The Case for Impeaching Obama

US Constitution, Article II, Section 4. 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.

Treason:

• Being a member of a church where the sermons consisted of the pastor repeatedly screaming “God damn America”
• Suggesting that the Supreme Court was not “radical” enough in the 1950s because it did not “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”
• Giving his first interview as president to an Arab tv station during which he said that America ”sometimes make[s] mistakes” (not conclusive, but relevant)
• Publicly declaring to foreign audience on foreign soil that America has “failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world” and has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” towards its allies
• Publicly declaring to foreign audience on foreign soil that America does not consider itself a Christian nation (not conclusive evidence of treason, but relevant)
• Stating in an interview with non-US tv station that the US is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world (not conclusive evidence of treason, but relevant)
• Stating at his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo that “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”  His responsibility as President of the United States is to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States” and ”preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His responsibility as President of the United States is not to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear, nor is that even tangentially related to his duties.

Bribery:

• Obama + ACORN
• Obama + SEIU

High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

• Obama + ACORN
• Accepting fraudulent and foreign campaign donations
• “The Obama administration’s misbehavior in the matter of Chrysyler is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and the rule of law.“
• Threatening to mobilize the “full force of the White House press corps” against Chrysler creditors who pursued their claims
• Giving the union that supported him an “unprecedented” role in negotiating with California over federal stimulus funds
• Then, there’s the Chrysler dealerships. Were dealerships closed for political reasons?

This is just some thrown-together thoughts. But on the face of it?