Obama Derangement Syndrome rages on in Wash. Times with calls for impeachment
The "summer of rage"  heats up in The Washington Times' editorial pages today, with two op-ed contributors -- who both suffer acutely from Obama Derangement Syndrome  -- calling for President Obama's impeachment.
First up is former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, who has previously said  that Obama was elected due to the lack of a "civics literacy test" requirement for voting. In his Washington Times op-ed  -- titled, "The case for impeachment" -- Tancredo calls Obama "a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda" who "consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution."
The crux of Tancredo's "case for impeachment" would be laughable if it wasn't so dishonest. Tancredo argues that Obama's "most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a 'comprehensive' immigration bill."
Why is this so dishonest? Because not only has the White House flatly denied  Kyl's accusation, but Kyl himself reportedly walked back  that accusation, saying  that his comments were "taken a bit out of context" and referred to "the president's base" and not the administration.
Tancredo's "case for impeachment" is further undermined by the fact that the Obama administration -- as Media Matters has documented  -- has taken numerous steps to boost border security and immigration enforcement. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times reported  in June that the Obama administration "has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and on deportations."
That brings us to chronic ODS sufferer Jeffrey Kuhner, whose unhinged  attacks  on  Obama  have  found  a welcome home  in The Washington Times. In his latest anti-Obama screed, Kuhner declares : "Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall."
Kuhner's case for impeachment is predictably based on a litany of falsehoods. He falsely claims that the health care reform bill included the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback" -- which, in reality, was removed from the bill . He falsely suggests  that the health care bill contains federal funding for abortion, which he insists will result in "a cultural civil war." Kuhner falsely claims that the compensation fund agreed to by BP and the Obama administration  for those affected by the oil spill was an example a private company's assets being "raided to serve a political agenda." He then completely baselessly asserts that "much of" the money will be distributed "to Democratic constituents."
And Kuhner's just getting started.
Kuhner falsely claims  that Obama "refuses to protect our borders," which he calls "treasonous." He pushes the phony New Black Panthers scandal , claiming that "[t]he Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process."
He then cites the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff nonscandals  to claim that "[c]orruption in the administration is rampant." It doesn't matter to Kuhner that numerous  experts  have said that no laws were violated in either case. He even throws in an obligatory attack on White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, asserting that Emaunel (whom Kuhner calls "an amoral, ruthless operator") contacted Sestak and Romanoff, even though Emanuel doesn't appear to have talked to either of them.
It's plainly clear that Tancredo's and Kuhner's cases for impeachment aren't based on facts; these are obvious cases of Obama Derangement Syndrome, and The Washington Times seems determined to provide a platform to fuel the rage.