The Obama Deception (Critiques? Comments? Thoughts?)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Tesselator, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. Tesselator macrumors 601


    Jan 9, 2008
    The Obama Deception HQ Full length version 2,683,506 views (July 15th 09)

    Critiques? Comments? Thoughts?

    Please, only the serious minded need contribute.

    "The greatest enemy of clear language, learning, and needed constructive change, is insincerity."
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    I stopped the second the NWO in the description met my eyes.
  3. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601


    Jan 9, 2008
    So, self-censorship? Hmm, I wonder where that comes from, training?

    How come you don't like that term anyway?
  4. .Andy macrumors 68030


    Jul 18, 2004
    The Mergui Archipelago
    Is there anything the new world order hasn't got it's hands on these days?
  5. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030


    May 18, 2004
    #5 you think maybe they're behind sarah palin's sudden resignation? :eek:
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030


    Jul 18, 2004
    The Mergui Archipelago
    If only we had an email address for the new world order we could ask them. Perhaps Tesselator knows where the leaders hang out?

    (p.s. I tried but didn't get a reply)
  7. ceezy3000 macrumors 6502


    Jan 10, 2009
    The Valley!!
    i'd try gmail since googles gonna take over the world pretty soon.
    Yea I've seen that video, I think there are some truths to it but theres also other factors that still lead me to support obama. Hes the lesser of the two evils. I'd rather have a puppet than an old senile man and a pinup girl
  8. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601


    Jan 9, 2008
    Good question. But the film isn't really about the NWO. It's more about the current economical state of the USA and Obama's relationship to Wall street and their masters, the international bankers. NWO is just another term for those self-same international bankers - who in fact share many common goals. That those goals are global in scale gives them the name NWO. I believe the term first appeared to the western world (in a big way) in a book by the same title by HG Wells "The New World Order" which itself was commissioned by an international bank funded foundation. The phrase was used earlier as well, in Austria and Germany just prior to WWII however, and popularly used in many many political speeches of the day. It can also be found in newspaper headlines just prior in phrases kinda like Aldolf's New World Order Gains France. LOL

    Whatever we call it Thomas Jefferson has been credited with depicting it's motive and direction best in a now famous but non-existing, letter to Albert Gallatin the then Secretary of the US Treasury, in 1802 - as follows:

    "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

    This quotation is actually a culmination of misquoted remarks Jefferson did in fact commit to pen and paper:

    Jefferson in a letter to John Taylor (1816), wrote,

    "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity [the future generations - implied] on a large scale."

    And later in letter to John Wayles Eppes on a similar topic:
    "Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs."

    :D Well, at least the gist is about right... :p

    EDIT: I did ask you guys to keep is serious, right? Please do. Watch the film and give any "Critiques, Comments, or Thoughts" you might have or please refrain from posting in this thread. Start your own thread if you would like to poke fun at me or the NWO or whatever... Heck, I'll even join you. :)
  9. leekohler macrumors G5


    Dec 22, 2004
    Chicago, Illinois
    If you want people to respond seriously, then post something serious on which to comment. This is nothing more than paranoid conspiracy theory- very dramatized, I might add. You might as well have put up a video about the twin towers being blown up by Bush.
  10. Sdashiki macrumors 68040


    Aug 11, 2005
    Behind the lens
    Im sorry but the constant "LOOK AT WHAT OBAMA'S DOING/DONE! HES THE ANTICHRIST" hyperbole is getting super-old.

    Its only been like 6 months since he took office and the "haters" are already coming out with crap that shouldnt be written until its actually happened.
  11. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Jan 8, 2005
  12. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    Oh, it's the International Jewish Conspiracy. Right. You should have said. Makes it so much easier to see where you're coming from. Do you have a Final Solution to this problem?
  13. yg17 macrumors G5


    Aug 1, 2004
    St. Louis, MO
    The generic store brands work great for keeping your food fresh, however, Reynolds is the best at protecting you from evil government conspiracies.

    Blaming it on the Jews is soooo 1939. Now everything is the Muslims' fault.
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    What did I censor? I've seen far too many of those nutjob movies to take them seriously anymore.
  15. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003
  16. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    No, we're everywhere.

    Yes, Sarah Palin was us.
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    Skunk, I'd like to thank you for making me laugh so hard that I ended up coughing up a good amount of the leftover gunk in my lungs from when I had pneumonia and bronchitis.:p
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    Stuff like this brings to mind books like "None Dare Call It Treason" or Haley's "A Texan Looks At Lyndon". Some facts are brought in, and they're indeed facts, but then the conclusions go way beyond rationality. It's particularly true insofar as motivations and conspiracies. Ergo, "tinfoil hattery" becomes the label.

    Now, insofar as Obama and the big investment banks, there's a goodly amount of truth in accusations that he's right in there with them. The same names have been in and out of the White House since before Obama, however. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama: Same group of people have been advising as to monetary policy. All you have to do is look at who worked when and at which firm or agency.

    Greenspan, Bernanke, Rubin, Paulson, Geithner and Emanuel come immediately to mind. They've all been involved with Wall Street as well as K Street. They pretty much think the same way about financial affairs, based on their policy decisions. It's the usual richer-than-most good ol' boy network. Odds are, whoever follows Obama will be influenced by the same general set of advisors. Different names but same general polices.
  19. abijnk macrumors 68040


    Oct 15, 2007
    Los Angeles, CA
    Well, first of all, it gets the date of the election wrong. Starting around the five minute mark the narrator says, "America, in 2009, was desperate for change." This is a clear reference to the election. However, during the entire year of 2009 we knew who the new president would be. We were desperate for change in 2008, and that's when we voted in Obama. Its small inconsistencies like this that completely undermine any possible sense of validity a film like this might have.

    *back to watching*

    Secondly, the constant use of President Obama's middle name is a very thinly veiled attempt to sway the listener's mind against him. Everybody, including the makers of this film and all who are likely to view it, know that the name Hussein is viewed negatively. Not only for being a Muslim name, but also for being the surname of Saddam Hussein. If you want to be taken seriously, or to be listened to with an open mind, you shouldn't make such obvious attempts to bias the viewer.

    Third, at around the 12:25 mark the guy speaking says that Obama has not appointed anyone from outside Wallstreet. He goes on to list a bunch of areas that he says Obama has not pulled appointees from, and one of these categories he lists is women. This could not be more false. Obama has appointed several women, probably most prominently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That's just a blatant inaccuracy that is not corrected or addressed.

    Ok, so it completely lost me at the 15:00 mark. By this time there have been several inaccuracies, blatant biases, and to top it all off they present a theory about the Kennedy assassination as pure fact. While I'll be the first to admit that the Kennedy assassination is suspicious at the very least I am levelheaded enough to know that no one knows the true answer. To present the theory that he was assassinated for trying to do away with the federal reserve as 100% through and through fact is absurd and completely destroys whatever credibility this film might possibly have had left.

    Its pretty sad that it only took 15 minutes. I was honestly trying to listen to this objectively, but you can only present so many ridiculous theories as fact before my brain hurts.

    OP, if you want to have a serious discussion about a political film then post a serious political film. One with fact checking and proof, not just theories presented as fact.
  20. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601


    Jan 9, 2008
    Finally some intelligent posts. And in the back of my mind I'm wondering what kind of mods disrespect their users like this (prior to these last two posts I mean)? Some guy asks for serious replies and gets sophomoric regurgitations on level with poo-poo humor. Umm, yeah.. right. K.

    Yeah that tends to be the knee-jerk reactions alright - myself included. In the same breath however I'm asking myself how bad it has to get before that changes or if it ever will - or indeed if it ever should. I mean, the facts are there for sure. Military on the streets, concentration-like camps, the loss of many of our liberties, insane gun control legislation, and stuff I never thought I would see in my lifetime: like imprisonments without due-process. I look at the histories of other nations that went nuts like Germany, and Russia and it started out just about the same as we're seeing now in the states. So then I have to reconsider my knee-jerk reactions and take due-diligence as a human being not subscribed to the same policies and actions of countries like those.

    What the future will be no one knows but it's very clear to me that we determine the outcome. Are the conclusions outlandish? I dunno, probably some are, but I believe it's our citizenary duty to make certain that isn't actually the case and try and put a stop to it if it is.

    Thus i think things like this should be discussed in a serious manner under as much sunlight as possible. Sitting at our desks and putting tinfoil on top of our heads serves no purpose but to increase the flea population. Not to mention that people doing this may be subject to imprisonment under the newly formed legislation. :eek: Since I don't think anyone wants that nor thinks it's sane, don't the good readers here think it should be looked at and discussed seriously?

    Yup, very true. Excellent points. But I think the conspiracy guys would use the same explanation to promote their point of view as well. Right? That this "banking elite" whoever, has been behind the scenes and steering foreign and domestic policies for a VERY long time and that's the problem. [This film suggests that it became a problem around the turn of the century 1900 or so.] Especially since their allegiance doesn't appear to be for the people - which is what our government is supposed to be all about. Right? We all know The Preamble (I hope): "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

    Even the political villains of the era such as Lincoln, know and abided this or at least gave it lip service. "...these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

    Agree, I think he probably meant to say " 2009 the people were desperate..."

    Yup, there's no doubting that the film-maker has an agenda. One of my purposes in bringing this here is to discuss whether or not that agenda is justified or justifiable. Here's a political-humor piece I got in the mail from a friend just today:

    Ah, sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir. . .


    Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, Sir. Um . . I know you're
    busy, and important and stuff. I mean, running the county is very important
    and -- ah -- I hate to bother you, Sir. I will only take a minute. Ok, Sir?
    See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering,
    Sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know,
    no big deal, just some loose ends and things.

    Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the
    time and says, boy, she wishes she had digs like this, you know?
    Is that painting real? Really? Wow! I saw something like that in a museum once.
    Oh, sorry Sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me
    out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way.
    I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or
    something. Ever been to Coney Island Sir? No? I didn't think so...
    Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need
    to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "Not released"
    or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or
    something, so if you could you tell me where these things
    are -- I -- I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait.
    Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.
    Could you please help me find these things, Sir?​
    1. Occidental College records -- Not released
    2. Columbia College records -- Not released
    3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
    4. Harvard College records -- Not released
    5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
    6. Medical records -- Not released
    7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
    8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
    9. Law practice client list -- Not released
    10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
    11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
    12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
    Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you
    published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the
    University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir?

    Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right
    now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some
    time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy.
    I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . .

    What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things?
    We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote. ​

    So there definitely is an agenda but the justifications and goals are? :confused: I don't think it's a smear campaign against the office or the person though. (Not really sure.) Rather I think it's attempting to show the phoniness and the level of corruption of our current political body at the federal level. The whole works. At least that's how I take these things.

    Oooh, excellent catch. I noticed that statement too but I didn't know why at the time. I see it now tho. Good one.

    I agree. And also from 15min. in to about the 30min. mark it's riddled with meaningless paranoia. The whole "We're being followed" and "Oh, is that the Queen" set of clips should be cut completely. It become more serious again after that though.

    Then there's almost no films post-able. They ALL have errors and make assumptions. Some of the assumptions are ludicrous and some of them are accepted as "known facts" just depending on who's watching. For example I myself am very very convinced that factions within the CIA (aka, shadow government) bumped off Kennedy and basically the same or similar minded, group probably did Lincoln. That probably doesn't need to be rehashed in this thread but it kinda shows you that it's the audience that determines the level of absurdity of any assumptions made in films like this and I haven't seen a political film - ever - that didn't make assumptions or get a few facts wrong. TV News is even worst! Gawd, that's pathetic. So for example when that Kennedy clip went by I noticed that the wording used was inappropriately authoritative and assuming but paid it no serious mind because I think along similar lines on that topic.

    You're point is excellent in that it demonstrates a fundamental failure of the film and film maker to expand his audience or reach minds of dissimilar ilk. People who are not convinced about the details of the Kennedy assignation for whatever reasons will be immediately turned off. And in your case I guess tuned out?

    Anyway, thank you both for taking the time to consider in an adult manner the topic here and share your thoughts on the film. It's (evidentially) rare, and appreciated!

  21. .Andy macrumors 68030


    Jul 18, 2004
    The Mergui Archipelago
    The value of a thread is inversely proportional to the number of political youtube videos to the power of the number of conservative chain emails squared.
  22. edesignuk Moderator emeritus


    Mar 25, 2002
    London, England
    :confused: How are these important?
  23. iBlue macrumors Core


    Mar 17, 2005
    London, England
    All the straw-graspers are wishing he wasn't born in the US because that would technically disqualify him to be president. It's pathetic desperation.

    I have NO idea what the baptism thing has to do with anything, but if Barack wants mine, he can have it. It's had no affect on my life.

    I don't see what his medical records have to do with anything either.
  24. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601


    Jan 9, 2008
    I dunno, I'm wasn't speculating the actual points. I suppose as a steward of the people it's a legal requirement or certainly a moral imperative. I added it just as an example of an attack style that probably has more to do with the state of the federal government than the man.

Share This Page