samedi 1 septembre 2012

2016 - Obama's America: le tout dernier film du producteur mormon oscarisé pour La Liste de Schindler





Et un autre Oscar en vue pour le merveilleux producteur de films Gerald R. Molen pour son travail absolument génial! (C'est du moins l'avis de nos amis Birthers juifs Orly Taitz (Averbuch) et Phil Berg.)

Une chance que le parti républicain, le parti des bons chrétiens conservateurs américains, est là pour tous nous sauver des griffes d'Obama, du Socialisme/Communisme, de l'Islam et de l'anti-impérialisme!

Merci mon Dieu, Mitt Romney, ce grand ami et ancien partenaire d'affaires de Bibi Netanyahou, va sauver l'Amérique! Peu importe si cela prend une guerre contre la Chine ou la Russie pour y arriver!

Rappelons qu'au lendemain de son élection Obama avait renvoyé en Angleterre un symbole de l'impérialisme et du colonialisme, un buste de Churchill, qui souillait honteusement le Capitole.


Obama 2016 Film Has Not-So-Hidden Message

By Michael Collins Piper

There’s a not-so-secret mission behind 2016: Obama’s America—neoconservative fixture Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary about Barack Obama—but most theater-goers will miss it. D’Souza and his sponsors masked their agenda in an appealing patriotic and pro-American guise. 

That a film—ostensibly of a “conservative” bent—should receive such heavy-duty promotion by Hollywood and the major media and widespread distribution in theaters—tightly-controlled, interlocking industries run by a handful of wealthy Zionist families and allied corporations—should be the first tip-off something is amiss. 

That the film’s producer, Gerald Molen, is a longtime close associate of movie titan Steven Spielberg, is more than interesting. Molen won an Academy Award as producer of Spielberg’s Holocaust extravaganza, Schindler’s List, considered by some to be one of the most egregious propaganda films of all time. 

That aside, let it be said up front: While directly aimed at destroying Obama’s presidency, D’Souza’s film is actually a purposeful frontline defense of —and advocacy for—the New World Order. You read that correctly. 

Founded on relentless denunciation of what D’Souza calls Obama’s purported “anti-colonialism,” the film is carefully-crafted linguistic posturing (propaganda, that is) advancing the argument in favor of the 200 years of imperialism and global intervention by the Rothschild banking dynasty.

Naturally, D’Souza never says such a thing nor does he mention the Rothschilds. But his film is precisely that. 

It’s no coincidence Lady Lynn deRothschild—one of the primary figures of the Rothschild empire—is one of Obama’s most energetic critics today. 

Through their domination of the so-called “British” empire in the 19thCentury, the Rothschilds looted the planet and in modern times—as The New Babylon has documented—their power is entrenched in America through control of the Federal Reserve money monopoly holding sway over global finance.

The film proudly speaks of “American exceptionalism.” That sounds good, but, in fact, that theme—as AFP has explained in the past—is hard-core internationalism, putting forth our United States as world policeman for the predatory plutocratic interests. There is nothing“nationalist” about it whatsoever and it’s absolutely central to the New World Order agenda. 

The term “anti-colonialism”—as used in the film—sounds mysterious and sinister (as it was intended to sound) and is traced back to the opinions of the president’s Kenyan father, adding a further “alien”dimension.
However the truth is that “anti-colonialism” has always been a cornerstone of opposition to Rothschild financial imperialism—as old and as American as apple pie—and its been the foundation of American nationalism going back to Thomas Jefferson and represented by such populist firebrands as William Jennings Bryan, Ignatius Donnelly, Father Charles Coughlin, Huey Long—the list of American anti-colonialists goes on and on.

D’Souza stumbles explaining why American Revolutionaries were “good” even though they were anti-colonialists, but D’Souza knows his audience is historically ignorant, with no hands-on experience with colonialism or imperialism. D’Souza hints, but never says, an“anti-colonialist” might be a communist—and that’s enough to scare good Americans.

The subtle underlying message of the film is made clear—to those in the know—in the opening stages where D’Souza enunciates his first major complaint: that Obama ordered the removal of a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the White House—an act something many Americans (particularly those of German and Irish descent) would endorse.

As British historian David Irving documented in his monumental Churchill’s War, the bankrupt English politician admired by D’Souza was rescued from his mess by a clique of Jewish financiers known as“the Focus” who then controlled Churchill, sponsoring his rise to power and his drive for war against forces challenging Rothschild domination of Europe.

