Since he became a serious contender for president in 2008, Barack Obama has faced a long string of accusations that he is disloyal to this country. The latest examples come from a pair of virulent Washington Times op-eds by Tom Tancredo, a former Republican House member now running for governor in Colorado as a third-party candidate, and Jeffrey T. Kuhner of the Edmund Burke Institute.
As Media Matters points out, both Tancredo and Kuhner suggest that Obama is a threat to the United States (while making numerous misleading, unsupported, and false claims). Tancredo, for instance, calls Obama "a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda" and "a dedicated enemy of the Constitution":
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms...
When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.
Amazingly, Kuhner goes even further, calling Obama an "usurper" who is creating "a socialist dictatorship" and has engaged in "treasonous" behavior by suing Arizona over its immigration law:
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines...
Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America...
Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous...
Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime...
Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped...
Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
I've added Tancredo and Kuhner's statements to my timeline of smears against Obama's loyalty.
It really doesn't take much to be more of a serious threat to America than Osama bin Laden... I thought the same thing about Bush.
Posted by: Noumenon | July 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Brendan's hypersensitivity toward criticism of Obama, which Rob pointed out, has led Brendan to a post that Spinsanity would have blasted. He wrote:
Barack Obama has faced a long string of accusations that he is disloyal to this country (many of which exploit the misperception that he is a Muslim). The latest examples...
That quote pretty clearly implies that the two op-eds Brendan references exploit the misperception that Obama is a Muslim. In fact, neither of them does so.
Rather, they are blistering criticisms. They assert that Obama has violated the Constitution to such a degree that he deserves impeachment. To their credit, they provide a list of the alleged violations. One may not agree with them, but such criticisms shouldn't be illegitimate. The President's most urgent responsibility is to follow the Constitution. If there's any possibility that he's failing to do so, it's appropriate for citizens to point that out.
Similarly, many Bush critics called his alleged Constitutional violations impeachable. I don't recall Brendan complaining that such criticism of Bush was impermissible.
Posted by: David in Cal | July 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM
That's a fair point about the parenthetical -- I've removed it above. I have no objection with people stating their belief that Obama should be impeached. That is their right, as it was under Bush and Clinton. But calling him an "enemy of the Constitution" and accusing him of treason is another matter entirely, and consistent with the pattern of accusations I've described.
Posted by: bnyhan | July 27, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Thanks for that change, Brendan. I agree that Kuhner accused Obama of treasonous actions and was wrong to do so. The President's alleged failings bear no relation to treason.
Posted by: David in Cal | July 27, 2010 at 01:29 PM
Can you put the removed selection back with a line through it? I was at the beach this weekend and I'm just catching up.
Posted by: JP | July 27, 2010 at 02:56 PM
It was just a parenthetical noting that previous accusations of disloyalty against Obama had played on misperceptions that he was a Muslim.
Posted by: bnyhan | July 27, 2010 at 05:12 PM
"...assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism."
Huh? What, exactly is "non-traditional" capitalism?
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 01, 2010 at 05:16 PM