Sarah Palin

Guess Who Doesn't Want to Impeach Obama?


Yesterday, vice-presidential candidate turned talking head Sarah Palin published an op-ed calling for President Barack Obama's impeachment. Rejecting her bid for continued relevance, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters Wednesday morning that he's not so into that idea. 

When asked about Palin and other Republicans' eagerness for impeachment, Boehner simply repeated twice: "I disagree. I disagree." 

His words follow typical Palin-style bravado on Fox News Tuesday night, in which she called Boehner weak for planning a lawsuit over Obama's use of executive power. "You don't bring a lawsuit to a gunfight," said Palin.

I guess for that you bring an op-ed instead?

In Palin's ignorant mess of recent commentary, published by, she said that the influx of young immigrant hopefuls to America's borders may be "the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'"

Because of Obama's purposeful dereliction of duty an untold number of illegal immigrants will kick off their shoes and come on in, competing against Americans for our jobs and limited public services … Securing our borders is obviously fundamental here; it goes without saying that it is his job.

Because President Obama disagrees with Palin over whether his job requires booting a bunch of immigrant children, Palin says "it's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment." My oh my. Leave it to Palin to make Speaker Boehner look like the voice of rationality. 

NEXT: DEA Agents Left Daniel Chong Abandoned in Holding Cell, Justice Department Confirms

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is she brave enough to ask Iowa farmers to give up their corn subsidies? That would eliminate a big contributing factor to the problem, if Mexican agriculture can compete fairly and keep more Mexican citizens employed.

    1. Is Boehner? Is he also brave enough to ask business to give up its source of cheap labor?

    2. Excellent point. And is Rand Paul? Worse than being Socialist, isn’t our farm policy out and out communist? And yet Republicans and Dem’s will defend it to their dying breathes, it shows what a joke both parties are and why (IMO) Libertarians should reject both parties.

    3. Jon, it looks like it:


    4. As Joe pointed out she’s done exactly that. Your point is awkward though, it sounds like you WANT competition that beats your own country’s labor and causes it to become unemployed. Markets are generally a zero-sum game (didn’t used to be that way, but hedge funds/banksters have made it so).

      And really, why is Reason siding with the Neocons in favor of keeping millions of CRIMINAL socialists (illegals) who commit social security fraud, etc.

      I swear, Libertarians are being extremely self-defeating on immigration. NO REPUBLIC has EVER eliminated welfare after instituting it. Most never even cut it without a crisis forcing them to. Adding 12 million new socialist voters from Mexico/S.America will make America permanently unable to undo socialism.

      Just move to Venezuela if you think you can undo socialism with an IMPOVERISHED latin voter base.

      1. Why do we need high fructose corn syrup in absolutely every consumer product? Why should we be faced with a choice between $1 Coca-Cola and $1.25 bottled water? The market will function as libertarians have always believed it will. If there’s a drop in Mexican demand for Doritos, I don’t care.

  2. Anyone remember when Donderooooooooo was telling us that Palin was the Great White Libertarian Hope? Whatever happened to Donderoooooooo anyway?

    1. Just what was wrong with what Palin said? Because the article above never addresses that.

      1. Well “protecting the border” if you mean ending immigration period, is pretty much fucking impossible for one thing. For another Millions upon millions of illegals came here during Republican administrations, and yet no one called for impeachment. Also, Obama has deported millions of illegals, it isn’t like he has ignored the issue. Let’s face it, Republicans hate Brown people, that’s really what this is all about.

        1. Well “protecting the border” if you mean ending immigration period

          How do you get from “securing our borders” to “ending immigration period”? Oh, that’s right. It’s another ‘dog whistle’. (sheesh)

        2. I just realized you are merely conflating legal and illegal immigration. While I understand you support no restrictions to immigration, we do have these things called ‘laws’. There are even some you don’t approve of. You might want to check them out sometime.

        3. Let’s face it, it’s almost impossible to eliminate welfare in a Republic, which is what Libertarians claim as their solution to immigration.

          The reality is, if you DON’T kick out these 12 million illegals, then America will never roll back socialism (and it’s not impossible, in fact, it’s EASY and would SAVE the state money because illegals are costing us tens of billions, enough to hire hundreds of thousands of police).

          It’s not racism, it’s just they have a brain and realize that 12 million new spanish speaking socialist voters may not be the best thing for the USA.

          And libertarians should be the MOST OPPOSED to these 12 million illegals. Libertarians are 94% white, and have a MUCH bigger risk with adding in 12 million new hispanics than the GOP does.

          Hispanics, being Catholics generally, are almost exclusively catholic social conservatives (a libertarian’s worst nightmare) or catholic social democrats. Disillusioned catholic hispanics also seem to take to communism/socialism more than libertarianism. The lack of prominent spanish-speaking libertarians only fuels the gap further.