That Indian-born D’Souza would herald Churchill is puzzling since Churchill was responsible for policies causing the starvation of some 3 million Indians during  World War II. But D’Souza’s enthusiasm for Rothschild imperialism apparently  excuses that.

Another significant signal of D’Souza’s objectives comes when he bemoans the fact Obama backs Argentina over Britain in the dispute over ownership of the Falkland Islands. Suggesting this is a betrayal of America’s “ally,” D’Souza doesn’t mention that one of the most beloved conservative icons, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), was a hardline supporter of the Argentine. Former readers of The Spotlight will recall that nationalist newspaper supporting Helms on the issue.

D’Souza complains the Occupy Wall Street movement voices what he says are Obama’s own themes: “denunciations of the rich, of the big bad corporations, of American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, of America’s support for Israel, of globalization and free trade.”Those themes are—almost to a point—concerns of AFP readers—none of whom are “anti-American” or “pro-communist.”

Not surprisingly, D’Souza references Obama’s ties to communist theoretician Frank Davis (a mentor from Obama’s childhood [Actually, Davis is Obama's father, not the Kenyan under whose name his birth certificate was written when he was born in Kenya. - Tony B.]), to Obama’s longtime Chicago pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and to Vietnam-era war protestor Bill Ayers. Even here, there’s more than meets the eye.

In his book, Obama’s America(a companion to the film) D’Souza admits that “Davis’s communist sympathies were driven largely by his anti-colonialism and that “for Wright, the basic enemy was and always has been imperialism.” Likewise with Ayers, also said to be a critic of Israel. 

In truth, Davis’s positions that concern D’Souza were no different from those of a host of unabashed American nationalists of the 20th-Century. D’Souza finds it outrageous Davis said Winston Churchill wanted the world to be under “Anglo-American imperialism and global control”and that Davis opposed the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II.

Yet, those views, in fact, reflected the thinking of famed anti-communist Chicago Tribune publisher Robert R. McCormick—an unswerving advocate of America First—and many congressional Republicans and GOP activists who fought against the plan. 

Regarding Wright’s infamous call “God Damn America”—highlighted in the film—D’Souza lets the cat out of the bag in his book. It turns out Wright’s comments were the final flourish of a sermon—interestingly titled “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall”—in which Wright said things that could have been right out of AFP or any broadcast of Internet trumpet Alex Jones: “The government lied about Pearl Harbor . . . . The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.” 

In other instances, Wright raised questions as to whether the U.S. government told the truth about 9-11 and pointed out, as has AFP, that there are questions about the origins of AIDS, which some believe was the product of secret experimentation by military agencies. Wright is also a critic of Israel, and that upsets D’Souza.

Eager for an attack on Iran, D’Souza is concerned Obama is pressuring Israel against it. D’Souza contends: “Once Obama is re-elected, he can then say to Israel: if you now use military force, America will not support you,” a point that concerns many supporters of Israel now backing Mitt Romney. 

To buttress his claim Obama advances the Muslim agenda, D’Souza brings on Zionist propagandist Daniel Pipes—who has attacked AFP—as his“source.” 

And while D’Souza actually portrays Obama working to bring about the death of America through debt, he doesn’t mention Obama’s neoconservative predecessor, George W. Bush, racked up trillions in debt waging unnecessary wars or that if Mitt Romney wins the White House and engages the United States in a venture against Iran—or some other country—the debt will spiral as never before.
The complaint that Obama prevents the drilling of domestic oil is disingenuous. For years (as informed patriots know) a serial array of presidents—Republican and Democrat (even including D’Souza’s hero, Ronald Reagan)—have stifled such drilling, a point made repeatedly for decades by writer Lindsay Williams whose work has been featured in AFP.

D’Souza also worries (correctly) about Obama’s support for foreign trade treaties at the expense of American jobs, but doesn’t mention that neoconservative giant Newt Gingrich (as Republican House Speaker) helped bring the infamous North American Free Trade Agreement into being or that most congressional Republicans and GOP candidate Mitt Romney are firmly in the outsourcing “free” trade camp whereas Obama has sometimes adhered to pressure from congressional Democrats and opposed some measures. 

More could be said, but the bottom line is this: D’Souza compares Obama to British Prime Minister William Gladstone who fought Rothschild imperialism, urging England to stop meddling abroad and take care of things at home. That was a good thing—but D’Souza and the Rothschilds don’t think so.


