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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
no coincidence Lady Lynn deRothschild—one of the primary figures of the
Rothschild empire—is one of Obama’s most energetic critics today.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
To buttress his claim Obama
advances the Muslim agenda, D’Souza brings on Zionist propagandist
Daniel Pipes—who has attacked AFP—as his“source.”
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.
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.
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
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.
Écoutez la connerie ("Obama=Communiste=Anti-colonialiste, etc."). Démonstration:
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.
America Can — and Will — Survive Obama
by Michael Collins Piper
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.
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.
during the eight-year misrule of Dubya Bush—though the GOP didn’t say
this—those Clinton accomplishments fell by the wayside.
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.
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”
an “offense” budget—in order to enforce a global imperium that has
nothing whatsoever to dowith traditional American nationalism.
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.
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.
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
But the bottom line is that Obama remains president.
him from office would elevate Joe Biden to the presidency. A
big-spending liberal and a shameless advocate for Israel, Biden would be
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.
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