      2. Apparently we libertarians support suspending laws for “immigrant children.”

  3. “Influx of young immigrant hopefuls”? OK, who at Mother Jones came in, murdered everyone at Reason, and took over the reins? We get Rand Paul the drug warrior, Obama the stealth libertarian, and now this tripe.

    1. I think you may be looking for the bat-shit crazy fucking moronic idiot wing of the Republican PARTY….Sarah Palin and the rest of you dipshits are not Libertarians. Racism, stupidity, media whoring are not Libertarian. Fuck you along with the fucking Democrats…

      1. Fuck you back.

        1. Don’t get him excited.

      2. I wonder where in my comment I ever admitted to being a Republican OR Democrat? Oh, that’s right. I didn’t. Moron.

      3. So Pogue, you think bringing in 12 million new spanish speaking socialists from Mexico/S.America is a good thing for Libertarianism?

        Libertarians don’t even appeal to *english-speaking* hispanics. Less than 1% of ENGLISH-speaking Hispanics describe themselves as libertarian.

        A whopping 75% of American hispanics are in favor of “more taxes and bigger government” (more than double the percentage of most other Americans).

        And the impoverished, mostly socialist, law-breaking illegals are probably far worse. Amnesty would be the death of Libertarianism.

  4. God Sarah just go away……

    … too Hannity.

    1. But she looks like Tina Fey.

  5. I agree that the issue of illegal immigrants isn’t the one upon which to base articles of impeachment, but there are plenty of legitimate bases for it (including Fast and Furious, Benghazi, probably the IRS scandal, his blatant ignoring of the clear language of Obamacare with constant “interpretations”; the list of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is depressingly long). However, it’s a pointless exercise while the Democrats control the senate. Better to shut up about it until November 5. But if the Republicans should gain control of both houses impeachment should definitely be pursued (against Obama and Holder at a minimum); this administration is little more than a criminal gang.

    1. I agree with you; but even if the Republicans take the Senate, I don’t think there will be any impeachment, for several reasons. One is that they would like to win the presidency in 2016; how would they deal with all the cries of “racism” if they were to impeach the first black president? They already get accused of being racist just for criticizing the son of a bitch.

      A second reason is that Republicans and Democrats share power. If one party does it, the other will exact its revenge the next time they’re in power; both parties know this.

      Finally it’s all “look-see pidgeon” anyway – to make a show. Presidents don’t get removed from office in this country – it would be considered “unseemly” by many for the executive of this “great country” to be deposed like a tin pot dictator of some third world banana republic. What would be next – actually making one of them serve prison time like a common citizen? The elite ruling class of the US is a cut above that of other countries, don’tcha know.

    2. (continued)

      Andrew Johnson missed being convicted and removed by only one vote almost a hundred and fifty years ago. Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment but got pardoned by his successor. The Senate vote on Clinton went right down party lines and the same thing would happen with Obama. Even if there were enough pissed off Senators to convict him, I doubt that any would want to cast the deciding vote for the first removal in history of a sitting president and the first black president at that. How would it look if the first president to ever actually be removed was a black one?

      I like Sarah Palin and I much admire her guts, but impeachment will never happen with this president. I’m sure she already knew that. Even so, it’s still nice to see someone with a spine.

    3. Linking the need to take control of the Senate so that the executive branch can be better disciplined is a wise strategic move. Mr. Obama is not the only member of the executive branch that could do with a bit of impeachment discipline….or do you like the way Koskinen is running the IRS?, and McCarthy the EPA?
      Yes, no Bill of Impeachment would be brought to the floor of the Senate for Trial and Conviction while Harry Reid is running things on that side of The Hill – so what are you doing to change that fact?

      1. I don’t live and vote in Nevada, so there is very little I can do about Reid. I live in Texas and we already have Republican Senators.

        But apparently you didn’t comprehend much of what I typed. Even if the Republicans take control of the Senate this coming year, there will be no successful impeachment and removal of Obama. And frankly, I think he knows this, too – that’s why he does as he pleases.

      2. And since you bring it up – no, I do not like the way the heads of various departments of the executive branch are doing their jobs. I think some of them should be prosecuted. That isn’t going to happen as long as Holder is Attorney General and more concerned with politically covering for Obama than doing his job.

    4. Oh my god…if lying about an idiotic war and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed is not impeachable then those things you list for fucking sure or not. Those things you list are fucking politics, they are what happens when you lose elections. Mitt fuckhead or Mr. senility and Ms. dumbshit would have done the same types of things (or worse)

      1. If so, then they too should be impeached. You’re saying exactly what many people said when Nixon got caught: everybody’s doing the same thing–he just got caught. Bullshit.

        I agree with sasob that Obama will not be impeached, and certainly will not be removed. Personally, I think it best to leave him there to sour the voters even more on the democrats. Maybe the repubs will further sideline the socons by then and we can move away from this government nannyism from both parties.

    5. They won’t impeach him.

    6. I’m wondering if the writer of this article (or anyone else) even bothered to listen to what Palin said.

      One of the things she said was that there were at least 25 things that were impeachable offenses. The fact that the Elizabeth Nolan Brown only discussed the immigration part just shows that supposed “libertarians” are just as guilty of being biased in their reporting as the hacks at MSNBC.

