The Obama Deception HQ Full length version


Escenas:

  

El video:


Get the DVD @ http://infowars-shop.stores.ya... The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery. We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order's plans. It's not about Left or Right: it's about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation. Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you. Watch the Obama Deception and learn how: - Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law. - Obama's handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force. - International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government. - Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government. - The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.infowars.com http://www.prisonplanet.tv

Canal: News & Politics
Subido: 13/03/09 a las 7:24 am
Autor: ChangeDaChannel

Duración: 53:40
Valoración: 4.3449483
Vistas: 14419578

Etiquetas:  

Video Url:


Para insertarlo en tu sitio:
Ultimos comentarios:
brainerdrebel (el 26/02/15 a las 6:51 pm)
Willy'sBob/Mark/KennyG please don't reply to any of my comments. 
EagleOfJustice1776 (el 15/03/15 a las 2:42 am)
+Tas Mikigal Thank You So Much for all the Thought Provoking and Informative Posts! Please Carry On! Thank You +EagleOfJustice1776 
ChangeDaChannel (el 24/12/13 a las 2:37 am)
gtfooh....lololol really? Sorry but dang man you're too easy.
EagleOfJustice1776 (el 20/02/15 a las 6:30 pm)
The progressive left keep telling us they hate war. Boeing? They don't have any defense contracts with the government do they?... That was Bush's deal Right? Sure It Was.
fordbronco1991 (el 11/03/15 a las 10:40 pm)
Who aiding and abetting with Iran every chance he gets? Oh that's right obama is every chance he gets he's helping them who okayed the nuclear activities with them idiot Muslims Who hate us. Who gave Egypt fighter jets and tanks oh yeah that's right again Obama did. Want to know what else Obama did you might know this one you should he gave drug cartels in Mexico guns. Oh you want to know what else he did he freed the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters you know that too don't you you want to know what else he did he cleared any record of them even being arrested what would he have done if it was turned around and it was the Ku Klux Klan members intimidating voters do youObama and Eric Holder would erase any records of them ever being arrested? NO. Maybe you can help me here who made an apology tour kissing muslims ass and bowing to the Saudi King without the American's vote shit again obama did. Who went golfing right after an American had his head cut off by terrorists instead of being there for the family or at least done more my god that's right obama did. Who let four Americans die in Benghazi yup your right Obama and Hillary and his leftist crew did. How many Americans died now under obama in the last two years cause of his idiotic ways of doing things to many. How many girls have been buried alive by Isys and raped cause of obama careless behavior on how to operate a war again to many. Anyone want to continue this feel free I'd love to reed them.
fordbronco1991 (el 19/03/15 a las 6:25 pm)
Hey obosohitler does NOT want you to have any freedom of choice does he if your choice is to not vote cause of reasons of your own say you don't want to end up voting wrong or whatever obosohitler wants to take you right to choose to vote or not to forcing you to vote or be FINED. This is the types of shit the left enjoy they love forcing people to do shit sound familiar sounds just like hitler don't it ad another number to the list of hitler moves obosohitler is doing. If you tell me that this move obosohitler is doing ain't an attack on freedom of choice or a hitler move your full of shit and fooling only yourselves and if you love being forced to do shit as being forcing people to vote you must love playing a roll of a slave being forced to work for free or get hit with a whip and hearing that cracker sound of the whip. Let me guess old bobswillyINpoopoodiaper will thank obosohitler for forcing folks to vote or be fined.
EagleOfJustice1776 (el 19/03/15 a las 1:39 am)
Hey +kennygl2008 quit your whining! You obviously don't like the 1st amendment either. Read this article; you may just learn something.... Return of the (Un)Fairness Doctrine: The Media Ownership Reform Act, By Adam D. Thierer Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) recently introduced a bill titled The Media Ownership Reform Act, which proposes the radical re-regulation of the media marketplace in America. His draconian bill (H.R. 4069) would not only undo all the limited ownership reforms that the FCC pushed through last summer, it would reinstate cable-broadcaster cross-ownership regulations that were struck down by the courts and more tightly restrict the number of radio stations a firm can own locally and nationally. Worst of all, the bill would resurrect two disastrous FCC rules that were thought to have been swept into the dustbin of history long ago: the so-called “Fin-Syn” rules and the hideously misnamed Fairness Doctrine. Fin-Syn. The Financial Interest and Syndication (or “Fin-Syn”) rules were put into effect by the FCC in 1970 to prohibit a TV network from holding a financial stake in independently produced programs. Networks were forced to either purchase all of their programming from independent producers or develop programs in-house. But in-house production capabilities were also limited by consent decrees that the three major television networks were forced to enter with the Justice Department. The logic behind these restrictions was that vertical integration of broadcast television program creation and distribution would allow broadcasters to gain excessive control over prime-time programming on their airwaves. But by 1993, the FCC came to realize that the Fin-Syn rules were counterproductive and began dismantling them. The result was a great deregulatory success story. In the wake of decontrol, media operators were free to structure new business arrangements and alliances to finance increasingly expensive new programs, as well as entirely new networks and cable stations. (The UPN and WB television networks largely owe their existence to the repeal of Fin-Syn.) Also, by eliminating Fin-Syn and allowing greater integration of programming and distribution, content providers were able ensure that their shows were given wider distribution on not only network television but cable channels as well. In the words of a recent FCC report, such vertical integration “makes it possible for network companies to spread their expertise in program selection, promotion, and advertising sales over a larger range of outputs (i.e., networks) and possibly realize some