This is page twenty-three 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.
Throughout its passage, President Bush and Senator Obama worked in tandem to get Congress to pass the bill, without even having time to read it. Despite the fact that in major polls, 98% of the American people were against the bill, the leadership in both parties were for it.
My question is, which poll says this? You can find polls that say 28%, 30%, and even up to 75% support a bailout plan. I couldn't find any that said "98%" oppose it. Since when is a poll a democratic vote? Regardless of the results, if we learned anything from Alex Jones in TerrorStorm it's that he can turn 28% into 84% by spinning the results.
And I really want to commend Barack Obama because as we were involved in the, this and that, and different provisions of the bill to persuade people, he really gave them confidence that this was the right decision for the American people, even though it wasn't, in our view, a great bill, uh, for them to vote on.
I think she means that in the view of the Democratic Party it wasn't the best bill for solving the problem, which is typical, because it was passed under a Republican President.
I want to take a particular moment to also thank an individual who's not here, and that is Barack Obama who made numerous calls, not only to all of us, but to members of our caucus, and helped us gather the votes on the Democratic side to pass this legislation.
Man oh man, this totally proves... nothing[416b].
Bankheads then bragged to the press that they were hoarding the bailout money and using it to buy up smaller, healthy banks and insurance companies. Their plan was working like a charm. Next, the central bankers loaned the Federal Government back 787 billion dollars of our own money, at interest, for President Obama's so-called stimulus package. And just like the banker bailout, Congress was given less than an hour to read the 1,070 page plus stimulus bill. Barack Obama, who had pledged on the campaign trail to wait five days before a bill could be voted on so that the Congress and the people could have a chance to read it, said that the stimulus was too important and it had to be passed before anybody could see it or read it, or the crisis would turn into a catastrophe.
They weren't "hoarding the money", the idea was that if healthy banks used the money to buy failing banks, it would save money for the FDIC, this is even explained in the article itself. The "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" was a bill that put up $787 billion for federal tax cuts, unemployment benefits, education, health care, infrastructure, and also energy investements. Of course the loan was "at interest", but the interest is returned the treasury at the end of the year. You can learn more about the Federal Reserve in my NWO section.
It was introduced on January 26, 2009 and passed on January 28, 2009. This hardly seems like "an hour", and it passed the Senate on February 10. Obama did indeed break his campaign promise to wait 5 days before signing a law, but this isn't applied to his stimulus bill, because it was nearly two and a half weeks from introduction of his bill until he signed it.
Doing little, or nothing at all, will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence. Those are deficits that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe and I refuse to let that happen.
After its Friday passage, in gangster fashion, President Barack Obama took a four day vacation and said that that there was no rush to sign it. The spending bill was really a takeover bill designed to further federalize the States and to pay off rich donors that had donated to both parties. As the world slid deeper into depression, the bankers celebrated the fire sale that they had created.
[George W Bush]
I believe this, the phrase, "burdens of the office", is overstated. Yes, Kelly. Why me? Oh, the burdens. Why did the financial collapse have to happen on my watch? It's just pathetic, isn't it, self-pity? And I don't believe, uh...President-elect Obama will be full of self-pity.
With their access to unlimited fiat capital, they could now buy up sectors of the world economy not already controlled by them. For over a century, the Anglo-American establishment had worked to bring the world system to this point: artificially-engineered global bankruptcy. In an address before the Trilateral Commission, in June of 1991, David Rockefeller laid out the elite's ultimate goal: "The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in the last centuries."
Earlier in the film he says "By the year 2000, there were few nations that had not fallen to the designs of the money power" so the few left, those I assume, being the two countries without central banks, Andorra and Monaco, were worth spiraling the world into a financial crisis. What an ingenious, evil plan.
More anti-intellectualism from Alex Jones, what a surprise; another surprise is how he was able to find the specifics of the speech in a secret, globalist, Masonic, NWO meeting. In any case, I'm not sure what his goal has to do with conquering the bountiful lands of Andorra and Monaco.
Yet another unverifiable quote from a secret organization.
Now that the bankers were holding the world hostage, they issued their ultimatum. The only solution to restart the global economy would be to set up a planetary government ruled by a new Bank of The World, a Bank of The World, owned and controlled by them. Suddenly, hundreds of prominent publications announced the solution, the people's only salvation. Time magazine, in an article titled The New World Order, said that the new superbank would control the world's currencies and set interest rates and that the New Bank would, quote, "Knock the heads of bad countries like the United States." At a meeting of central bankheads and finance ministers dubbed Bretton Woods II, the plan for world government was unveiled by the very bankers that had engineered the collapse.
Alex Jones has a tendency to take suggestions people make, even people of little importance, and turning those suggestions into a conspiracy that's actually underway. The article shown on screen that says "We Need a Bank Of the World" was written in October 2008 and outlines what Jeffrey E. Garten, author of the article, thinks should be discussed at an upcoming meeting of President Bush and other world leaders. It has absolutely nothing to do with discussing the workings of an actual world bank. Alex Jones made this up in his own mind.
Again, Alex Jones is making things up. He showed this article at the beginning of the film and I discussed it there. I said:
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 article throws around the idea that some people abroad, and a small amount in the US, are interested and turning the IMF into a central bank of the world so that other countries won't have to rely on the US' central bank any longer but there are no serious attempts to do this. The belief by the ones suggesting the idea is that the Federal Reserve isn't in international control (which is contrary to what conspiracy theorists believe) so therefore they must setup their own central bank and invest in it, instead of the US, so future disasters in the US don't echo to the rest of the world.
Bretton Woods II is something entirely different than "world government." The first Bretton Woods was to design an international set of policies, these also created the World Bank and IMF. In October, 2008 various European leaders wanted to "rethink the financial system from scratch", and referred to it was a "Bretton Woods II"; their reasons for wanting this are discussed directly above. In fact, many European leaders were in agreement that the Anglo-American model of unrestrained markets is a failure, and President George W. Bush joined them at the G-20 summit. The whole discussion was removal of the dollar as the base currency from the Bretton Woods system, just as the Time article actually reads. So, contrary to conspiracy theorists, more countries are less desiring of including America in their economic practices, opposite of the "one world government/economy" conspiracy.
Formerly sovereign countries would now pay their taxes directly to the banking cartel. Hundreds of new carbon taxes, controlling every facet of human activity, would only be the beginning. Now all the elite had to do was to sell the public on accepting the final phase of their takeover, and it's Obama's job to sucker the public, in to standing down, so the bankers agenda can move forward unhindered. Never before in US history has the media gotten behind a president, like they are behind Obama. The press has pulled out all the stops, bestowing a crown of infallibility upon Obama, as the savior of the people. The elite are betting everything they've got on Obama's charisma and hoping that he can sell the world on their program of tyranny.
Where does he get this from? Taxes go to governments, not central banks. Well, actually many conspiracy theorists believe the income tax exists solely to pay the Federal Reserve debt, but that's not true at all (makes you wonder about other countries that have central banks and no income tax, maybe they just use magic; see my Federal Reserve page). Isn't it interesting how Alex Jones comes to imaginary and illogical conclusions based on articles he has dramatically misread and misinterpreted, then he comes up with "what they're going to do" based on the previous delusion. The carbon tax in the context Alex Jones provides is simply anti-environmentalist hysteria[430b] and I discuss the carbon tax stuff more in a bit.