Top Obama adviser: GOP prepping for impeachment

OWoN: One in 3, so 66% are brain dead? Figures!

With mid terms approaching, many participants might just go for this to be popular in their districts.

How do you impeach an Illegal? Hello???

Predicts backlash over coming 'amnesty' orders, 1 in 3 Americans support removal

By Bob Unruh
25 July 2014

There’s more talk about impeachment – only this time it’s coming from the White House.

According to a Reuters report Friday, Dan Pfeiffer, a top adviser for Barack Obama, says the president’s planned executive orders on immigration will make Republicans in Congress unhappy. Very unhappy.

The comments came at a breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor.

“The president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment,” the report quoted Pfeiffer saying.

He said it would be “foolish” to overlook the possibility.

Pfeiffer said he can see Republicans moving toward impeachment, according to the report, “in retaliation for the immigration orders he is expected to unveil by the end of the summer.”

Pfeiffer’s remarks came a day after a House panel took the first step in filing a lawsuit against Obama over his use of executive power. It clears the way for the full House of Representatives to vote on the measure before heading out of town next week for summer recess.

The House Rules Committee voted 7-4 Thursday along party lines to authorize the lawsuit.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., applauded the panel’s move Friday.

“We’re very concerned about the lawlessness of the administration,” Ryan said on MSNBC.

Ryan dismissed suggestions the lawsuit is not a productive way for Congress to spend its time.

“We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can juggle a lot of bills. We’re working on border security, foreign policy, appropriations and many things at one time. So it’s not as if this displaces action on other items. … I will vote for it,” he said.

read more


    DEVELOPING: Top Military Leaders Are in an Unprecedented Rebellion Against Obama
    Every American officer, regardless of branch of service, take the same oath upon their appointment to the military. They swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
    The language used is not dissimilar to that of the presidential oath of office as it appears in Article II of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    The American oaths of office are different from those of so many nations around the world, because we do not swear allegiance to a person, a religious sect, or even to the nation’s citizens. America’s leaders swear to uphold the Constitution, the documentin which the individual freedoms that make America unique among all nations in history are enshrined and guaranteed.
    Get our daily email alert by entering your Email:
    It should come as no surprise, then, that when long-service American military officers see the principles of the Constitutional repeatedly violated, disregarded, and even held in contempt, they take offense.
    Retired officers, of course, have more freedom to express their views without concern for the impact such honesty might have on their careers. For example, Air Force Major General Bentley Rayburn and four-star Army General Jack Keane have both spoken out against Obama’s treatment of Islamic terrorists, including his trade of several Guantanamo Bay detainees for accused deserter Bowe Bergdahl. Retired Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin has gone so far as to call for Obama’s impeachment, as has General Patrick Henry Brady.
    Retired U.S. Army Major General Paul E. Vallely has publicly argued that America’s current leadership has so damaged individual American liberty that it can be restored only by citizen protests to force the resignations of President Obama and other political leaders. The general has also recently been working to uncover the truth about the Benghazi attacks of 2012, which he says involved an illegal arms deal by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. General Vallely and retired Air Force Brigadier General Charles Jones have formed a “citizen’s council” to challenge the government more directly.
    More recently–and more remarkably–active duty officers have been giving vent to their frustrations and concerns about the current administration. Active-duty 4-star Marine General and US Southern Command Commander John Kelly has commented on the grave threat to America’s existence that the current border crisis represents. Even more remarkable, the Commandant of the Marine Corp himself, General James Amos, recently made comments highly critical of the Obama administration’s leadership and policy in Iraq.
    That’s quite a list, and it’s far from complete. Nor does it include the numerous other senior officers who retired at the rank of Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel who have also spoken out against this president, his administration, and his policies.
    When a politician or even a journalist makes negative comments about the leadership and practices of a sitting president, it is wise to take those with a grain of salt, asking what the motive of the speaker might be.
    In the case of these retired and active-duty senior military officers, however, their motive appears to be clear–the fulfillment of the oath they swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter to honor the men and women of America’s armed services who bravely choose to speak the truth about President Barack Obama.

  2. Hi,

    I am sorry that you have lost your posts data. I have the last post from john that was posted at WHA, so I will post it here for you. You can remove it if you wish, but I thought it would be good to have it readable over here.
    ‎Today, ‎July ‎28, ‎2014, ‏‎36 minutes ago |

    Please, allow me to correct a few dual site misunderstandings.

    OWON is focused primarily on the big picture,global developments and major PP accounts which will benefit regions.
    Any first likely releases will be the PPs, as organised, well constructed and easier to contain. Quiet and low profile.
    We have indicated that IF any crumbs are to fall from that table, where possible,we will advise the sites to move fast.

    There is a lot of good humanitarian synergy between both sites, and the potential is recognised.
    PPs are Big Beast territory. Heavyweight pressure. Real value to society to re invest.
    But public millions clutching overprinted dodgy Dinars will not be a pretty site. Visions of chaos unleashed. Funded by who? No such funds exist. The entire GDP of the US is just over $16T. The US is broke. It cant fund fantasies. How will a Pig Feast as propounded by Brokers go down with Iraq?

    Dongs should be OK, but Dinars????????????????? Way too many Dreamers. No one asked anyone to gamble on Dinars.Greed ruled. No Diligence. Just a wild flier. No such money exists to support the amounts propounded, nor will it be created. No one owes anyone. Bar Iraq and Vietnam who are both owed big time. They matter. They deserve release.

    We hold no Dinars- none.

    If a short window opens for a few to get in, then do so quickly. Once the Gurus get wind the ambulance chases will be on. Lock outs will follow. It will get ugly. So its best avoided. We can only go so far. Money is finite. Too many are dreaming of walking out with wheelbarrows of dollars. Some hope.

    And what of the million Iraqi dead? Yet another nation destroyed.
    US awareness runs as as far as Aaah want Maaah lick. And the Souls of the Iraqi dead?

    These are all Hegemony pestilence funds. Bush/ Blair lied, millions died. No one cares, just fill hands.
    Its Maah right, yes well, dream on. Santa won’t be coming for many for sure.
    First the PPs for real help. The rest are for Camp Follower grabs, funded by whom? For many nothing stacks up.
    Those who organised will go first. What’s left then? The site alerts if possible will be your best chance. We ARE aware. Good luck with it. Greed may rule, but there is no Bail Out Fuel.

    PP Project developments can help many. We will try.

    1. I lost yesterday going back approximately 4 days. Today's are still here. Under the original article it was posted in.

      Follow "The site is broken" article for updates.


    Diego Garcia Military Base: Islanders Forcibly Deported
    By Sherwood Ross
    Global Research, March 27, 2014

    In order to convert the sleepy, Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia into a dominating military base, the U.S. forcibly transported its 2,000 Chagossian inhabitants into exile and gassed their dogs.
    By banning journalists from the area, the U.S. Navy was able to perpetrate this with virtually no press coverage, says David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and author of “Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S. Military on Diego Garcia(Princeton University Press).”
    “The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves,” Vine said on the interview show “Books Of Our Time,” sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
    “They were promised jobs that never materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were the poorest of the poor,” Vine told interview host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the law school.
    Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned, before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said.
    “They were moved because they were few in number and not white,” Vine added. The U.S. government circulated the fiction the Chagossians were transient contract workers that had taken up residence only recently but, in fact, they had been living on Diego Garcia since about the time of the American Revolution. Merchants had imported them to work on the coconut and copra plantations. Vine said the U.S. government induced The Washington Post not to break a story spelling out events on the island.
    “Through Diego Garcia,” Vine pointed out, “the U.S. can project its power throughout the Middle East, and from East Africa to India, Australia and Indonesia. With Guam, the island is the most important American base outside the U.S.” He said U.S. bases now number around 1,000, including 287 in Germany, 130 in Japan and Okinawa, and 57 in Italy.
    “Bases have been essential tools of U.S. military and economic power since not long after independence,” Vine pointed out. “We had bases all the way to the Pacific. After the Civil War, the U.S. began to acquire coaling bases in the Pacific.”
    (read more at link above)