Trailer for the upcoming 'Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama'

Trailer for the upcoming 'Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama'

www.infowars.com

Here is a first glimpse of Alex Jones’ most powerful film yet, to be titled ‘Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama.’ The globalists want the Republic to fall, and they are trying to use their newest, and slickest ever puppet to destroy the last vestiges of America’s freedom, Constitution and economy, all while helping the bankers loot the country clean. But this film shows how we can turn it around, and restore all that was good and right in our nation.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I apologize is this has been posted already i did a search and found nothing about it.

I saw this video and couldn't agree more that this is very important.

Yes it is from Alex Jones, but every point made in that video is as real as it gets, and it should show those Americans , and people from around the world, what is going on and how the Obama administration is part of the plan to have us all under control of a One World Socialist government.

In that video you can also watch how President Obama, who supposedly studied Constitutional law, state how he had visited 57 states, and he only needed to visit one other...

This is not the first video interview in which President Obama states there are more than 50 states in the Union, aka the Republic of the United States of America.

Here is the direct link to the video.

www.youtube.com...

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ElectricUniverse




Thanks, I'm watching it.

I'm sure anybody who hates direct democracy loves this video by Alex Jones.

There is a lot of information the Alex Jones uncovers, yet he throughly hates direct democracy. It appears was able to hide that part of him up until 2009 where he started to make wild accusations at Obama. I found it odd the AJ would support the authoritarianship that he so states he is out to uncover.

AJ is a excellent source for references on all sorts of matters, yet his personal opinions just seems to go foul at times.

reply to post by dzonatas


He's been against mob rule as long as I've been listening (5 years give or take) and constantly refers to the "Republic" that is our nation. He hasnt hid his feelings about 'direct democracy' at all.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Direct democracy is not an anarchy or 'ad hoc' by any means, so guess that is how one would try to tag it as a mob rule is to assume such and create FUD against direct democracy.

In the republic, you have someone else that represents your vote. In a direct democracy, you represent your own vote. Technology and automation make direct democracy much easier. Of course, we have to trust the technology. It's no different from being able to trust the representatives.

There must be some programmer somewhere that we can trust to make a decent automated vote system that takes each person's vote and can be accounted without fear. *wink*

reply to post by dzonatas


I have no idea what you are talking about "direct democracy", as to your claim that AJ is against it, but you should know that we are not living in a democracy, we are living in what is known as a Consitutional Republic, or representative Republic.

In a Democracy only the mob rules, meanwhile in our Republic every American, and legal resident is guaranteed certain rights, as well as being represented.

i have said it before, many politicians and the media are wrong, even republican politicians who claim we are in a democracy are wrong.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein WAS a Democracy in which the mayority ruled, and they not only denied rigthts to minorities, but they set forth to exterminate minorities such as the Kurds.

I believe this constant indoctrination into making Americans belive they are part of a "Democracy" is part of the plan of tptb.

This is the one way that they can abolish certain rights claiming "they are doing it for the good of the whole", and for "democracy".



[edit on 25-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
In a Democracy only the mob rules

A democracy is the opposite of a monarchy. What you describe about 'mob rules' just doesn't make sense as you try to compare it to a democracy. It appears you think all the guarantees you stated can only happen under a republic, which simple is not true. Just because someone wants direct democracy doesn't mean that want to take away those rights and guarantees from you. The 'mob rules' paradigm can exist under a republic just like it can exist under a democracy. That doesn't mean just because either exist that it is the only way it can exist, but that is your fear.

reply to post by dzonatas



Even Thomas Jefferson said it...

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

thinkexist.com...


[edit on 25-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by dzonatas


The point he is making is that we are NOT a democracy. Never have been since our inception. Democracy was shoved down our throats by those who wish to rule by caveat and not the will of the people. It's not Mob Rule if voted on in a representative Republic which our government is supposed to be. It is Mob Rule in a Democracy because the Mob votes in a majority! The minor difference being that in a Republic the greater good must be adhered to by the Representatives. Our present system being bastardized as it has is the evolution of the citizenry ignoring their civic duty to learn the facts and vote. They are too lazy and the crooks that get voted in then change the plan for their own aggrandizement! Democracy has never worked. Even in Greece where it was first tried the very same problem arose in the citizenry.

Zindo

reply to post by dzonatas


BTW "mob rule" cannot exist under a Constitutional, or representative Republic. If there is "mob rule" then there is chaos, and a Constitutional, or representative Republic is not chaos.

Mob rule is also a form of anarchy.

You really need to do some research into what you want to advocate.

[edited to correct statement]


[edit on 25-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


That quote my Jefferson makes it more obvious what you want to say... that is 'majority vote is mob rule'.

Democracy doesn't mean majority vote... it simply means the will of the people.

It was FUD to pin 'mob rule' rule on democracy when 'mob rule' is more appropriate pinned onto majority vote. There are those of us that believe direct democracy can exist without the pitfall of the majority vote that you fear.