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556494_372415342826744_1025371192_n.jpg

Écoutez la connerie ("Obama=Communiste=Anti-colonialiste, etc."). Démonstration:

VIDEO - Interview Dinesh D'Souza on Glenn Beck

VIDEO - Dinesh D’Souza [2016 OBAMA'S AMERICA]: A core principle of American ‘conservativism’ is fighting Israel’s war against ‘United States of Islam’

In unusual snub, Obama to avoid meeting with Netanyahu

Oublions l'Iran et pensons à l'arme nucléaire israélienne braquée sur la tempe d'Obama

Bibi’s Bilious Rebuke of Obama for Abandoning Israel

US Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East? 

Israeli Lawmaker: Obama Is No Friend of Israel

Obama v. Netanyahu America’s special relationship with Israel more myth than reality. It’s been “propagated by politicians to mask the suspicion – and plentiful examples of duplicity and betrayal – that have marked the relationship since Israel’s founding.

Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama on Iran: expert

Le plus grand mythe de la politique américaine ?

What Nutty Yahoo Really Meant and What He Should Have Said


Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb wasn’t meant for world leaders, and not even for Obama 
Instead, Netanyahu was speaking over Obama’s head, directly to the president’s employer and boss: the American voter.

Ynetnews - US-Israel Ties: Obama's anti-Israel agenda

Mossad training terrorists to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials claim… but is Israel’s real target Obama?

Une octogénaire arrêtée pour avoir arraché des affiches d'Obama portant la moustache d'Hitler

Obama contre le lobby pro-Israël ER Traduction


Pro-Israel or Pro-Obama?
September 11, 2011 By


Republican Bob Turner, Democrat David Weprin, Senator Joe Lieberman and Mayor Ed Koch all agree, President Obama is not pro Israel.



VIDEO - ECI - THE UNITER



VIDEO - ECI - Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel



VIDEO - ECI - TIME TO ACT. Is President Obama serious about stopping Iran?


America Can — and Will — Survive Obama
by Michael Collins Piper
You may recall that many patriots were sure Bill Clinton would usher America into a communist police state and the end of the United States as we knew it. But that didn’t happen. However—after Clinton—when conservative Republican George W. Bush came into office, the U.S. did get dragged into two needless foreign wars, in which we’re still embroiled, and—most notably—the GOP-controlled Congress enacted police-state measures, such as the infamous “Patriot” Act, precisely of the type we were warned would befall America under President Clinton.
And the truth is that, during the past four years, many Republican leaders—conservatives—told Americans that Clinton had really been a dandy president after all: He cut welfare, boosted the economy, brought jobs to U.S. workers, cracked down on crime—you name it.
Yet, during the eight-year misrule of Dubya Bush—though the GOP didn’t say this—those Clinton accomplishments fell by the wayside.
During the 2012 election, the GOP wanted voters to forget that, when he came to the presidency, Barack Obama inheritedmuch of the Bush-era economic disruption, resulting fromthose budget-busting foreign wars that spiraled our debt.
The point is this: Despite what you may think of Obama, he is just oneman and it’s highly unlikely—despite scare stories spread by fearmongers—that Obama will be able to “transform” America during the next four years into a “European-style socialist welfare state.” The Republicans still control the House of Representatives—and thus the national purse-strings—and they can and will curtail any wild spending Obama might propose.
But don’t cheer too much for the GOP. As Ron Paul repeatedly pointed out, the Republican leadership is unswervingly committed to rampant internationalism  eager to build up the “defense”
budget —really an “offense” budget—in order to enforce a global imperium that has nothing whatsoever to dowith traditional American nationalism.
Paul contends that we could cut the military budget as much as 50 percent and that the U.S. would still have the toughest military in the world, bar none. And Paul is no communist, nor is he anti-American.Wemust heed Paul’s warnings and combat efforts—largely from the GOP—to force America into another expensive and foolish foreign war, this time against Iran.
To his credit, Obama has thus far resisted pressure for war. Despite threats against him by supporters of Israel, Obama stood firm. And now that he no longer faces the pressure of seeking reelection, Obama has the opportunity to stand up to Israel once and for all. The New York Times is reporting widespread fear Obama will do just that.
During the past four years, a former Israeli, one Orly Taitz, was largely responsible for stirring controversy with claims Obama was born in Kenya. If true, Obama should have never been in the White House in the first place.
But the bottom line is that Obama remains president.
Forcing him from office would elevate Joe Biden to the presidency. A big-spending liberal and a shameless advocate for Israel, Biden would be no improvement.
The job of every real patriot is to stand behind Obama when he’s right, and to speak out when he’s wrong. But it would be a drasticmistake to get distracted with issues that are not going to be resolved and fail to focus on the big picture.
Right now we need to support Obama and the generals and admirals allied with him who are resisting pressure for war. Such a war would not be in America’s interests—and it could bring an end to America as we know it.




