WorldNutDaily: Impeach Obama Because… er, We’ll Think of Something

Via Media Matters, the same people who overlooked former President Bush and VP Cheney’s televised public confessions of high crimes want to impeach President Obama for… what exactly?

impeach Obama bumper sticker

Of course, the first calls for Obama’s impeachment came from the right even before Inauguration Day. Then followed birtherism, which got attention in the media and support from a number of Republican elected officials, but was quickly dismissed as total insanity. Even Rep. Michele Bachmann now admits that President Obama is legally a citizen.

Now that birtherism is dead, WorldNutDaily has gone back to pushing impeachment, claiming “the groundswell of calls for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama is growing”:

But has Barack Obama committed an impeachable offense? What exactly constitutes an impeachable offense? Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “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.”

The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law well-known to our Founding Fathers, but grossly misunderstood in this day and age. “High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior.

So far, so good. It’s true that a public official does not have to literally commit serious criminal offenses, as Bush and Cheney freely admitted doing, to deserve impeachment. But the WorldNut editorial writers can’t cite even one instance of “bad behavior” by President Obama.

As a practical matter, if impeachment was “off the table” for Bush and Cheney, then no subsequent administration has anything to worry about.

UPDATE: Floyd Brown, a prominent player in Republican circles, says “Obamaism” is an impeachable offense. Because he can’t come up with anything that fits the constitutional definition. You have to give him points for originality.

  1. #1 by brewski on October 8, 2009 - 9:08 pm

    Rather than focus on high crimes and misdemeanors, let’s focus on bribery. Bribery is a crime Obama is certainly guilty of. Just ask those right wingnuts like Bill Moyers and Robert Reich who have both said so.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on October 8, 2009 - 11:42 pm

    Here’s the video of Rep. Michele Bachmann trying to weasel out of answering Larry Kings simple question to her about whether she is still standing with the “birthers.” Ari Fleischer is in true form trying to equate the “birthers” with anybody who thought the Supreme Court acted badly when they slipped Bush into office.

  3. #3 by Ken on October 9, 2009 - 5:34 am

    Again the Nobel “Peace” Prize Committee have embarrassed themselves and, along with Yasser Arafat, given their award to Barack Obama.

    The award has not been about peace anyway, rather given to those who advance their soc#ialist Utopian ideals. So in that case it was very appropriate to give the award to Obama.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on October 9, 2009 - 5:52 am


    You’re not as fast as usual, the Nobel was announced before 4:00 am Mountain Time and it took you until 5:30 to criticize it.

    The Nobel Committee says the decision was unanimous.

    The prize marks “America’s return to the hearts of the world’s peoples,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

    “There is a need now for constructive diplomacy for resolving conflicts and that is what President Obama is trying to do,” [said the chairman of the Nobel committee, Thorbjoern Jagland.]

    This morning on MSNBC, WaPo editorial writer Jonathan Capehart may have gotten it right when he said that the Nobel “is the ultimate expression of the relief in the world that George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States.”

    From a DKos diarist: “It’s my considered opinion that this honor was bestowed not so much on the President but on the American people for making the right choice on behalf of all the civilized countries of the world.”

  5. #5 by Uncle Rico on October 9, 2009 - 6:13 am

    Ya know Ken, you’d have a lot more credibility if your criticism was based on say, whether Obama is actually deserving of the award as opposed to simply attacking the award as some socialist badge of honor. By opting to pursue the latter course, you just come across as a bitter, irrational right-winger.

  6. #6 by James farmer on October 9, 2009 - 8:35 am


    Last week you placed on the mantle of personal glee the fact that Obama was a failure for not winning the Olympic bid for Chicago. Now, you are infuriated because Obama won the Nobel peace Prize.

    Your hypocricy, Ken, is nothing short of astounding. Indeed, I now look forward to reading your drivel because doing so humors me to the bone. Have a great day in your agony!

  7. #7 by Uncle Rico on October 9, 2009 - 8:50 am

    Legitimate point JF. Its interesting to me that the far right can simultaneously espouse the view that Obama’s time in office has been too short to be recognized for any kind of success, but more than long enough to be a branded an abject failure. It would be much easier (and honest) to just admit that their view on all things Obama boils down to “heads I win, tails you lose.”

  8. #8 by sock puppet on October 9, 2009 - 8:51 am

    This morning’s reactions from the RNC, Rush Limbaugh etc. were in full agreement with the statement issued by the Taliban spokesman. Amazing.

    Limbaugh said:

    “Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn’t deserve the award. Now that’s hilarious, that I’m on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban.”

  9. #9 by Ken Bingham on October 9, 2009 - 9:23 am

    Obama wins the Nobel “Peace” Prize, and there was much rejoicing. Yay.

    Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama, Ken Bingham,

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on October 9, 2009 - 10:14 am

    President Obama:

    “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but a recognition of the role of American leadership… To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures” who won in the past, he added. “I will accept this award as a call to action, a call to all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century.”

    Senator McCain offers a gracious thumbs-up:

    “I congratulate President Obama on receiving this prestigious award. I join my fellow Americans in expressing pride in our President on this occasion.”

