GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Who would you vote for today?  (Read 25962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4451
  • Manna: 151
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #245 on: Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 18:04:28 »
The neo-conservative complacency around here hearkens back to the Bush era, doesn't it?

They didn't show much of any concern for the spending of a president who racked up trillions in debt for the country that so many see as indestructible. Bush was even talking about a mission to Mars, for heaven's sake!

Here we are again, already suffering because of this attitude, and still, some people don't want to learn. This country needs to humble itself and quit thinking that it can do anything it wants.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #245 on: Thu Feb 16, 2012 - 18:04:28 »

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #246 on: Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 08:00:00 »
Hi Cally
Yes it does. The sad part is that Christians have fallen for it and it's really the antithesis of Christian doctern. The policies of neocons runs counter to biblical principles on so many accounts it's hard to know where to start. But as we approach the end times and the return of our Lord draws nearer my hope is that "the elect" won't be decieved any more.

Anyway, here is a very interesting interview with Romney where he laughs at Ron Paul

Small | Large
!
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 15:12:43 by Captain Shays »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #246 on: Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 08:00:00 »

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11699
  • Manna: 169
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #248 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 07:21:58 »
You send us a document from the Federal Reserve itself touting their "internal audits"? THAT is what you call an "audit"?

Sorry Bro. An audit is when someone outside your organization looks into what you're doing. But maybe I should try this on the IRS if they ever come to audit me. I'll  just tell them and my wife and me audit ourselfs every day. Go home there's nothing here.

Herman Cain tried to convince people that the Fed has audits all the time, but at least he was clear about those audits being
internal audits". HEre is a video during one of the presidential debates where Herman Cain LIED to the American people when Ron Paul asked him this question. Ron Paul ate his lunch. Unfortunately most people who watched that debate didn't realize how badly Ron Paul owned Cain until after the debate when they looked into it for themselves to verify that Ron Paul was correct and Herman Cain LIED.
See for yourselves.

Small | Large
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 07:29:25 by Captain Shays »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #248 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 07:21:58 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11699
  • Manna: 169
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #249 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 09:34:37 »
Guess you missed this part.
Quote
■Financial statements of the regional Reserve banks and the Board of Governors must be audited every year by an external auditor.

Fed activities are also periodically audited by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is the auditing arm of Congress. For example, the GAO recently released a report on Federal Reserve bank governance

The internal audit is simular to most big companies.  But they also have an external audit.
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 09:51:46 by Johnb »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #249 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 09:34:37 »



Offline Mere Nick

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12643
  • Manna: 307
  • Gender: Male
  • Reckon you could make me some biscuits?
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #250 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 10:43:10 »
Johnb,

You are correct.

Anyone with a clue understands these following facts:

1.  The Fed is audited every year by external auditors.
2.  Well over 95-98%, depending on the year, of the interest the Fed receives from the portion of the national debt it owns is paid back to the US Treasury.
3.  There have been times when folks clung to a myth that they lived in a country with the gold standard.  However, normal banking operations creates additional money way beyond that which the gold was supposedly "backing" when loans are made and money is destroyed when loans are repaid.


In addition to it being illogical to try to have because it has always been impossible to have,  I am also opposed to the gold standard because the government has no business telling anyone what their product is worth.  I'm not a communist.  You can "redeem" your dollars for gold this very day, but at market prices.  

I find it entertaining (though I am quite sure any thinking members of the Paul campaign would rather they shut up) when someone makes a complete nonsequitur by claiming that a fiat currency is the reason for growing national debt.  The reason we have a debt is because the politicians in DC routinely chose to spend more than tax revenue.

While it has been entertaining, I am quite busy this time of year given my profession and have a relatively limited time to communicate with others on this board.  I've decided I will no longer communicate with Paul supporters, fed conspiracy theorists and the like who continue to post completely asinine posts.  It would be like Sheriff Andy Taylor trying to explain to the Darlings that their superstitions are silly and ignorant.

It is my hope that they refrain from topics in which they display nothing but raging ignorance and stick to such matters where they may have a clue.  Ron Paul has more to offer this nation than the completely asinine lunacy his supporters are offering us here.  

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #251 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 11:38:54 »
Guess you missed this part.
Quote
■Financial statements of the regional Reserve banks and the Board of Governors must be audited every year by an external auditor.

Fed activities are also periodically audited by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is the auditing arm of Congress. For example, the GAO recently released a report on Federal Reserve bank governance

The internal audit is simular to most big companies.  But they also have an external audit.


I hate to keep proving you wrong and I will say "wrong" as opposed to promoting a "lie" but just as an example, here is someone from Foreign Affairs writing a piece renouncing the proposed audit of the Fed and Ron Paul. He CLEARLY states that the GAO doesn't, nor does anyone else outside the Fed conduct audits of the Fed and admits that one has never been conducted up til last year when it was revealed that $17 Trillion was tranfered to foreign banks and corporations without the consent or knowledge of Congress or the American people.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65395/alan-s-blinder/the-feds-political-problem


Johnb states: I find it entertaining (though I am quite sure any thinking members of the Paul campaign would rather they shut up) when someone makes a complete nonsequitur by claiming that a fiat currency is the reason for growing national debt.  The reason we have a debt is because the politicians in DC routinely chose to spend more than tax revenue.

While it has been entertaining, I am quite busy this time of year given my profession and have a relatively limited time to communicate with others on this board.  I've decided I will no longer communicate with Paul supporters, fed conspiracy theorists and the like who continue to post completely asinine posts.  It would be like Sheriff Andy Taylor trying to explain to the Darlings that their superstitions are silly and ignorant.

It is my hope that they refrain from topics in which they display nothing but raging ignorance and stick to such matters where they may have a clue.  Ron Paul has more to offer this nation than the completely asinine lunacy his supporters are offering us her

OK then go about your way and don't respond. Who wants your patronizing tone anyway? We could take your word that the Fed isn't responsible for the massive amounts of debt (servitude) thrust on the American people and their children or, we can take the words of very prominant individuals past, and present. You know, not some guy on the internet who shows no evidence to back what he says, but actual presidents, Congressmen, Senators etc.


http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/quotes-about-the-federal-reserve-and-central-banking

Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States."
-Sen. Barry Goldwater

It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-Henry Ford

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
-Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers."
-Congressman Louis T. McFadden

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #252 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 12:13:19 »
Here are morte quotes and more information for my brethern regarding central banks, bankers, our founding fathers, debt, credit, and the Constitution.

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/federal-reserve-bank-quotes-the-central-bank-fraud/

And more. Some of these are GREAT
http://www.gemworld.com/US-Quotes-Bank.htm

Andrew Jackson pulled the charter from the Second Bank of the United States. He ran his entire campaign for re-election on that. Biddle promised to ruin the economy of our country in hopes that it would push us back into dependence on a central bank. Both men made good on their promises. Biddle pulled back all credit after Jackson pulled his charter. But, by  the end of his four year second term this country was completely out of debt and we experianced to this day the biggest boom cycle in our country's history. It was the ONLY time  in out history that we were out of debt.
Here are some quotes by Jackson (noticed how he references God)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/andrew+jackson

Here are more. Many of these are included in the sites above but some are not.

Is this "conspiracy theory"? Or.....is it simply a conspiracy?

We can believe someone without a face or a real name, on the intrernet....or we can believe the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Henry Ford, Congressman McFadden, Abriham Lincoln, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Ron Paul,Edward Griffen, and others.

CHOOSE but inform yourselves first.

What we do in this election will have a direct bearing on the future of our country and the well being of our children. We can leave them massive amounts of debt, loss of freedom, and constant wars or we can leave them in peace, prosperity and freedom. Consult with the Lord. Ask His wisdom on this matter. For in my research it is none other than the bankers and the politicians whom they control that are and have been working toward a one world government. In no other time in human history since the prophesies have been written could the children of the Most High God comprehend how the prophesies would come about into fulfillment. All we knew, was that it would happen within the context of our modern reality. "They were eating and drinking. They were marrying and giving in marriage".
Now we can see that the global financial system can be administered via super computers and the one world system can and probably will be administered through the United Nations.

But how did the United Nations come about? It came about through the strong influence of global central banking elements. In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed. A few years later those same bankers who established the Federal Reserve set up a think tank in New York called The Council on Foreign Relations. (CFR). The League of Nations Charter was written at the CFR and later on, so was the United Nations Charter. So was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement(CAFTA) and they were instrumental in establishing the International Monitary Fund, (IMF) the General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade (GATT) which was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) which is the lending arm of the IMF. These so called "free trade agreements" have done nothing but greatly diminish our sovereignty as a nation, subvert the free market and artificially shrink the planet causing just about every country to be so inter-locked and economically dependent on central banks and each other that no country can operate independently as a sovereign nation. This is a plan to incrementally corral us into a one world hegonomey. The plan is called "The New World Order".

We know from scripture that God hates the idea of a one world government run by man, in a fallen world system. We know this from Genesis when the Lord destroyed the Tower of Babal. We know it also from New Testiment scriptures that when Jesus returns He wages war against the antichrist and his armies. The antichrist comes to power and rules the world through the one world government and he begins to persecute the children of the Most High God.
So ANY christian who believes what the bible says should oppose ALL attempts to form a one world government and a financial system that will lead to the requirement to recieve the mark of the beast. Right now, today, there is an attempt to do just that and it's being orchestrated by global central bankers.

Yes we also know that no matter what we do or don't do, the prophesies will come true. But there are many other prophesies concerning the last days that will happen. Women will give up their natural effection and will burn in lust for each other. Lawlessness will increase and most people's love will wax cold. Violence will increase. As people who are called to be salt and light, we are to resist these things or at the very least not take part in them.

Some people will be decieved into actually supporting or even voting for those who are working either knowingly or unknowingly to bring about the things that Our Lord opposes. These people are either directly or indirectly taking part then, in the persecution of the end times Saints of God.

Will we be among them? Is this just naother election where we think if we elect this guy instead of that guy all will be well?
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 15:17:33 by Captain Shays »

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #253 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 12:17:13 »
When Pres Bush (Sr) started using the term during his administration, one was led to believe that he or his advisor made up the term.
  
"One August 1989 morning in  Kennebunkport, Maine, Pres Bush (Sr) took his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, for a ride on the presidential speed boat, Fidelity.  Four hours later, the president came ashore with a ringing slogan that Scowcroft had offered:  "The New World Order"  Ever since, the goal of a "new world order" has been the theme of Bush's Foreign policy pronouncements.----LA Times Feb 24, 1991
  
But this term has actually been used for generations by individuals seeking one-world socialist rule.
  
Here are many references to the term (not a complete study) that refute any claim that it originated with Bush and also prove that it is a well-used term over many decades to indicate that it meant a socialist world government.  I have also included some other references that I thought were pertinent.
  
1915 - Nov 27, Columbia University president Nicholas Murray Butler (on the executive committee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) delivered an address, "A New World Order is Being Born" to the Union League of Philadelphia in which he stated:  "The old world order changed when this war storm broke--the old world order died with the setting of the day's sun and a New World Order is being born while I speak."
  
1918 - Charles R. Van Hise, Pres. University of Wisconsin, delivers an address to the Wisconsin State Convention of The League to Enforce Peace.  The title of the address is:  "The Foundation of a New World Order" in which he says:  "The world has become one body, and no great member of it can proceed independently of the other members.  They must act together; and this is possible only through formal treaty covenants."
  
1919 -  The January edition of International Conciliation (connected with the Carnegie organization) focuses upon "A League of Nations."  A cover letter sent, with this edition of the journal, begins with these words:  "The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world."
  
1919 -  A book entitled The New World Order by Samuel Zane Batten is published by the American Baptist Publication Society.  In this book, Batten declares:  "The old order passes from view, the new world rises upon our vision....We have vindicated the right of social control.....There must be developed a national spirit of service....Society must break the stranglehold of capitalism....The natural resources of the nation must be socialized....The state must socialize every group....Men must learn to have a world patriotism.  World patriotism must be a faith....There is no more justice for the claim of absolute sovereignty on the part of a nation than on the part of an individual....The only alternative is World Federation....with a world parliament, and international court, and an international police force....Men must have an international mind before there can be a world federation.  Th
  
1920 - A book entitled  The New World Order (International Organization, International Law, International Cooperation) by Frederick Charles Hicks Doubleday 1920.  He is law librarian of Columbia University, and in this book he suggests that among the most powerful few of the Great Powers, the example must be set to "cooperate, here and there, piece by piece, in limiting the exercise of their sovereign rights."
  
1927 - The Christian Science Monitor (August 8) quoted from an address to the World Federation of Education Associations (WFEA) by Dr. Augustus Thomas (commissioner of education for Maine) at their Toronto congress:  "If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment."  He says the world must go through a long process of education "...until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands."  
  
1928 - A book entitled The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution by socialist H. G. Wells is published.  He declares that  "..The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments....The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms, it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York...."
  
1931 - Historian Arnold Toynbee delivers a speech to the Institute for the Study of International Affairs at Copenhagen in which he explains:  "We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world.  All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or publicist can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake but certainly be ostracized or discredited."  --International Affairs (journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, i.e. the British version of the Council on Foreign Relations) Nov 1931, "The Trend of International Affairs Wince the War"
  
1934 - Experiment In Autobiography by H. G. Wells is published in which he states:  "The organization of this that I call the Open Conspiracy....which will ultimately supply teaching, coercive and directive public services to the whole world, is the immediate task before all rationale people...A planned world-state is appearing at a thousand points....Plans for political synthesis seem to grow bolder and more extensive....There must be a common faith and law for mankind....The main battle is an educational battle.
  
1940 - A book entitled, The New World Order by H.G. Wells, in which Wells claims:   "It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go....We are living in the end of the sovereign states....In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish....Countless people...will hate the new world order....and will die protesting against it."
  
1940 -  A Book World Order (Civitas Dei) by Lionel Curtis is published.  This 985 page volume will be called the foundation of all thought on the design of a new order.  It examines human society and concludes that a working system must mean the organization of all human society into one commonwealth.
  
1942 - In The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 18), reporter William Murphy, Jr. wrote that on June 17, "Undersecretary of State, Sumner Welles called for the early creation of an international organization....the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis."
  
1948 - July: The CFR's Foreign Affairs publishes "A New World Takes Shape" by Sir Harold Butler in which he asks:  "How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations?  How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?....Out of the prevailing confusion a new world is taking shape...which may point the way toward the new order."
  
1948 - UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy by Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley is published in which he proclaims that UNESCO "...In its education  program it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization..."
  
1949 - April:  United Nations World magazine publishes an article by Ambassador Warren Austin, chief of the U.S. Mission to the UN, in which he pronounces that "....World government could not be accepted without radical change of national outlook.... It will take a long time to prepare peoples and governments of most nations for acceptance of and participation in a world government....If we expect this future world government to be created by agreement and not by force or conquest, we will have to be willing to work patiently until peoples or governments are ready for it....
  
1949 - Towards World Understanding, vol. V, is published by UNESCO, and in this volume one reads:  "As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results....For the moment, it is sufficient to note that it is most frequently in the family that the children are infected with nationalism by hearing what is national extolled and what is foreign disparaged....The activity of the school cannot bring about the desired result unless, repudiating every form of nationalism..."
  
1949 - The New World Order by communist Scott Nearing is published, in which he projects that "the one world of technology must become one world also economically and politically....Such objectives will be achieved most easily through a science of social engineering."
  
1951 - July 24: The Chicago Tribune publishes a front page news article titled " 'Global' Flag Gen. Ike's Aim, Says Senator," which begins with the words:  "Gen. Eisenhower is working for an allied army under a single flag, uniform, and command to defend Western Europe, senators reported today on their return from an overseas inspection trip."
  
1951 - July 31:  The Chicago Tribune publishes an article, "OWI (office of war information) Propaganda machine Linked to Rhodes (Rhodes scholars) Men," stating:   "Those who absorbed the Elmer Davis(Rhodes scholar and head of OWI), Office of War Information training have pushed the British concept of policing the world with American soldiers and economic aid and have fought for a world federation under which the United States would surrender its sovereignty."  About 40 years later, American soldiers will be stationed in many nations around the world as part of UN peacekeeping missions.
  
1953 - The Impact of Science on Society by Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell is published in which he declares:  " I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology....Various results will soon be arrived at:  that the influence of home is obstructive....although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class.  The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.  When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen....Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation.  There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism....A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.
  
1958 - In Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s The Coming of the New Deal he quotes Machiavelli at the front of the book saying,  "There is nothing...more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things."  And at the end of the book, he quotes Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells describing FDR as:  "The most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order....He is continuously revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis."
  
1959 - The West in Crisis by James Warburg is published, in which he proclaims that:  "...a world order without world law is an anachronism....A world which fails to establish the rule of law over the nation-states cannot long continue to exist.  We are living in a perilous period of transition from the era of the fully sovereign nation-state to the era of world government."  James Warburg is a CFR member and founder of United World Federalists.  He is also the son of Paul Warburg, an architect of the Federal Reserve.
  
1960 - The United States in the World Arena by Walt Rostow (CFR) is published.  In the book he declares:  "It is a legitimate American objective to see removed from all nations--including the United States--the right to use substantial military force to pursue their own interest.  Since this residual right is the root of national sovereignty and the basis for the existence of an international arena of power, it is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it had been historically defined."
  
1961 - Sept, State Department document 7277 titled, "Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete disarmament in a Peaceful World" is published.  Pres Kennedy delivers this to the UN on Sept 25.  This document provides that the United States will disarm along with other countries so that the UN becomes the unchallengeable World power....disarmament "would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force."   This transition is still going on today.
  
1962 - March 10 State Department Study Memorandum No. 7, "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, " written by CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield, in which he states:  "A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world government" would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force....(But) if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government"    It looks as if now the "communist menace" has been replaced by the "terrorist menace".  And of course they can switch back to the communist menace or any other kind of menace whenever they want to.
  
1962 - A lecture given by CFR member Nelson Rockefeller at Harvard University in which he says that there is"...a new and free order struggling to be born....(There is a )fever of nationalism....(but) the nation-state is becoming less and less competent to perform its international political tasks....These are some of the reasons pressing us to lead vigorously toward the true building of a new world order....(with)voluntary service...Sooner perhaps than we may realize,....there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the free world."
  
1967 - March 26:  Pope Paul VI writes Populorum Progressio and states:  "Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a world authority capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political planes?    Delegates to international organizations, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators--all of you must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a new world order.
  
1967 - Richard Nixon writing in The CFR periodical Foreign Affairs Oct 1967  "....and to evolve regional approaches to development  needs and to the evolution of a new world order."
  
1968 - The Subtle and Leisurely Penetration, a reference report from the George Mason School of Correspondence, is published by Education Information, Inc., of Sacramento, CA.  It mentions that the thirty-two Americans to be Rhodes Scholars this year have been selected, and then states:  "The stated objectives of Cecil John Rhodes and his friend, Sir Andrew Carnegie, included the reduction of the United States to a colony of the New World Order."
  
1968 - October:  In this edition of the CFR's Foreign Affairs is an article, "Asia After Vietnam," by Richard Nixon (CFR member 1961-1965), in which he writes of nations' disposition "to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order."
  
  
1968 - Gov Nelson Rockefeller from Deseret News July 26, 1968, Salt Lake City, Utah pg 2A...."New York Gov Nelson A. Rockefeller says as president he would work toward international creation of "a new world order...."
  
1970 - Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski is published.  He is a CFR member who will become the first director of the Trilateral Commission and President Carter's national security advisor.  In this book he states:  "Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision.  Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief.....Human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable...Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites....whose ties cut across national boundaries....The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty....Further progress will require greater American sacrifices.   More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be underta

1991 - Associated Press June 6, Oslo, Norway:    "Mikhail Gorbachev said yesterday in his Nobel Peace lecture that Western failure to heed his call for economic aid could dash hopes for a peaceful new world order.....'To me, it is self-evident that if Soviet perestroika succeeds, there will be a real chance of building a new world order.' "
  

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #254 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 12:18:25 »
1975 - James Reston Sunday Herald Advertiser , Boston Aug 3, 1975......"the spirit of Glassboro under President Johnson was that the big powers should forget the past and work together for a new world order...."
 
1975 - A Declaration of INTERdependence by Henry Steele Commager Oct 24, 1975......."Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.. .."
 
1976 - The Freeman Digest (Jan 79) will publish an interview with Joseph Slater, president of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, in which he will respond to the question about "the new world order" as follows:  "Whatever system is constructed, many people feel that the new global community will be monolithic; that is why the words "new world order" tend to connote a sort of 1984 Orwellian kind of notion where there is some master system...."
 
1977 - The Third Try at World Order by Harlan Cleveland, CFR member is published.  He calls for "changing Americans' attitudes and institutions"; for "complete disarmament (except for international soldiers)"; for "fairer distribution of worldly goods through a new International Economic Order"; and for "international standard for individual entitlement to food, health and education."
 
1977 - July: The Atlantic Monthly publishes "The Trilateral Connection" by former Washington Post columnist Jeremiah Novak, in which he states:  "For the third time in this century, a group of American scholars, businessmen, and government officials is planning to fashion a New World Order."
 
 
1979 - Fidel Castro, Associated Press Oct 12 1979 at the United Nations.   "Fidel Castro finger waving in the air and angry fist thumping the lectern, demanded a "new world order" and dressed down the United States today for "aggressive" and "exploitative" policies around the world."
 