      1. The immigration one is the one she devoted a whole op-ed to.

  6. Yeah. Think of the children. And their Parents. And all the votes for socialism that will mean.

    Do my children count?

    1. Nah. Your children get to pay the national debt. And your children’s children. And their children.

    2. How fucking stupid…and what a tired Republican sound-bite. Unless you are voting Libertarian you are voting for socialism…if anything the Republicans are more socialist than the democrats. If you really reject socialism vote Libertarian, and vote Libertarian not only when it is just “cute” to do so. The only way things are really going to change is when we change our mono culture politics.

      1. When I bother to vote at all I vote Libertarian. And I’ve been doing so since the first presidential election in which the Libertarian Party ran a candidate: John Hospers in 1972. Not that it ever accomplished much more than just to make me feel better.

        My comment is not stupid – it’s the goddamned truth, regardless of which party it originally came from. What’s really tiresome is the prospect of future generations being virtually enslaved to debt they had no part in creating.

        As for Republicans, yes, they are socialist – but in the fascist sense of the word. Dems are usually more the Marxist type socialist. I don’t have any use for either ideology.

  7. Gov. Palin is not the only one who is calling for impeachment of the President….you should list everyone – just to make it fair.
    Perhaps some of them are actually ‘relevant’.
    Of course, most of those considering the President’s impeachment are also highly critical of Speaker Boehner’s ‘leadership’ in the House, and have been calling for his replacement for some months now.

  8. The drug war is what is driving those children to America according to former police detective Howard Wooldridge.

    1. So, because you, as a Libertarian, dislike and disapprove of the War on Drugs, the violation of the Nation’s Sovereignty along out Southern Border should be excused and ignored?
      A nation without an enforced border is not a nation.
      I believe RWR said something to that affect.

      1. Immigration was almost entirely unimpeded for much of the US’s history. I’m sick of all this anti-immigrant sentiment.

        1. Good historical point. Though can it be said that it is really anti Brown people immigration that has Republicans so exorcised?

          1. You keep setting up this asinine statement as though if you say it enough times, it’ll make it true. There are plenty of brown people in places in Asia, who have skills, who are employable, who will pay taxes, and who WON’T vote for socialists, that I’d be glad if they came over here.

            So enough of you projecting your racist beliefs on anyone who’s against unfettered immigration from 3rd world countries.

            1. So you’re not a racist because you only hate Mexicans? I see…

              1. If that’s what you think my comment meant, then you have no thinking skills whatsoever.

  9. Close the damn border already.

    If you want to discuss the need for more immigration, then have that discussion, as legal immigration. We are seeing a resurgence of diseases we had long thought erraticated in the US, brought in by illegal immigration. Part of legal immigration is that these issues are dealt with prior to coming here.

    If you are opposed to this, you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist.

    1. You can’t even spell “eradicated” for fuck’s sake!

      1. You can’t spell “exercised” or “are.” You also can’t hyphenate, capitalize, or use periods. (Check your posts; you’ll see.)

    2. So, as a libertarian, how much are you willing to expand the size of government in order to accomplish your goal of securing the border?

  10. Obama could rape and murder 20 small children in front of a million people and the dems wouldnt vote to remove him from office. The possibility of convicting a president went away with the concept of honor.

    1. We have never ever had any concept of honor in American Politics that is fucking stupid…

      1. Oh, and you also use comma splices and you overuse ellipses.

        1. I don’t see any commas…

      2. I think the term “honor” describes Sarah Palin’s career in politics, including her term as governor of Alaska. (Before you jump all over me, note that I live in Illinois. Our governors tend to end their terms behind bars.)

  11. John, get here now.

  12. Slow day?

    1. My thoughts exactly!

  13. “…whether his job requires booting a bunch of immigrant children…”

    It’s better to “boot” sick, disabled, and elderly citizens, Ms. Brown?

  14. We need people like Palin around. Reprising her success in flushing half a dozen Senate races down the toilet in 2010, she’s still at it, though this time her primary candidates, McDaniel and Shannon, lost.

  15. The establishman Republican in this case slurps mightily on the presidential cock. Lovingly. Tugging at Obama’s balls Boehner slides his tongue up and down the dark shaft of the administration while the rest of the Republican camp lines up with their pants at the ankles… the various asses gleaming with grease and pleasant oils. Waiting for the presidential plunge into their establishment shit holes. The only question on the minds of this Republican party with its big black cock making the rounds on all the submissive asses is who gets the creampie….?

  16. I saw this article on Takimag about impeachment.…..k_buchanan

  17. Sarah is the only one with any balls.

    She knows full well that Impeachment wouldn’t pass the Senate. But at least people are talking about it, which they were too scared to do up to this point.

    Barry is lawless and out of control. He won’t be impeached, but he must be stopped.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.