The Obama Deception Film - Now Available To Watch Online
Discussion
As with all conspiracy theories, there's f
k all we can do about it anyway, and enough really obvious, harmful and damaging things that governments do quite openly as a matter of policy, that I don't really care if the conspiracy theories are true or not.
It's perfectly true that if we removed this supposedly hidden cabal from their positions of great influence we might get better politicians to start with, but focussing on them rather than the problems is diversionary and irrelevant, and if they are as powerful as they are made out to be, likely to be completely fruitless.
k all we can do about it anyway, and enough really obvious, harmful and damaging things that governments do quite openly as a matter of policy, that I don't really care if the conspiracy theories are true or not.It's perfectly true that if we removed this supposedly hidden cabal from their positions of great influence we might get better politicians to start with, but focussing on them rather than the problems is diversionary and irrelevant, and if they are as powerful as they are made out to be, likely to be completely fruitless.
Edited by AJS- on Saturday 21st March 15:47
jimmy729 said:
Do you happen to know who the CEO is or even who the Fed's financial investor(s) are? Even Congress is not allowed that infomation.
So we know the Fed is a private company which is above the US government and does not need to take any orders from them. I would like to know who on earth owns this company as this company owns the United States military.
Is it possible that the UK system is setup in a similar way?
For a supposedly secret organisation, the Federal Reserve is a bit open about it's Board of Directors: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/default....So we know the Fed is a private company which is above the US government and does not need to take any orders from them. I would like to know who on earth owns this company as this company owns the United States military.
Is it possible that the UK system is setup in a similar way?
And you can read more about it here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_1.pdf
"The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress. The Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government; therefore, the description of the System as “independent within the government” is more accurate."
"Board of Governors
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a federal government agency. The Board is composed of seven members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the
U.S. Senate. The full term of a Board member is fourteen years, and the appointments are staggered so that one term expires on January 31 of each even-numbered year. After serving a full term, a Board member may not be reappointed. If a member leaves the Board before his or her term expires, however, the person appointed and confirmed to serve the remainder of the term may later be reappointed to a full term. The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Board are also appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The nominees to these posts must already be members of the Board or must be simultaneously appointed to the Board. The terms for these positions are four years."
So I suppose you could say that no one knows who it's CEO is, because it doesn't have one.
And it's Board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but, you're right, it doesn't have to answer to them. However, it is subject to congressional oversight.
Here is a very good example of what this film is trying to put across:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090323/twl-obama-on-a...
The news headline: "Obama On Afghanistan: We Need Exit Plan"
yet the outcome is sending in another 30,000 troops.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090323/twl-obama-on-a...
The news headline: "Obama On Afghanistan: We Need Exit Plan"
yet the outcome is sending in another 30,000 troops.
Richie200 said:
Here is a very good example of what this film is trying to put across:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090323/twl-obama-on-a...
The news headline: "Obama On Afghanistan: We Need Exit Plan"
yet the outcome is sending in another 30,000 troops.
Maybe the extra troops are the best way to achieve the exit plan........http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090323/twl-obama-on-a...
The news headline: "Obama On Afghanistan: We Need Exit Plan"
yet the outcome is sending in another 30,000 troops.
The movie is let down by the hysterical editing. Shame.
However, the facts about Obama's pre- and post-election promises/policies are true. Interpretation of this is, at best, that it was cynical electioneering - "say anything to win the votes, once you're in you've got a job for at least four years and a guaranteed book deal after".
But is that motive enough to put yourself up as the "lightning conductor" for international scorn? I doubt it.
The analogy of modern politics being like WWF where the protagonists rail at each for public spectacle, then all go have a cuppa together afterwards, is true the world over (unless of course a dictator is in the chair).
I'm on the fence about the "master plan" theories but the truth is that the de facto world currency, the US dollar, is controlled by unelected private individuals who own a private company, the Federal Reserve. Does this mean the Fed's shareholders are "criminals"? Not sure... It is possible that the Fed's shareholders are as freaked out by the global mess as anybody else. As businessmen, as humans even, self-interest and self-preservation instincts get sharper when distressed.
With a society that worships money, that relies on money as the primary motivator for all activity, those Fed shareholders are scary because their self-interest is all about a vast amount of money. When "little guys" are tempted from time to time to do a debtor physical harm over matters of a few thousand pounds, it's not difficult to extrapolate how unpleasant somebody becomes facing the loss of trillions.
The world is, by default, in the hands of the Fed. The debt levels achieved by countries and individuals cannot be repaid. I don't see any option out other than a debt cut. The idea's been floated but the likes of Pimco's Bill Gross, now exceedingly powerful as the US government's primary bond broker, doesn't think creditors (the Fed in particular...) would take kindly to it. And it's easy to see why: if you were a Fed shareholder, would you be happy to write off your debtors' obligations? And if you're Bill Gross, "guru investor" and latterly handed an obscenely valuable opportunity, what would you do?
Countless smart people, some cited in the Obama film, warned of governments relying on private banks and fiat money. They warned all this from the beginning, hundreds of years ago.
However, the facts about Obama's pre- and post-election promises/policies are true. Interpretation of this is, at best, that it was cynical electioneering - "say anything to win the votes, once you're in you've got a job for at least four years and a guaranteed book deal after".
But is that motive enough to put yourself up as the "lightning conductor" for international scorn? I doubt it.
The analogy of modern politics being like WWF where the protagonists rail at each for public spectacle, then all go have a cuppa together afterwards, is true the world over (unless of course a dictator is in the chair).
I'm on the fence about the "master plan" theories but the truth is that the de facto world currency, the US dollar, is controlled by unelected private individuals who own a private company, the Federal Reserve. Does this mean the Fed's shareholders are "criminals"? Not sure... It is possible that the Fed's shareholders are as freaked out by the global mess as anybody else. As businessmen, as humans even, self-interest and self-preservation instincts get sharper when distressed.
With a society that worships money, that relies on money as the primary motivator for all activity, those Fed shareholders are scary because their self-interest is all about a vast amount of money. When "little guys" are tempted from time to time to do a debtor physical harm over matters of a few thousand pounds, it's not difficult to extrapolate how unpleasant somebody becomes facing the loss of trillions.
The world is, by default, in the hands of the Fed. The debt levels achieved by countries and individuals cannot be repaid. I don't see any option out other than a debt cut. The idea's been floated but the likes of Pimco's Bill Gross, now exceedingly powerful as the US government's primary bond broker, doesn't think creditors (the Fed in particular...) would take kindly to it. And it's easy to see why: if you were a Fed shareholder, would you be happy to write off your debtors' obligations? And if you're Bill Gross, "guru investor" and latterly handed an obscenely valuable opportunity, what would you do?
Countless smart people, some cited in the Obama film, warned of governments relying on private banks and fiat money. They warned all this from the beginning, hundreds of years ago.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff