This is page seven of my discussion on the Alex Jones film The Obama Deception. If you were linked here by mistake, please refer to page one of this article, which contains the introduction.
The other thing about the American presidency, you've got to remember is this is a puppet post. It's automatically gonna be a puppet post. The idea that Obama is somebody who's gonna come in and exercise real authority when he's obviously been chosen, given everything that he's got by these financiers.
If it's a puppet post how was Kennedy ever able to do what he wanted to do in the first place? Is Webster Tarpley suggesting that it's a "puppet post" based on the honor system?
Presidents are now little more than corporate henchmen who take all the political heat while the controllers remain in the shadows, safe from public scrutiny. Hip-hop icon KRS-ONE is not just known for selling millions of albums, he has lead a tireless crusade against youth violence, has been a strong voice for human rights.
If they controlled it before, what do you, why don't, what makes you think that they're not controlling it now? The country was on a verge of revolution. They threw a black man up. Now we like this [folds arms across chest]
Who is "they" and what were "they" in control of before? Is he referring to the "Ron Paul Revolution"? I'm not sure what revolution this would possibly be. Maybe it's one of those secret ones that only conspiracy theorists know about.
They give him the money, they give him the bundling, they give him vote fraud, they give him the media whores, they give him gurus, they even have elected officials making threats to put people in jail if they criticize Obama in public. All of this is the mark of a puppet, uh, and that means that he is a puppet, actually more of a puppet than anyone else, more of a puppet than Mrs. Clinton would've been. Even more of a puppet than, than McCain. He's the maximum puppet that we've had certainly since, since Jimmy Carter.
So only elections that elect people conspiracy theorists don't like are voter fraud? What does it matter anyway, Alex Jones has constantly been telling us the president and such is selected for us, so why even go out of their way to have "voter fraud" if they just choose in the end anyway? Seems like an awful lot of work.
Who has been put in jail for criticizing Obama? Well it sure wasn't any of the countless people at any of those Tea Parties.
I reiterate what I said above, is the puppet position based on the honor system? Are presidents able to exercise power, but simply don't, but if they really want to they can? In any case, I'm not really sure I trust Webster Tarpley's knowledge of history, as I've already pointed out how he was completely wrong in his earlier claims.
The put a black face on the New World Order. And now we all happy. KRS ain't buyin' it.
In the real executive power structure, the president serves the military industrial complex, itself owned by the international bankers. If there's a revolution, the population just throws out the prime minister or president. The elite just stays in power because the public is never aware of who the real enemy is.
What does this mean for the legislative and judicial branches then? If the legislative and judicial are the same way, then how does one explain the likes of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and others? Are they incorruptible? Did they slip through the cracks? If voting is all rigged why are they ever elected if they're going to be a problem for the NWO?
In Evian, France, in 1991, standing before the Bilderberg Group, the apex of the world government power structure, David Rockefeller defined the New World Order as a system of world government serving the international banking elite.
Apparently the Bilderberg Group is so secret no one knows what's going on, but somehow we know what secret speeches David Rockefeller gave. This and many other claims originate from Daniel Estulin's book "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group", which as you would guess contains no real evidence of anything (click links for more information).
For decades, the banker owned media would attack anyone who dared to warn the public that a dictatorial world government was being constructed right under their nose and that national sovereignty was being deliberately destroyed.
I assume he's talking about himself and other conspiracy theorists.
Would this also be the same banker owned media where he finds sources for this film?
And now, after years of denial, the media and the elite themselves are proudly announcing that not only is world government real, but it is the answer to the financial crisis that they carefully engineered.
At this point he shows four articles on the screen. The first is about an a ft.com article, which is discussed below, so I won't go into it here.
The IsraCast was referring to a "new world order" where radical Islam no longer poses a threat to Israel or the west and says nothing about one world government, international banks, or anything else. The biggest claim against Alex Jones here is the article talks about "Gaza, Europe and America have embarked on forging a new world order even before Barack Obama's official inauguration". Why would Israel ever let Gaza be in on the NWO? That's against what many conspiracy theorists say Israel is doing.
The TIME article refers to a "new world order" where international economies, specifically Europe, have less dependence on the US, and more regulation to keep over investment in the US economy from biting them in the butt in the future. It seems the EU and other economies want less to do with the United States, and not the other way around.
The Herald Tribune article was an op-ed piece written by Henry Kissinger and discusses almost the exact same thing as the TIME article above. Essentially it goes on about how the United States model is less attractive to international markets and economies such as the EU and China are becoming less trusting of the United States' ability to correct manage itself economically.
Suddenly, the Wall Street Journal tells us that the North American Union is here and that getting rid of the dollar for a common currency with Canada and Mexico is good.
The Wall Street Journal didn't tell us this, an online-only market news source, owned by the Wall Street Journal had a financial piece by Todd Harrison. In it he considers the concept of the North American Union and the Amero (see link for more information), however he goes on to say that the idea is "scary" and "not so much" probable - he never says it's good. The only reason he's talking about it in the first place is because conspiracy theorists took a suggestion from a book and turned into something that's actually happening (in their own minds) and have bothered everyone else about it since then.
The Financial Times of London, published by a member of the Bilderberg Group, crowed that a dictatorial world government had been kept in the shadows for our own good and that it was now time for it to emerge from behind the curtains of national security.
The article does not say anything like this at all. It's not meant to be a full article anyway, it's a blog post by Gideon Rachman, where he states that he doesn't believe in the NWO conspiracy theory, but that global government is possible, and discusses different ways or reasons it could come about. He then goes on to say "But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for 'global governance' in the here and now will be a painful, slow process."
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stated on record that they can't let this crisis go to waste.
[Rahm Emanuel, Wall Street Journal interview]
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.
He's talking about taking advantage of the current economic and energy crisis in America to push forward with economic regulations and spending reforms, new energy alternatives, tax reform, education reform, and so forth, and he clarifies this himself, that goals that were long term are now "short term" and that's the serious crisis not going to waste he's talking about. Bad phrasing on his part, but nothing glaringly evil behind it.
And Henry Kissinger, who gave Barack Obama his first job out of college, told national television that the economic collapse was a great opportunity to bring in the New World Order. He went on to say that Barack Obama was the perfect person to sell it to the world.
Obama's first jobs out of college were at the Business International Corporation and the New York Public Interest Research Group; Timothy Geithner worked for Henry Kissinger, Obama never did.
Henry Kissinger, Fmr. Secretary of State [interview on CNBC]:
...but he can give a new impetus to American foreign policy, partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America, in this period, when really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't just a crisis.
This is essentially the exact same things that were said in the IsraCast, TIME, Herald Tribune; Kissinger believes that because Obama isn't as hated as, say George W. Bush, it opens more opportunity to negotiate with foreign powers.
What Alex Jones has shown us really hasn't proven at all that "world government is real" or that the "media and the elite [...] are proudly announcing [it]."