*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, January 2nd, 2009 11:21am PST - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

There may be a case to be made, but this clumsy and confused piece of agit-prop doesn't do it. Isn't this the kind of phony, speculative fear mongering your channel was created to expose?

Is Oprah in on the new world order? What about Ellen and Emeril? Does Obama drop coded hints of his evil masterplan in his stump speech? Why the spooky soundtrack?

You know I love you blankfist, but this video is an insult to our intelligence. If you think Obama is some kind of Bond villain, then connect the dots, or better yet, wait for him to do something nefarious, then you can crank up the Wurlitzer, and play your heart out.

Also, sorry to say it, but Ron Paul's 15 minutes are up. Those are the breaks kid.

Wouldn't wanna disappoint you about the comments, so here ya go:

If he would just strip out the fearmongering, self-serving accusation that Obama and the mainstream media lied to you about his policy (while using clips of video from the mainstream media to "reveal" the "secret"), I actually agree that Obama's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan are not what I wanted. Better than McCain's commitment to pump up both "wars", but not good enough.

My chief prediction for 2009 is that if Afghanistan even slightly goes badly (and I fear it will), the grassroots who helped get him elected will turn on him, nastily. We'll see how Obama responds, but I suspect McCain would ignore anything the peace activists said anyways. Obama owes them a lot, so they'll have more leverage.

As for the NWO stuff and the O = W (which logically leads to RP = BS), I'm not really sure who he's trying to kid.

I was hoping Paul's Re-love-a-loution would involve trying to reach out to liberals on the basis of what we have in common, not just say "oooga booga, Obama scary". The only difference in tactics here from an average Republican slime merchant is that it says Obama's too pro-war, instead of too soft on terror. That's all.

Oh well, welcome to being an outsider amongst outsiders, Dr. Paul.

Sorely disappointed to read the comments and find that nobody had the balls to tackle the actual message of the video.

I didn't see Ron Paul going around the Middle East making speeches about fighting "terrorism".

I'm not that familiar with USA insider politics/political circles etc. but I found this interesting


Obama the Interventionist by Robert Kagan



some samples:

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

and

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?
Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

Irishman, I don't think Ron Paul's blimp was designed for transcontinental flight.

The point is that Obama has said a great many things to a great many people, some of which are good things, others not so much. He has also said things that are evasive, deceptive and contradictory. (So has Ron Paul and just about every politician who has ever lived btw) Am I happy about this? No. Do I have some worries? Yes. Have I given up hope already? Fuck no.

To get elected to office, you have to jump through a great many hoops, and keep the power mongers and money men from tearing you to shreds and leaving you in the dust bin of history with Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

Will he cave to power? Will he wage war against them? I don't know, and neither do you. Most likely, he'll do something between these two extremes.

Perhaps, when Obama speaks about fighting terrorism, he is referring to 'actual' terrorism (remember Al Queda), as opposed to Iraq. He has said a great deal about communication, diplomacy and negotiation, which sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Perhaps he will be another raging neo-con, but it's all speculation at this point.

Have some patience, I'm sure there is a world of fresh new conspiracies for you to indulge in right around the corner. If Obama turns out to be George Bush #3 (#4 if you count Reagan), then I'll hit the streets and protest with you*. Cut and paste this paragraph if you like. Until then, it's just speculative, fringe hysteria.


*Said protest must take place within 100 miles of my residence in beautiful, sunny, southern California unless you want to pay airfare and travel expenses elsewhere.

wow,
think they could crank up the manipulative,selectively edited diatribe anymore?
is there a NWO arising?
yes,there is evidence abundant pertaining to that particular discussion.
is obama part of the machinations of those few elite and incredibly powerful?
i have yet to see evidence of that,and this video's blatant manipulation lends no credence to the claim.
i have seen some disturbing concessions obama has spoken about,but nothing in action yet.
this video adds nothing to the discussion but paranoia.
which i find disheartening and sad,because it is up to us to have the discussion.
call it my inherent distrust of those in power.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S

*promote to start a debate... and possibly some trouble.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, January 2nd, 2009 12:48pm PST - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Bush fked up by approving of the bailouts of criminals, by criminals, for criminals.

Now Obama and Friends will match that insanity with tax-and-spend "investments". The new spending schemes won't work, unless extending the recession and increasing government dependency are the real goals.

Obama is dead wrong about the Constitution. It is a document designed to LIMIT government power but he considers it "flawed" because it doesn't give government sweeping powers to redistribute wealth.

The New American Order is the real Hydra.

^ Hey QM, how you coming with the report on your physical contacts with your suspected gay lover?

Haven't seen anything yet, so I guess we can just presume you're as gay as the day is long.

Hope you aren't running low on Astroglide or anything.

Oh, and Obama was talking about how the Constitution was flawed since it didn't abolish slavery, or attempt to reconcile its reality with the ideology it supposedly was trying to espouse.

But far be it for me to keep you (and Ron Paul) from spreading trivially debunked lies.

HANG ON A BLIMING MINIT

right first of all who is to say asingle world goverment is a bad thing?

say you didnot have a single world goverment but you had lots of countries that complied to the same laws asuming those laws were good laws how would that be a bad thing as well >?

Im not for ore against a "world govement" I find the conspircy typ clips about it generaly asume that a world goverment would definitavly be a bad thing. evan though we have actualy seen benofits from orgnisatoins like nato and global aid and peace keeping aniatives.

I think most people who know about usa polatics knew in advance that obama is only going to be 20% better than bush and will still contrabute to shit that happens however is a step in the right directoin and maby the next president can be another 20% better than obama.

so dont belive the obama hyp that was just to get noobs to vote for him without the hyp most people wouldent have voted at all for him and we would have had a mcshitty goverment.

Tell me again what's so sinister about increasing global integration. Are you afraid of giving up any form of regional autonomy? Or do you think that a move towards power concentration will inevitably lead to increased corruption and that behind these motives lie sinister intentions? Or that it will necessitate a new form of imperialism?

I never quite understood how these fears were justified or why exactly I was supposed to tremble in fear when I read the words "partnership and cooperation among nations" or "global citizenship". Because last time I checked global integration meant security and peace from trade and diplomatic partnership, greater and shared prosperity from increased trade, and more effective tackling of global problems such as crime, terrorism, global warming and environmental degradation.

Or am I wrong in any of this?

Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

Fuck I don't care any more. I can deal with shit that really matter to me, playing video games.

NordlichReiter
you cannot play video games when you have no electricty because you cannot aford it , due to idoicy of your govemernt

i love you westy.

That tears it!! I'm retracting my vote!!!!

Redsky and westy: Think about biblical prophecy and you'll understand much of the basis behind anti-world government sentiment.

While there are many valid reasons to oppose a unified world government, there's plenty of positive aspects to one as well. But before any progress should be made toward a one-world government, localized government should be made vastly better than it is. Government is broken on every level, making bigger ones will just make for worse problems.

As for the rhetoric about Obama and how he's going to be just as bad as everyone else. All I can say is this: No honest man has ever sought power. All you can hope for is that the people we pick to lead us have a modicum of respect for the wishes and needs of their citizenry.

And I'd rather risk having a president that might be lying about caring about the things that concern me, than one who I know doesn't give a shit about them.

Wow, that was really pathetic, even for propaganda.

First he's not experienced enough, now he's secretly running the entire world. I wonder what nonsense will be conjured up next?

holly wood bob

Redsky and westy: Think about biblical prophecy and you'll understand much of the basis behind anti-world government sentiment.

??? are you saying its people that belive in the bible who are against it,? as in its for religouse resoins that people have an iratoinal bias towards non world goverment?.

evan if thats the case the piont is still the same that noone could realy say if a world goverment is ethor good or bad.

and as for your no honest man has ever sought power, it could be quite concevable for sumone good to want to be president and not want if for the power but to improve things.

If you believe the tale of armageddon, prior to it's happening the world is united under a single government, lead by the anti-christ. So yeah there are a lot of people who would oppose a one-world government for fear of bringing about the apocalypse.

Myself I'm a bit ambivalent to the idea of a unified world government, because while I think unifying the world would be a positive thing, I don't feel that any government has been successful enough to serve as a foundation for a global government.

It's conceivable that an good person would want to be president for reasons other than the office of power, but good and honest aren't the same quality. I do not believe a politician can be an honest person, plenty of them are good people, but their position requires at least some dishonesty, double dealings, and secrecy. A truly honest person wouldn't choose to be put in those situations. How does the saying go? Some aspire to greatness, others have greatness thrust upon them.

One world government is a great idea in a vacuum. One world government based on the political and economic structures that dominate life today? Insanity.

SpeveO what is your opinoin bassed on ?