Banned in America

This video has been banned from the prying eyes of the American public. I suppose those who control such things would rather you didn't see this. Perhaps they are afraid that if you knew the government was commissioning propaganda videos from "BIG" Hollywood you might not like it. This video is an obvious attempt to "pressure" people into "Voluntary Compliance" as "good Americans" to "contribute" to the war effort. We are all painfully aware at this point that the banks are behind all wars and are known to lend money to BOTH SIDES! War is a big money maker for the banksters. So when we add two plus two; the feds were "brainwashing" Americans into "paying " their "proper fees so as to be "good Americans". Keep in mind they distributed this HOGWASH throughout American movie theaters for free.

Watch this video - Donald Duck: The Spirit of '43 (banned)

Can you say conspiracy? Comments?

You need to be a member of Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America to add comments!

Join Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • This is our fight, the fight for free dumb.

    Free dumb of speech.

    The pen is said to be mightier than the sword, so just how destructive is a lie written in ink on paper?

    Free dumb of worship.

    Worshiping the power to use lies to force involuntary payments hidden behind a false front of voluntary investments in might making right (lies making truth, and perpetual war for perpetual peace, and saving the children in Waco by burning them alive), and worshiping the power to steal so much power into one stolen FUND as to then have the power to perpetuate World War.

    That perpetual war for perpetual peace began well before 1787, but in America that is when the criminals took over the people in America.

    The investments (not spending on "useless things" like self defense) in World Wars pays the investors rates of returns that can make an organized crime gambling, addictive drug, prostitution, syndicate boss, or Nazi, blush.

    Investment A:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FDR.pdf

    Investment B:

    http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

    Investment C:

    http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

    Who do you think are the ones who taught the Nazi's and the Bolsheviks how to run their lie factories they called Ministries of Truth?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzufDdQ6uKg

    What do you think was those papers falsely labeled the Federalist Papers by the false Federalists who were priming the general public to set aside trial by jury and republics and a federal voluntary union, and in place of that working federation those false federalists were consolidating a new version of might making right that later falsely became known as majority rule or the false meaning of democracy?

    The slave traders of the north and the slave traders of the south, combined with the war merchants, and the so called central bankers, to form a more perfect union in place of the working federal government, and to accomplish that task they set about a campaign in the monopoly print media they commanded (not a complete monopoly, but one that was recognized as one at the time) to manufacture consent to turn the existing representative republican federation into what it is today which is false majority rule and false democracy or rule by men who are merely criminals.

  • This is nothing new nor is it a big deal. It was a war education film produced by disney for the government and a few of them were "rejected", not really "banned". In other words the government decided which ones it liked and paid for them and the rest were not released, however they aren't banned and you can even buy them on DVD if I'm not mistaken. The only ban (if you can call it that) was in the 1940s. 

    There were several of these, quite enjoyable to watch, even donald duck as a Nazi.

    One popular one (die furers face) was used as the model for a skit by american POWs in the movie "Hart's War"

    http://youtu.be/mzaYiMciIMY

    - YouTube
    Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
    • No Don, You're right.

      This is not a novel concept Totalitarianism existed since man. Might is right, etc. But I disagree. This is a big deal when they "propogandize" the message and distribute it for free. In today's dollars that could translate to about $ 2 billion. They are not going to take that kind of chance; spend that much of the people's money on a wasted effort. This was a money maker for Uncle Sam, no two ways about it and a fantastic way to "guilt" people using phrases like "more than you need" into witholding voluntarily.

      Who ARE these people who think they can decide for you that if you have over a certain amount then you just simply have "too much"?

      Progressives, that's who. I just have a problem with their definition of progress.

  • Endless wars since then to profit the war machines.

  • Another problem is they create these wars, fund them with our tax dollars, without our permission and then some of them steal millions by falsifying reports and some get very rich being the contractors supplying our troops, while cooking the books.  At the same time, insider trading is going on in the Senate and the House for stock options of known suppliers and manufacturers chosen.  The Government is Dirty and Money is the root of all that deception.  Honesty goes out the window when the cash comes under the table.

  • If you google 'Donald Duck Taxes' you will find a couple of these.  When not-liable-for-federal-income-tax workers wanted to contribute, paymaster withholding was set up for private businesses, so workers could contribute every payday, rather than having to save up and give a large amount at the end of the year.

    W-4's and W-2's now treated as if they are 'required' by most not-liable businesses is what creates the erroneous information returns that one must rebut on their 1040, if they do not want their money improperly withheld.  Form 4852 is your FRIEND!!

  • It amazes me. They will ban this but allow a singer to dry hump a married man (not that it matters but he was also a singer) on stage. I guess I should be thankful, the singer could have been a male, who was dry humping a married man on stage. Or worse! lol This world is so twisted and sad. I am deeply disgusted.

    You would think nothing could surprise me anymore but you would be wrong.

  • Roseanna Miller, I think you and a lot of other members misunderstand this cartoon. It wasn't banned in the conventional sense. It was produced by disney in the 1940s and at that time they decided not to use this specific film. Rejected would be a better word than banned, but if you insist on using the term banned, then it was banned by the roosevelt administration, nobody today cares about it and you can even purchase it today. 

    These cartoons were played at the movies before and after shows in order to raise support for the war effort. There were dozens produced, some were approved and others denied. 

    Are you seriously outraged that the government didn't think this one was effective enough? they were under no obligation to accept them all and I seriously hope no one here actually believes that someone in the government today or anytime in the last 70 years has banned this cartoon. If the american people believe that, then we are in worse shape than I feared because it's not true...  This happened over 70 years ago so I don't know why we are even talking about it.

    • Hm, I think I am seeing what you mean by the word banned and if that is the case, I wouldn't have chosen that word in the title of my post. I dislike when news reporter's intentionally use specific words to sensationalize their articles. Thank you for the heads up.

      In all honesty, I did not even watch the whole clip. Since they simply didn't air it and it is available for view today, my comment becomes pointless...since my point was based on that one detail. Had they truly banned it, I am sure my comment would have made better sense.

      I agree with you, as I don't understand why it was posted to begin with, if it wasn't truly banned. I shouldn't have to search to see if these things are true, not that it would have hurt me to google either. I find it annoying, to say the least.

      I hope the one who posted this explains himself. Thanks again, for the heads up.

This reply was deleted.