    Ken, have you seen the ChiaPrez from the last administration?

  11. #11 by James farmer on October 9, 2009 - 12:27 pm

    Ha! I just listened to Hannity drivel on about the peace prize while driving to the store for lunch. I think his mf’n head is going to explode today. We can only hope.

  12. #12 by Larry Bergan on October 9, 2009 - 1:06 pm

    Right wingers will only cheer if Nobel comes out with a War Prize, but that will never happen, because America NEVER, EVER promotes war; only defense.

  13. #13 by Tim Carter on October 9, 2009 - 2:09 pm

    “Hamas criticizes Pres. Obama for actions for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

    Al Qaida criticizes Pres. Obama for actions for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

    Republicans criticize Pres. Obama for actions for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

    In a very real sense, “[t]he Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists”.

    Yeah, I miss our last leader, too.

  14. #14 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 9, 2009 - 2:15 pm

    Hey James, any reason you are tuned into AM radio listening to Hannity? Hell of a way to spend the precious lunch hour.

    Finally trying to get a handle on what is going on with the unwashed multitudes?

    This “prize” given to Obama is an in your face insult to the Arab world. I’m sure the internationalists have done it on purpose so the Taliban will have ample reason to blow our people up, in defiance of such an open LIE of peacemaking on Obama’s part… and America once again looks the brutal fool.

    As they(Taliban) ramp up I’m sure our military will comply to the broad charade by dropping a 2000 pounder on some unsuspecting wedding party.

    Just in contact with a friend in Kabul, contractor, network admin for our govt’. Apparently the Indian embassy there was blown up, and as a US contractor he and his buddies nearby were all knocked on their asses in their building.

  15. #15 by James Farmer on October 9, 2009 - 10:18 pm


    I tuned into AM radio today because, honestly, I thought I might hear first hand Hannity’s head explode over the peace prize thing. It’s all part of my sheer enjoyment of watching and listening to the GOP fall apart at the seams and finally cross the threshold into complete and total irrelevance. We are just about there, thankfully!!!

  16. #16 by Larry Bergan on October 9, 2009 - 11:32 pm


    I tune in to Hannity after something I know they hate too, but not very often. Just amazing, isn’t it. Can you believe anybody listens to that stuff?

    It’s actually very informative, because you can tell what the next winger rage is going to be.

  17. #17 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 10, 2009 - 6:52 am

    The “hopers” had to do something to support their failing man.

    What I stated above will be a more to the point reality. Get ready for heightened activity in Afghanistan as enemies we have bombed prove that the man ‘o peace has really done what the crew at SNL claim. Jack Squat.

    Happy as you are now, the law of unintended consequences will take hold sometime in the next few weeks if not sooner.

  18. #18 by James Farmer on October 10, 2009 - 7:41 am


    OK, know-it-all, just what do you propose Obama do? Please, feel free to go on record and state exactly what the president of the US should do today, given what was inherited from the Bush cabal 9 months ago.

  19. #19 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 10, 2009 - 8:04 am

    Already done that. Democrats controlled congress so Bush is no factor in those years, other than going along with the Democrat congress. We are now in the 4th year of this congress, so what was screwed up then still is. We await 2010 for some relief.

    As incompetent and Coolidge like as Obama is, his do nothing presidency is about the best case scenario until he is summarily dumped. Best he could do is resign and pass the responsibility off to Biden. Scary I know, but how long do you want nothing to happen with this loser Obama?

    Sanjaya has no gravitas, and we are now in a world of trouble with no leader.

    What is happening now is all Obama, Bush is long gone. Really been gone 4 years, since Democrats took over the Congress and spent us into a dying currency oblivion. Sure Bush has some responsibility, but if you are living for blame, it is all his fault.

  20. #20 by Larry Bergan on October 10, 2009 - 9:40 am


    Do you think Obama should be impeached and convicted?

  21. #21 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 10, 2009 - 9:50 am

    He appears just to be incompetent, though under the standards progressives accused Bush and wanted impeachment, most of the war crimes begun under Bush and supported by Democrats through funding are still happening under Obama’s direction.

    So if you thought that Bush should be impeached for violating war conventions we are still in the wrong and just have a new leader who accepts our role in the world as violators of international law.

    No big deal, any trouble Obama seems to have no qualms violating sovereign airspace to kill whomever, guilty or not with a drone, ya know…just to be on the safe side.

  22. #22 by Richard Warnick on October 10, 2009 - 4:28 pm


    A nice, heaping helping of cynicism, there, but don’t think Bush is off the hook just because he made his getaway last January. We’ll be paying for Bush’s screwups for a long time.

    He’s in the history books as the Worst President Ever.

  23. #23 by anonymous on October 10, 2009 - 5:52 pm

    “He’s in the history books as the Worst President Ever”.

    Which books would those be Richard? Want to name them? We need to give Obama time to work his magic.

  24. #24 by Jay Wurlitzer on October 10, 2009 - 6:04 pm

    Richard, use your head, since nothing has changed in policy then Obama is just as culpable right now.

    No one is touching the last admin see, as a given from all the sameness we see, this is Bush’s third term.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: