32 votes

Sarah Palin crushes Obama says defaulting on debt is impeachable offense per Constitution

Obama’s Debt Default is on His Shoulders While We Shoulder His Impeachable Offenses

Apparently the president thinks he can furlough reality when talking about the debt limit. To suggest that raising the debt limit doesn’t incur more debt is laughably absurd. The very reason why you raise the debt limit is so that you can incur more debt. Otherwise what’s the point?

It’s also shameful to see him scaremongering the markets with his talk of default. There is no way we can default if we follow the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4, requires that we service our debt first. We currently collect more than enough tax revenue to service our debt if we do that first. However, we don’t have enough money to continue to finance our ever-growing federal government (with our $17 trillion dollar national debt that has increased over 50% since Obama took office). That’s why President Obama wants to increase the debt limit. He doesn’t want to make the tough decisions to rein in government spending. So, he’s scaremongering the markets about default, just as he tries to scaremonger our senior citizens about their Social Security, which, by the way, is funded by the Social Security Trust Fund and is solvent through 2038.

It’s time for the president to be honest with the American people for a change. Defaulting on our national debt is an impeachable offense, and any attempt by President Obama to unilaterally raise the debt limit without Congress is also an impeachable offense. A default would also be a shameful lack of leadership, just as mindlessly increasing our debt without trying to rein in spending is a betrayal of our children and grandchildren who will be stuck with the bill.

- Sarah Palin

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why is it every time someone supports our point of view

We question their motives? I'm not saying that we can't question motives, but just maybe we can accept support from what appears to be unlikely sources.

Hah, you people actually buy

Hah, you people actually buy this garbage? You're letting knuckleheads like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz co-opt the liberty movement in the conservative party to the point where it becomes impossible to appear rational when arguing the case against neocons, moderates and democrats. Im heading back to the libertarian party if more this keeps cropping up on the Ron Paul site.

Best comment on the article:

On this link: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/15/palin-defaulting-o...

By Maine922: "Go Sarah!!. I mean, don't run for anything. But make some noise girl!!"

A good way to defend your freedoms: www.libertymagazine.org

I used to call her a Nazi

Regardless of her political agendas, we need her right now, and Ted Cruz(just throwing this is here because of his ties).

She is a voice many will listen to, when they won't hear Ron Paul. She may not be the ideal person we want, but we can deal with that later. For now, lets give her the publicity, because it helps us also.

She's Not a Candidate

I think she likes being famous, but she didn't like being a candidate, and she quit her job as incumbent.

She won't be running for president ever again.

I'm reminded that the first time I ever heard of her was here, on hte DP, a full year before she became famous. Somebody suggested her as a Ron Paul running mate (circa 2007).

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Be careful about embracing Sarah directly...

I am all for widening the liberty base at every opportunity. Sarah's supporters may very well be amiable to the message but, as for Sarah, buying into to her brand personally is a bad idea;
You all need to know Palin has a Solyndra and worse. She pushed for the commitment of $500 million of Alaska Money for the boondoggle called AGIA. Look it up. Ask Ralph Samuels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZzJiqhje-E), Mike Hawker, or Mike Chenault. History has proved them all right and Palin wrong, very wrong, while Alaskans are out a cool 500M. We are not talking about just loan guarantees here.... This was an out right business deal promoted between the State of AK and Trans-Canada Corp. This is a death nail in any election for her. She could not be elected in Alaska again that is for sure. But watch out Arizona she is establishing residency. Want to bet she runs for McCain's current seat to join Dan Quayle's punk porn publishing kid as a neocon duo? You heard it here first.

She may act folksy and conservative on reality tv but, she is not qualified to be much more than a cheerleader. Sorry folks, I like Sarah personally too (raised money for her gov race, you would have too if you knew her predecessor)...

Don't get fooled that she is an fiscal conservative and a deep thinker of any kind. The AGIA fiasco is proof positive she has no real base economic principles. She might afford better branding and smarter advisers now but she is only a puppet in waiting not a true leader.

She has been going to the neocon school since 2008 to learn about the world she was not prepared to enter when thrust on the scene back then. Let's see how she emerges from that corrupt school of thought. I am heartened a bit to see in her face and in her answers to some questions that she is slightly torn between conviction of a true conservative like a Ron Paul and the easy road to a establishment position and a nice paycheck but, I don't put much credence in it.

Mark my words, she will drift with the political wind and right now it is blowing toward us. She should take the check and stick with the other MSM boobs. We should not ever consider electing her again for much more than dog catcher.

In the end one's politics must be based in principle or they can produce no real leadership. Palin still blows in the wind. Ignorance or ambition, I care not which one causes it. AGIA is a big issue that precludes her ever being considered a principled free market conservative.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

I heard many people say that about Ron Paul at my local

convention.

Oh be careful about embracing Ron Paul, he has some good ideas but he votes like a Democrat.

Total nonsense

Palin has proven herself over and over.

There are not a lot of people hated more than Ron Paul by the establishment, Sarah Palin is one of them - that in itself should tell you Sarah Palin should be trusted.

BTW - all stuff you mention about has been debunked. Here is some nice info on Mike Hawker who you quote as a source. He is part of the Corrupt Bastards Club and was anti-Ron Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_Bastards_Club

Joe, I know Sarah and Mike

Joe, I know Sarah and Mike Hawker. You should read your own sources. Although he received contributions of 8K from Veco he was never suspected of being part of the CBC. There is even a foot note to the original ADN news story on that right on your wiki page. I would also like to point out that Mike was no more anti-Ron Paul than Rand was leading up to the 2012 convention.

I stand strongly on my assessment of Palin. Please hear me out we are on the same team. I do not dislike her, she is just not what people wish her to be. Learning more about Sarah will help you better advocate your beliefs on her. You should spend more time on her role in AGIA and you will find a complete lack of understanding of economics. She is simply a populist that rose from under the cloud of Frank Murkowski Randy Reudrich and the CBC frustration. She had the luxury of having spoken out against them just before the story broke and running against Murkowski the GOP gov at a time he was so hated that his incumbent approval rating was down around 10% in a solidly republican state. He lost the primary with his corruption and arrogance (think governors jet issue) as much as little Sarah from Wasilla won it. Without McCain's stupidity she would be a foot note.You should not forget the fact she jumped right on that bandwagon either. Had McCain won she would be super Neocon woman now. Think about it.... She is not of strong principle or deep thought. She is even more simply just not that smart. Sorry.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Did she endorse Ron?

Nope she didn't.

Kevink because of your

Kevink because of your interest in this thread and because I am not sure if you are notified when I responded to Joeinmo. I making this comment so you can refer here and read the above comment on Palin.

I want the DP to know what I know as I learn so much here from you all. DPers need to understand Palin better to bring her goodhearted supporters to a better understanding of her and the ideas of liberty.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Debt Ceiling

Will be raised to 25 trillions in my guesstimation. A good chunk will go to the individual States.

donvino

Such a pointed and well spoken position by Palin...

...

Palin absolutely knocks it out of the park!

She gave the most concise and articulate thought on the situation that I have heard yet. We should stop calling it a debt default (which it is not), but - "Automatic Cuts in Federal Spending".

Don't negotiate at all! Let Obama figure out where to cut in order to pay the interest until there's no Federal Programs left or he decides to do something funny and gets himself impeached!

Palin would make a great President. Perhaps Ron Paul / Palin could be in the mix? That would be great!

Defaulting <> questioning validity

I don't understand this argument. Here is the relevant passage:

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Being late in paying your creditors is not questioning the validity of your debt to them. Just because I'm late with this month's mortgage payment doesn't mean I believe the bank has no right to be asking for it at all.

When you have to recongize a valid debt according to the...

14th Amendment and you have cash in your hand, but you chose instead of paying those valid debts and default (in order to blame rational people) you have committed an impeachable offense. The only choice a President has is to pay on its preexisting debts before spending more of its incoming cash on bloated federal programs.

Let's start with the Department of Education. It's a whopper and should give us a few more years until we axe the next department. Besides why in the world do we need the Federal Government telling the States what they should teach. Let them decide. I don't think we will implode.

Remember there was a time when we had no Federal income tax at all, just State income tax. I could use that other 1/3 of my money and live with the States' programs.

Failing to make a scheduled

Failing to make a scheduled loan payment is not a declaration that the loan is not valid, regardless of whether you are able to pay. I am liable for my mortgage payment whether I just lost my job or just won the lottery. The debt is as valid as it ever was. If defaulting on my home loan made the loan legally invalid and removed my liability, I'd probably do it tomorrow.

Also, while the President might be the one standing at the teller window, it is only by the authority of Congress that he is able to withdraw funds from the Treasury:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;

Whether something is an impeachable offense ultimately depends upon the Congress of the day. If it happened today, the House might impeach the President for refusing to negotiate on a general spending bill, but the Senate wouldn't convict.

but you are missing the point

Congress has issued the monies to pay for stuff already, if Obama chooses not to pay the debt,it's on him and so impeachable.

It would be like the Treasurer of a company that has been given the authority to write checks for debts the company owes, insteads writes them to purchase new items for him/herself. That would be an offense that you would go to jail for.

The President isn't

The President isn't questioning the validity of US debt just because he doesn't pay it. He's not saying "this debt is bogus and these alleged creditors knocking on my door have no legal claim to payment now or ever". That's what it means to question the validity of the debt.

If it is an impeachable offense for the President to fail to act on an appropriations bill that would draw from the Treasury to make some debt payment, then it is not under the fourth clause of the 14th Amendment. It would be here:

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

The owners of the private company would have cause to fire their treasurer, but he wouldn't go to jail unless he committed fraud or something like that.

Liking Sarah

more and more all the time. Not presidential material though...more like a really good cheerleader.

Anybody want to pitch in on a little cheerleader outfit for Sarah?

Kathleen Gee's picture

We need Sarah Palin's supporters on our side. Why insult them?

Ron Paul builds coalitions with people, praises them when they see the light, and treats them with respect (even when he disagrees with them). In that way, Ron Paul has brought millions of people into the Liberty movement. So, here's a suggestion for everyone who feels the need to insult and demean Sarah Palin and (by extension) her millions of fans...

How about you praise and support influential people and media types every time they agree with liberty principles and policies—instead of mocking, profiling, and reviling anyone whose doesn't agree with you on 100% of the issues 100% of the time?

We cannot win without growing the movement beyond the DP or the Libertarian party. We cannot. We MUST reach out to people who are sympathetic to our positions. Many, if not most of those people are currently GOP voters and independents. Millions of them love Sarah Palin. Millions love Glenn Beck or Rush or Mark Levin. Another big chunk of them vote Democrat. Some of them read the DailyKos or HuffPo.

It's not their fault that they don't know they've been brainwashed. Please stop punishing them for it. Sarah Palin was one of the few GOPers who gave Ron Paul props throughout the 2012 campaign and long before. Here's a compilation of pro-Ron Paul comments:

http://youtu.be/gFruN-PDAzY

Why isn't Ron Paul's strategy good enough for any other so-called Liberty promoter?

Just wondering.

(Yes, I'm repeating myself and I will keep posting this same comment anytime people who claim to be pro-Liberty start bashing public figures who appear to be coming around to our side.)

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

I agree re Palin. Well said.

And whether or not she and her supporters end up agreeing with all of what Ron Paul has called for (we have differences of opinion about certain issues right here at the Daily Paul), I don't need someone to stop disagreeing with me on one issue for me to appreciate that they agree with me on another.

I think it's great when people come together on certain issues - whether they believe an issue is in line with their particular political leaning or believe the issue transcends politics. Libertarian issues or not, I'm personally happy to see increasing broad support (including socialists, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians) for wanting to bring troops home from the Middle East and not have America get involved in new wars; the issue of the gargantuan national debt; and the issue of potential severe and broad-scale harm to both human health and the environment from genetically-engineered crops.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Well said...

A team is only cohesive and effective when there is respect and appreciation of each contribution toward a common goal.

Pain in the Palin

Palin would say anything to make friends. Don't trust her.... she was only Ron Paul when it was cool to be Ron Paul.

Don't trust

Palin at all!
She is a warmonger and would jump into anybody's pocket that had money in it! FLAKE

NOSHEEPLE

ha ha

you haven't been keeping up with her, she dropped her war McCainiac advisors in 2009, hired a non-interventionist policy advisor for SarahPac, put out a nice anti-war piece the other day.

WOW!

So if Obama suddenly started talking nonintervention in the MSM you would be willing to snuggle?
Same logic!

NOSHEEPLE

She is posturing.

She still has dreams of the White House. Don't let her fool you, although she would be better than the present clown. But she is still a clown, just not as despicable.

beephree

Ugh

That's not what the 14th amendment (section 4) is about. It's about civil war debts.

To me, a plain reading of the

To me, a plain reading of the clause does not limit it to debts incurred during the civil war, it merely includes them.

I have heard more than one Constitutional Scholar

say it was exactly how Palin portrayed it, agree just includes Civil war debt.