Skip to comments.More Calls for Impeachment of Obama after NSA Ruling
Posted on 01/08/2014 3:10:40 PM PST by Dqban22
OBAMA'S CRIMES ARE WORST THAN NIXON'S
More Calls for Impeachment of Obama after NSA Ruling
Posted on December 22, 2013
by LaRouche Irish Brigade
Larry Klayman, the attorney who brought the lawsuit that won a restraining order against the National Security Agency, has called Obamas crimes far worse than Nixons, and is calling for the impeachment for Obama. In an interview with World Net Daily, for which Klayman also writes, he said, In Watergate, Richard Nixon faced impeachment for breaking into the offices of the chairman of the Democratic National Party .Obama has broken into the homes of 300 million Americans.
Asked if he was calling for Obamas impeachment, Klayman answered, Yes, the NSA and the Obama administration are engaging in criminal behavior, and both are lying. He added that it is the most outrageous violation of constitutional rights in American history, and that Nixon didnt have Obamas technology. Klayman claims that he was put under NSA surveillance after he filed the lawsuit on behalf of Verizon customers, and he asserted that family members and boyfriends and girlfriends of NSA employees are now under full surveillance, including even their calls to doctors.
On Dec. 19, the conservative magazine, American Thinker, ran an article called Can We Talk about Impeachment? a long review of various charges against Obama, and calls for impeaching him. In addition to crimes that include the illegal war in Libya, Obamas refusing to cooperate with Congressional investigations in the Fast & Furious and other investigations, provisions of the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank bill, the article includes links to two official attacks on Obama for his violations of laws.
One official report came out in March 2012, co-signed by the Attorney Generals of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Caroline, Texas, and Virginia, includes charges that sections of Obamacare violate the Constitution.
Also reported is a December 3, 2013 hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on the subject, The Presidents Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws which was summarized with text and video highlights by BizPac Review. But showing the lack of clarity and courage of these rightwing networks the publication left out the strongest and most competent case for impeachment: LaRouchePACs.
Nixon was brought down because he recorded his own conversations. Obama because he recorded all of ours.
~~~Obama because he recorded all of ours.~~~
From your keyboard to God’s ears.
LaRouche? Seriously? How can they spare time from pursuing the Queen of England’s drug racketeering?
lol - yeah I saw that, too.
Nixon only became aware of the break in after the fact. He was was attacked because he foolishly became involved in aiding his close confidants in attempting to cover up their part in the break in and the subsequent cover up.
Nixon's transgressions seemed significant at the time when there was more respect for the Constitution and the law. But they pale in comparison to Bill Clinton lying under oath selling military secrets to our enemies and selling pardons for campaign contributions.
And they are downright insignificant compared to Barack Obama's many outright lies, numerous unconstitutional and illegal acts, and his continueous traitorous support of our enemies and animosity to our allies.
Is LaRouche material now acceptable on FR?
I never knew that hatemonger was active outside the United States.
>>Is LaRouche material now acceptable on FR?
La Rouche is a patriotic conservative Democrat with an I.Q. off the charts. I haven’t met anyone who has a strong negative opinion of his voluminous writings on economics, history and political science, who has read ANYTHING written by the man. They get their opinion about him by parroting the opinion of others. He’s worth looking into in spite of the knee jerk flight response one typically has to witness whenever his name comes up.
LaRouche has been calling for Obama’s impeachment since 3 months after his FIRST inauguration. He’s also the power behind a serious movement to reinstate the Glass-Steagall banking separation act, a bill of which is currently in the House.
In order to be actually informed on his positions and policies you actually have to go to his website www.larouchepac.com and actually read his stuff. Stop letting other people make up your mind for you.
“I havent met anyone who has a strong negative opinion of his voluminous writings on economics, history and political science, who has read ANYTHING written by the man.”
Well, now you have. The guy is a nut, and his followers are worse than Paulbots.
Don’t tell me to go to his website, I’ve read plenty of his tracts already.
Lyndon LaRouche? Really? I didn’t know he was still around....
(Thought he was on the Verboten List or something)
His crimes are worse, not worst.
I’m old enough to remember this guy from back in the 70’s. Nut is a pretty apt description of him; I don’t care how his people are trying to ‘rehabilitate’ his image.
A democrat calling for Obama’s impeachment 3 months into Obama’s first term and all you can do is wince and scurry away. To me, that fact alone makes the man interesting. What do you suppose he saw 3 months in that it took conservatives years to get a roll going about? Conservatives have a habit of murdering their curiosity that I find curious.
Who is wincing and scurrying? The man is a nut. I’m well familiar with his nutjob ideas, and I reject them.
“What do you suppose he saw 3 months in that it took conservatives years to get a roll going about?”
Are you really this dumb? Calling for an impeachment 3 months into office is nothing but a publicity stunt. Conservatives could have done it too, and I’m sure some of them did, but it wouldn’t amount to anything more than grandstanding.
>>Who is wincing and scurrying? The man is a nut. Im well familiar with his nutjob ideas, and I reject them.
The man is emphatically not a nut. “Familiar” is not enough. You actually have to read is work on economics. You “acquaintance” with his ideas is all second hand or first paragraph or directed by detractors. If you knew his ideas, you’d be more thoughtful than wincing and scurring. Ever heard of the Glass-Steagal act. You know the one that was overthrown by banking interests and which overthrow allowed merchant banking sector to gamble with depositors savings along with the investment banking sector. Absolutely zero Republican of any note is calling for a reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, and the banking lobbies are fighting it tooth and nail. Republicans are doing the bankers bidding because they are knee-jerk on any whim Wall St. rams down our throats. LaRouche has been calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve for years and even Ted Cruz sees the intelligence in that. Wake up.
What do you suppose he saw 3 months in that it took conservatives years to get a roll going about?
>>Are you really this dumb? Calling for an impeachment 3 months into office is nothing but a publicity stunt. Conservatives could have done it too, and Im sure some of them did, but it wouldnt amount to anything more than grandstanding.
No, not a single conservative called for his impeachment until Obama’s steam roller got up momentum. That’s the problem, conservatives are chronically late in their activism and need to be hit between the eyes before they mobilize and by then it’s TOO LATE, with the Tea Party being one welcome exception. Stay at home conservatives are going to reap the harvest of their inactivity and their trust in the lobby robots they elect. Apparently Red Coats on the Lexington Bridge isn’t enough to get us off our asses. We chronically show up after Elvis has left the building. We’re lazy.
“The man is emphatically not a nut.”
Yes, he is. Anyone who can’t see that is probably a nut too.
“Familiar is not enough. You actually have to read is work on economics. You acquaintance with his ideas is all second hand or first paragraph or directed by detractors.”
No. Do you have a problem understanding english? I said that I have read his works. I reject them. If you can’t accept that, then you are not worth discussing anything with.