Generals or the Warmongers: American People Must Choose 
by Michael Collins Piper
Americans have a stark choice and will have to take sides.
The issue is war with Iran. The battle lines are clearly drawn. Which side will you be on? Opposing war: a distinguished array of ex-diplomats, intelligence officers and former high-ranking military figures (battle-tested veterans who know war first-hand).
Among them: two retired chiefs of the U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and Navy Adm. William J. “Fox” Fallon.
Supporting war: Israel and itsWashington lobby, bankrolled by a clique of billionaire families and financial groups who control the mass media and who fund the networks that now dominate the Republican Party.
This past week, the anti-war group released a formal report concluding an attack on Iran could potentially spark an all-out Middle East war, driving up the price of oil and making more enemies for America around the globe.
The pro-war group argues that unless action is taken, Iran will destroy Israel. America must come to Israel’s aid, even if American civilians die in retaliatory attacks. Some “collateral damage,” prowar voices say, is worth the price of stopping Iran.
Thus far, Barack Obama seems to side with the anti-war forces.Mitt Romney—a close friend of Israeli warhawk Benjamin Netanyahu—is in the prowar camp. A lot of Americans who don’t want war—but who don’t like Obama whom they consider an ultra-liberal big spender—are supporting Romney, whose war aims will definitely bankrupt America.
The former military leaders who oppose war say stopping Iran’s nuclear aims would require “a significantly expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years,” and that “occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”
Many backing Romney are part of the 47 percent of Americans whomRomney scoffed “believe they are victims,” entitled to things like Social Security and Medicare.
Ironically, Romney made those remarks at a gathering of pro-war plutocrats at the home of Jewish financier Marc Leder, ex-senior vice president at Lehman Bros., a Rothschild dynasty outpost on Wall Street.
A key player in what the Jewish Forward described as “a small group of Jewish private equity investors, hedge fund managers and real estate developers [playing] an outsized role in [Romney’s] fundraising efforts”— many of them former Obama supporters—Leder’s circles regularly use the concept of Jewish victimhood to advance support for Israel.
Now Americans may truly become victims—in a foolish war against Iran. Americans must choose between the generals and the warmongers.
—— Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host.






Sur ce blog:

Un autre grand comique, propriétaire et éditeur d’un journal juif américain, soutient qu’il ne prônait pas vraiment l’assassinat d’Obama

Selon Frank J. Gaffney (PNAC), les Frères Musulmans ont infiltré et contrôlent l’administration Obama

Le mouvement des Birthers ou Quand les Patriotes font le travail de Netanyahou...

Paul Ryan, colistier de Romney, est un pur produit du Congrès US sioniste jusqu'à la moëlle

L'homme qui se dit "le juif le plus riche du monde", Sheldon Adelson, donnera "tout ce qu'il faudra" pour empêcher une réélection d'Obama

Coup de filet de l’administration Obama contre l’évasion fiscale vers les banques israéliennes

Le père du PNAC William Kristol prédit que Joe Lieberman sera nommé secrétaire d'État par l'administration Romney

L'homme le plus puissant de Washington D.C., selon GQ: le juif orthodoxe Eric Cantor

Blowback

Rand Paul se distancie des idées de son père, se rapproche des juifs et reçoit l'appui de l'establishment républicain et des médias

Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères

À propos de Churchill par l'un des meilleurs historiens de la période de la Seconde Guerre mondiale: David Irving

Le néocon juif Eliot Cohen serait conseiller de Romney pour le Moyen-Orient

The New Babylon: A Panoramic Overview of the Historical, Religous and Economic Origins of the New World Order (2009), by Michel Collins Piper

L'empire mondial anglo rêvé par Rhodes: marionette des Rothschild?