economies of scope in network operation.” Critics contend that firms should not be allowed to make such alliances for fear that they would discourage more “independent production” or “alternative voices” on the airwaves. But viewers have more choices today than ever before and there is a greater diversity of viewpoints now than when the Fin-Syn rules were in effect. Moreover, independent studios have no “right” to have their programs carried by anyone. They are free to try to cut deals with the many distributors that exist, but they should not be able to directly or indirectly compel distributors to carry their programs. The (Un)Fairness Doctrine. The so-called Fairness Doctrine was put in place by the FCC in 1949 to require broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” After coming under attack by the courts, the FCC discarded the rule in 1987 because, contrary to its purpose, the doctrine failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. Still, regulatory revisionists seem to pretend that the world would be a better place if government officials sat in judgment of “fairness” on the broadcast airwaves and have attempted to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine a few times since it was abolished. By requiring, under threat of potential license revocation, that broadcasters “fairly” represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine argue that more opinions will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But the notion that the threat of regulation will encourage a greater diversity of viewpoints has been flatly contradicted by the facts. After decades of academic and judicial scrutiny, it was revealed that instead of expanding the range of viewpoints on the airwaves, the Fairness Doctrine had a chilling effect on free speech. With the threat of potential FCC retaliation hanging over their necks, most broadcasters were more reluctant to air controversial opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience did not want to hear. Alternatively, they feared they would not be able to air enough, or the right type of, responses to make regulators happy. Consequently, the Fairness Doctrine actually stifled the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, made free speech less free. As the FCC noted in repealing the doctrine in 1987, it “had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.” More disturbingly, the Fairness Doctrine was used by public officials to threaten suppression of political opposition. Communications scholar Thomas Hazlett has noted that under the Nixon administration, “License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings,” and that “in an attempt to affect network programming, administration staffers used threats of Fairness Doctrine challenges in meetings and phone calls with top [network] executives.” There is also evidence that the Kennedy administration used the Fairness Doctrine to intimidate opponents. Finally, practically speaking, how would a revived Fairness Doctrine apply to today’s media marketplace with its countless partisan radio and TV programs? Presumably Al Franken and his colleagues would not take kindly to the proposition that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are entitled to equal response time on their liberal Air America network in the name of “fairness.” And vice versa. Such partisan talk shows have become wildly popular in the years following the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine. Aren’t these exactly the sort of distinct and antagonistic viewpoints that policymakers desire? Apparently not. As the previous TechKnowledge noted, recent debates over media ownership and indecency regulation on Capitol Hill have illustrated “that what Congress wants is a media obedient to its will,” in the words of a recent Broadcasting & Cable editorial. What media critics like Representative Hinchey propose is for government to exert more control over media in America in the name of expanding choice and “preserving democracy.” If that sounds hopelessly contradictory or even downright dangerous, it should. The First Amendment was not written as a constraint on private speech or actions, but rather as a direct restraint on government actions as they relate to speech. But media critics like Hinchey are fond of contorting the First Amendment into the equivalent of an affirmative “media access” mandate that requires anyone who has a built a soapbox to let the rest of the world stand on it with them. That means government officials will have to sit in judgment of what is “fair” and determine when certain groups are allowed to co-opt others’ property for their own purposes. It is impossible to reconcile such notions with a faithful reading of the First Amendment or the principles of a free society.
brainerdrebel (el 19/03/15 a las 5:48 pm)
The modern American regime seeks to destroy real manhood, especially among us Southerners, because it knows—both instinctively and historically—that it is only real men who will dare stand against tyranny. And if you know your history, you know that Southerners are "defenders of the blood." We are mostly Anglo-Celts (or we are descended from other European ethnicities that have a martial tradition), so it should not come as a surprise to those who know our history. What do I mean by "defenders of the blood?" I mean that we Southerners know who we are, where we come from, and what our people have accomplished for themselves and their posterity. We came from the Old World—Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the English Border Country, and the western and northern European continent—to the New and carved a rough civilization out of a howling wilderness. We were the scouts, frontiersmen, and Indian fighters who provided a buffer between the gentler settlers of the coastal areas of North America and the savage hinterland. We were the riflemen who defeated the British redcoats at Kings Mountain and Cowpens. We took up arms in 1861 to form our own Southern nation against great odds and held at bay for four years the military power of the industrial North and some 750,000 foreign mercenaries. We settled the West and provide the US military with its best fighters in its 20th and 21st century wars.
ChangeDaChannel (el 13/05/14 a las 12:28 am)
hey all...dag havent been here in months on this thread. Please tell me you guys arent still supporting this turd Obama and you have woken up to the fact that hes just as bad if not worse than the last turd. If not tis okay. The next will be even worse
Admiral Enlil (el 20/03/15 a las 7:56 pm)
As a matter of serious fact, I can't believe that there are actually idiots who are oblivious to what this documentary explicitly points out.

Videos de Gatos
Una recopilación de SuperPataNegra y eL PasaTiempo