You can try to put a representative in the way and call it a republic, yet that still doesn't hide the fact that there is a majority vote (as noted by ZindoDoone that states a belief we aren't a democracy).

Majority vote is your mob rule, rather it is done directly or by a representative.

You really need to do some research into what you want to advocate.

Excuse me, I'm someone who likes to share ideas and learn from each other. That is research. I don't think of you any less because we disagree on a subject or because we don't believe exactly the same things. If you are someone that can't relate to others that have different beliefs or that may disagree with you and you tell them off rather then simply a bit more communication... your loss... not mine.

Peace & Love

[edit on 25-8-2009 by dzonatas]

That last bit at the end of the video is the first I've heard of Obama wanting a pre crimes unit. Where people can be locked up for crimes they haven't committed yet.

I'm going to have to look into this some more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a New York Times article about it for anyone interested. It's supposed to be for terrorist but we all know who's being labeled as terrorist these days.

www.nytimes.com...



[edit on 25-8-2009 by Strictsum]

Originally posted by Strictsum
That last bit at the end of the video is the first I've heard of Obama wanting a pre crimes unit. Where people can be locked up for crimes they haven't committed yet.

I'm going to have to look into this some more.

There have been threads about that, and links with videos, even from left websites, pointing this out.

Among the many aspects of Obama's Thursday speech on national security that drew criticism from human rights advocates and civil libertarians, the notion that the United States could engage in preventive detention proved most objectionable.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, compared the whole program to something out of the Steven Spielberg flick "Minority Report."

"[Obama] is re-wrapping a preventive detention scheme and giving it some more due process," said Ratner. "In the end, it still comes down to holding people -- much like Minority Report or pre-crime stuff -- for being dangerous, and that is not something that I think is constitutional or this country should be engaged in."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Here is a video which has been posted several times in these forums about President Obama's statements on making it legal to have an indefinite preventive detention program.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Thanks for links

Not sure where I was at while this was in the news.

Obamas doublespeak abilities are truly amazing aren't they. When Maddow is saying something he said is wrong, you know it's really wrong.

Even if this is old news I think it's very important news. Gaining this information alone was worth my visit to your thread. Thanks again.

Originally posted by dzonatas

That quote my Jefferson makes it more obvious what you want to say... that is 'majority vote is mob rule'.

Democracy doesn't mean majority vote... it simply means the will of the people.

No, it has nothing to do with "what I want to say, it is the way it is. The one who wants to twist this around just to "what you want to say" is you.

Originally posted by dzonatas
You can try to put a representative in the way and call it a republic, yet that still doesn't hide the fact that there is a majority vote (as noted by ZindoDoone that states a belief we aren't a democracy).

And there is also the "ELECTORAL COLLEGE" vote for president which also decides who should be president.... in this Republic of the United States the mob does not rule. It is not a "Democracy".

Originally posted by dzonatas
Excuse me, I'm someone who likes to share ideas and learn from each other. That is research. I don't think of you any less because we disagree on a subject or because we don't believe exactly the same things. If you are someone that can't relate to others that have different beliefs or that may disagree with you and you tell them off rather then simply a bit more communication... your loss... not mine.

Peace & Love

What I said had NOTHING to do with anything that you said above...

One thing is "disagreeing" and another is trying to twist things the way you want to.

You can try to twist it as much as you want but Democracy is "mob rule".

You do know that the election of presidents of the United States is not only decided by the Popular Vote, but also by the Electoral college don't you?

It would be unConstitutional to just have "the mob rule" or "Democracy".

Ron Paul even stated this himself.

Today’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the Electoral College, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy.

The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

www.lewrockwell.com...




[edit on 25-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Let's consider an example:

You are the president. Your secret service just delivered you a notice that they captured a suspect outside your oval office with a sniper rifer pointed right at your head. Your secret service managed to get to the suspect before the trigger was pulled, and the suspect is now detained.

The suspect didn't commit a crime, as he is only now being detained on the suspicions to commit a crime.

Do you let him go?

Or do you detain him until the end of your term?

Or....?

[edit on 25-8-2009 by dzonatas]

BTW, the statement I made about you needing to do some more research does not mean that i dismiss you, or think any less of you. It is just a statement of fact.

There are plenty of things that I don't know too, and that if I was to respond to i would need to do research on them.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by dzonatas


There are already laws to detain such people.

What President Obama is talking about is completely different.

You actually think that if a sniper was caught trying to kill any past president he would have been let go?... There are, and have been for a long time laws in place that would put such a person, or people in prison.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by dzonatas


What you described is a felony plain and simple. To aim any weapon at another individual with the prospect of doing harm is a felony. Especially the President which would make it a federal felony besides. It will be in the federal courts to decide his innocence or guilt and an appropriate term in a federal prison would be handed down by a judge. Your example is moot!

Zindo