Rothschild, notre ennemi traditionnel


The New Babylon: extraits

Les dessous de l'empire Rothschild

La montée du pouvoir financier juif Rothschild



Thinking For Yourself

Think for yourself.
Think for yourself.
By Zander C. Fuerza
When I first took an interest in history and politics about five years ago, I began as someone who was searching for truth and answers to historical questions. That was my original intention, and it was an honest intention. I had no preconceived notions, besides the ones programmed into me by the mass media and the educational system, so I was willing to follow the truth wherever it took me, as best as I could discern the truth using my own logical reasoning abilities. I was open to anything really, and I looked at everything with an open mind.
After several years of searching for and discovering many of the hidden truths of our time, I found myself ingratiated in a group of race-obsessed fanatics, whose extremely rigid ideology afforded no room for dissent. Veering outside of the established philosophical boundaries of “White greatness,” “non-white inferiority” and “Jewish evil,” even slightly, would lead to ostracization and accusations. It took me awhile, but I eventually realized that this was no different than a traditional cult, where the ideology — the dogma — always comes first, above individuals, above friendships, above morality, above truth, above everything. In any cult, conformity is required of every member, and this was absolutely the case with the people I was surrounded by.
The reaction from these people to dissident views is so pathetically archetypical that it can be described as almost robotic. If you don’t strictly adhere and abide by all of the ideas they are promoting as the infallible truth, you will inevitably be labeled a Jew, a non-white, a lefty, a commie, a shill, disinfo agent, etc. Even people, like me, who are in agreement with some of the views these people have, such as the unworkable and destructive nature of multiculturalism as well as the guilt of Jewish supremacists in many historical atrocities, are still criticized for not being “hardcore enough,” not living up to the ludicrous, extremist standards that they require of every member of their fringe cult. Nothing less than complete conformity with the dogma these individuals have created will satisfy them. How is this any different than the kind of group think that we find so commonplace amongst the brainwashed masses? Why would I want to participate in such madness?
The problem with these obsessive White racial fanatics, in my view, is that they are not interested in truth when it conflicts with their worldview. They refuse to consider any perspective other than their own and immediately discount anyone whose views aren’t fully in line with theirs. They only care about their ideology — their dogma — not the truth or people as individuals. They don’t live by a set of moral and ethical standards, but rather adhere to the Jewish supremacist philosophy, “what is good for us is good.” They are hypocritical in their denunciations of Jews for behaviors and policies that they aren’t really morally opposed to, such as dominating and conquering other people, and if they and their group of White supremacists were in power they would be doing the same things.
For example, the White nationalist leader William Pierce was a staunch critic of Jews and condemned Jews for dominating politics, media and finance, and condemned them for trying to control the world, ala the Protocols of Zion. Yet, in this article entitled “Race Suicide,” we see William Pierce bragging about European colonialism, gloating about how in the year 1900 Whites essentially “ruled the world.” Pierce wrote: “In 1900 we [Whites] ruled the world. We ruled politically, militarily, culturally, economically, scientifically, and in every other way. No other race even came close. We ruled India and Africa directly, and China was for all practical purposes an economic colony of Europe and America. The Chinese Emperor remained on his throne only so long as he let White men have their way in China.” How can he on the one hand condemn Jews for dominating and controlling countries and societies that are not their own, but then boast about Whites doing the exact same thing? How can he credibly condemn Jews for plotting world domination, but then gloat about how 113 years ago Whites had economic and political control of much of the world? That’s a contradiction, that’s a hypocritical double-standard. Pierce also bemoaned how the Black Haitians killed many of their French slave-owners in a violent uprising in 1791. Yet, if the roles were reversed, and Whites had been the slaves and the Black Haitians had been the slave-owners, Pierce undoubtedly would have supported the Whites who rebelled against their African overlords, and most likely would have cheered for the slaughter of every last Haitian Black on that island as revenge for enslaving Whites. The obvious reality is, White racialists will always support the White side, no matter the circumstances of the situation. For them, race trumps morality.
The cult-like atmosphere and hypocritical double-standards coming from these White racial fanatics caused me to question and rethink some of my positions. My stance has always been one of anti-supremacy, and for me to criticize Jewish supremacists for their inhuman activities but be a White supremacist at the same time would not only be inconsistent, but it would relegate my credibility to that of a crackpot on a street corner preaching doomsday prophecies. Limiting yourself to one ideology, and shutting your mind off to other perspectives, other points of view, is a dangerous path that will lead you into the arms of a cult, who don’t really care about you on a personal level. Their intention is to use you as a mouthpiece to spread their message further and recruit more members. Avoiding this trap is difficult, especially for people who don’t have the knowledge and experience of somebody like me who has been engaged in this sort of thing for years. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to those people. Think for yourself, and don’t give in to peer pressure to conform to some obsessive ideology that will only lead to an unhealthy psychological outlook.