphone quite appropriately to demand action by those in power.

It is premature to say that Mr. Obama should be impeached. But in the meantime Ms. Palin – You Go Girl.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Congress, Ethics, Impeachment, Leadership, President Obama, Sarah Palin | 48 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jack Lord God

    Joe Biden = Impeachment Insurance.

    The only reason to impeach Obama would be to send a message to future presidents not to try and pull the crap he is doing. Making up law, picking and choosing which laws to enforce, all of them may be impeachable offenses. However, Obama is not the one who should be impeached. He is simply doing what every leader craves to do, but which our system of checks and balances is supposed to prevent.

    Who should be impeached? The American public for tolerating it, followed by “journalists” who have been absolutely shameless.

    • guest


      Sadly, what’s Left fails to see the blight before U.S. – DEMs thinking BO’s ‘internal’ character fallows nothing to go after. Ha!

      Of course, that’s a lot of Bolshevism dot Madame BoHillary will discount whence her term of orifice benigns to further melt down.

      Say a prayer for US folks. Please!

  • Bob Clark

    Impeaching and removing Obama from office would set up an interesting dynamic. Joe Biden becomes president, and would upset Hilliary’s easy march to the Democratic party nomination throne.

    But sitting through the divisiveness of impeachment would be too much to pay for the subsequent entertainment.

    • guest

      Past tense: US House impeachment of WJC ultimately arrived right on track.

      Alas, the US Senate, perhaps wary of the Gore-on deck, failed to mitigate the tumorous metastasis puffer bellying @ Union station; Choosing instead to band wagon “W’s” arrival
      steaming with limited fiscal liberalism, [wail-at-beast] until arrival of the B’nO Express, with high baton!

      Ouch! Here today we *hit in uttermost distress what’s besetting US – alas, not remembering Pogo Possum’s surmise about the virtual enemy?

      Oh yeah, *hit happens ever ‘know’ and again – butt, where does the scat get mopped up? Ides say, the middle of November 2014 signaling a resonant start.

      Bare we again – Hillary Rope’m Clinton ascendant to the Oracle Office? “At this point, what does it matter, shilled-rims, garners the ‘insnide’ track!?

      OMG, let US pray our country get’s it right and turns starboard toward our sovereign republic’s safer harbor.

      If not, Kenya believe where we’ll be bind up next?

      Suffice to say, it will not be good for our Constitution.

      Sharia law nor any other insurgency swill not.

  • william300

    Obama does deserve impeachment. Passing unconstitutional laws, by-passing steps in the law passing process, steps that are meant to balance power in order to keep any one man from getting to much power (this alone is enough to deserve impeachment) and lied to the american people. Now many people would bring up the fact that Bush supposedly did similar things, that may be true, but just because one man got away with a crime doesn’t mean you let future perpetrators get away with it too. Impeaching Obama won’t fix all our country’s problems, but it should be our first step toward fixing those problems.

  • MrBill

    Impeachment is a bad idea because:

    1. Even though Obama is clearly inept, being inept is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

    2. You should only attack someone like this if you think you can take them out. Even if the House impeaches Obama, there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell that the Senate would follow up by removing him from office.

    A stunt like impeachment would make Republicans look stupid and distract public attention from the failure of Obama’s presidency. Better to let Obama’s failures sink in with the general public for the next seven months.

    • guest

      Then akin, at this point, what difference does it make?” – “Hillary 2016” ‘schilling’ US over and over again with her brand of New World Orgasm, albeit nutso Sein Fein theater coming sooner ‘bunt’ not later than 2021?

      Folks, suggest you take in the movie “Obama’s America 2016” and book “America: Imagine the World Without Her” – followed by “America 2021” – trailer available @

      • MrBill

        Saw America the day it came out. Definite must see.

  • Mort

    His leadership is changing the world!!!

  • NAFTA Refugee

    Didn’t we “impeach” Billy Boy? What came of that? Nothing.

  • lyndaaquarius

    so curious….why does Mr Huff,a big “fan” of Sarah Palin’s feel she should not be our president or vice president?She clearly has the credentials and experience,so he must be referring to something else.I’m curious what it is.

  • Tom B

    No!He should be put in prison for fraud.The Kenyan Supreme Court just released Obamas birth records in May of 2014 and he sure wasn’t born in Hawaii as he claimed.In fact he wasn’t even born in the US.

    • Myke

      His Mother was American. That makes him American. Put this to bed. It doesn’t help anyone.

      • Tom B

        That makes Obama a liar and sorry Obama is not a NBC with 2 citizen parents.Legally impossible.PS,Obama was adopted and his real name is Barry Soetoro.Get with the program instead of the lying machine!

        • smrstrauss

          Obama was not adopted, which takes the action of a district court in Indonesia, nor was his name legally changed to Soetoro. Moreover, Obama never became an Indonesian citizen—-as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm (what an idea, checking on things!!) Obama was born in Hawaii, and the location of birth ALONE makes him a Natural Born US Citizen.

          “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

          “Under the longstanding English common-law
          principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are
          citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (

          “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

      • Tom B

        Chapter 19, §212 of “Law of Nations”, the concept “Natural born citizen” is a twofold criterion meaning that:

        Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.

        This alone destroys Obama as being legit!

        • Myke

          What hollow vitriol, Tom. You speak to the choir. I never called him a “nbc”. Yes, we know that he is a fraud, but what has/will/can be done about it at this point? Fight his every move, stall, delay his every attempt, and challenge his every act, but I until someone takes this to the SC nothing is going to change. If anything, codify the concept of “Natural born citizen”, as it should be. Of course, that won’t happen until the Republicans take the congress AND Presidency. And, that won’t happen with people sounding like wacko conspiracy jobs, even if that wacko conspiracy is true.

          As far as my education, that’s none of your freakin’ business. At least I can see past the obvious, something you seem to lack.

          • Tom Tome

            qvaak like a duck, leave to a beaver to(o) clever.

          • Tom B

            You seem to promote people to live in a lawless society and condone it.

          • smrstrauss

            Every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and invading enemy armies is a Natural Born US Citizen. And Obama was for sure born on US soil as his birth certificate from Hawaii and the confirmation of it by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” sections of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show.

            For more on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen see above.

          • guest

            Hogwash attending what’s left of US!

            What’s right prefers the truth that what Marxists do, DUZn’t take Dem spots out, It simply coverts them over with Rinso Blue-boo.

          • smrstrauss

            Notice that quest has not responded to a single fact. (I wonder why not???)

            There is a reason why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama twice UNANIMOUSLY—and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul. The reason is that not one single one of them, not one in 535, thinks that Obama either was born in a foreign country (which of course he wasn’t as the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show) or that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

            The term really does come from the common law, as the Heritage Foundation book on the US Constitution makes clear. (See below.)

          • guest

            You must make for commoner sense first, monseigneur!

          • smrstrauss

            The Heritage Foundation book makes sense, and in fact what it said has been supported by ten appeals courts—and the “citizen parent required” side did not win in a single case. Not one.

            Here are some of the ten rulings:

            Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”

            Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

            Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

            Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

            Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

            Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

            Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

            And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

          • smrstrauss
        • smrstrauss

          There is no EVIDENCE that the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the US Constitution comes from “The Law of Nations” of Vattel—who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise.

          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          More reading on the subject:

  • guest

    Obama, Biden, Clintons, Reid and Belle Pelosi – put et al, in a longboat ashore to the Port of Kenya for quaint customs introspection and then release’m to Somali pirates of, perchance, swabbing decks whi’m.

  • guest

    IMO, good for US if Sarah Palin joined the US Senate representing the State of Alaska.

    Too, if Monica Wehby graced a similar embodiment attending the State of Oregon.

    As for impeachment of the Obamanation, certainly overdue and removal of Biden, too.

    Hillary Clinton as POTUS(?) – at what point does she fete?
    Benghazi not by much as witnessed by her other atrocious foibles.

    Okey dokey, House Speaker John Boehner remains upstanding – and thank heavens, Nancy Pelosi, a saint no more than stark craven Californicaws, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein,

  • Roger Enout

    Kenya says by birthright he’s theirs, let ’em have it.

    Hawaii wants a piece of the action, print ’em a despot slip showing he has an account there, plus an honorary ambassadorship to Indonesia.

    Meanwhile, Barry Soetoro has roving ayes for a SoCal PCS after White House days.

    Where his presidential papers ought go, how about lining a La Cage Au Folles library setting in or around Chicago?

    • smrstrauss

      Kenya has said that Obama was NOT born in Kenya.

      Obama used the name Soetoro when he was in Indonesia, but he never legally changed his name nor was he adopted, so his name remains OBAMA.

      • Roger Enout

        Ohbwahhahha! Barack Hussein Obama, whatever, undeniably a narcissistic Marxist fascist socialist pied piker community organizer aPutin’ on his version of a P.T. Barnum dog and phoney show.

        You know it and the only reason he’s still around is folks further alarmed of what Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and ‘Demmie’ Wasserman Schultz with what the DNC might foul the air we breathe next.

        • smrstrauss

          Rave on. The facts are shown above.

          • Roger Enout

            For whatever reason, the truth ‘peers not in you.

          • Roger Enout

            Facets are, you’re tokin in what’s left of US says, resulting with you, bean brained, in a state cr-ISIS rather than seeing the blight.

          • smrstrauss

            Rave on.

          • Roger Enout

            Shill meister, you replete yourself foaming from what’s left of US.

          • smrstrauss

            Rave on.

          • Roger Enout

            You dirge on like a brainwashed leftist monk.

          • ellen

            For those who are actually interested in the facts, here they are:

            Kenya has said that Obama was NOT born in Kenya.

            https://washingtonindependent.c… …

            Obama used the name Soetoro when he was in Indonesia, but he never legally changed his name nor was he adopted. So his name remains OBAMA.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)