1982 - "Just as  there must come a new world economic order, there must come a new world communication order.....It will take time, but it must come."  Christian Century April 14, 1982 p. 442, by William F. Fore.
 
1986 - Regarding "the establishment" of which George Bush was a member, a book was written about some of its leaders and was titled The Wise Men (1986).  It was co-authored by Rhodes Scholar, CFR member, and a Time editor, Walter isaacson, who described how 6 leaders "shaped a new world order," were internationalists, and had a "common outlook."   One of them, Chip Bohlen, was quoted as saying about socialism:  "maybe that is the road we ought to go down."   Also in the book one reads that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1965 wrote:  "The New York financial and legal community was the heart of the American establishment....its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations."
 
1988 - George Bush would run for the presidency of the United States in 1988, and on Feb 10, The Washington Post quoted David Rockefeller as remarking that  "He's (Bush) one of us ('the establishment')....If he were president, he would be in a better position than anyone else to pull together the people in the country who believe that we are in fact living in one world and have to act that way."
 
1988 - Mikhail Gorbachev speaking at UN , The Boston Globe Dec 8 1988  "....He called for a "new world order" founded not on force but on dialogue......."
 
1989 - President Bush gave the commencement address at Texas A & M University on May 12, he which he stated "Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order....Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations." --Arizona Daily Star, May 12.
 
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev quoted in Washington Post Feb 25 1990   "...A new world order is taking shape so fast that governments are well as private citizens find it difficult just to absorb the gallop of events....."
 
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev speaking at Stanford University quoted by Sentinel wire services Jun 5 1990  "Saying the world should not debate who won the Cold War, Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev called Monday for the United states and Soviet Union to be partners in building "a new world order"...."Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order"....
 
1991 - May 18 Valley Times, Pleasanton, CA an article entitled "Shevardnadze touts U.N.", staff writer Jeanie R. Wakeland writes about a speech in San Francisco sponsored by the World Affairs Council:  "Shevardnadze said the United nations cannot do anything if its decisions aren't carried out by all members.  nations can be made to feel they 'lose' if they go against a U.N. position, Shevardnadze said.  'If we can rely on the (U.N.) position, we can build on this for a new world order."
 
1991 - Associated Press June 6, Oslo, Norway:    "Mikhail Gorbachev said yesterday in his Nobel Peace lecture that Western failure to heed his call for economic aid could dash hopes for a peaceful new world order.....'To me, it is self-evident that if Soviet perestroika succeeds, there will be a real chance of building a new world order.' "
 
 

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #255 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 12:19:02 »
President Bush (SR) quotes on new world order and United nations:
 
"Time and again in this century, the political map of the world was transformed.  And in each instance, a new world order came about through the advent of a new tyrant or the outbreak of a bloody global war, or its end."  Feb 28, 1990---this quote is six months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August.
 
"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge......  We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."    --Sep 11 1990
 
Pres Bush delivers an address to Congress titled "Toward a New World Order," regarding the crisis in the Persian Gulf after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August.  He will follow this with and October 1 address to the U.N., in which he will speak of the "collective strength of the world community expressed by the U.N....a historic movement towards a new world order."
 
"I think what's at stake here is the new world order....a reinvigorated United Nations." -Jan 7 1991
 
"(The Gulf crisis) has to do with a new world order.  And that world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United nations proves to be effective."  -Jan 9 1991
 
"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders."  -Jan 16 1991
 
A quote from an invitation sent to Republican contributors throughout the United Stated in May 1991:  "Now, our President faces greater tasks.  And he must have help from like-minded men and women in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who can help him establish the "new world order" he seeks."
 
1992 - July 20 Time magazine published "The Birth of the Global Nation" by Strobe Talbott (Rhodes scholar roommate of Bill Clinton at Oxford University, CFR director, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace board of directors member, and Trilateralist from a wealthy Ohio investment banking family), in which he writes:  All countries are basically social arrangements....No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary....Perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all....But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government."
 
1992 - August 26: The New York Times publishes "The World Needs an Army on Call" by U.S. Senator David Boren (Rhodes Scholar 1963, CFR member, and member of "Skull and Bones") in which he states:  "In the aftermath of World War II, President Truman wanted to empower the United Nations to create a new world order....Richard Gardner proposes that forty to fifty member nations contribute to a rapid-deployment force of one hundred thousand volunteers that could train under common leadership....It is time for us to create such a force....The existence of such a force would go a long way toward making the "new world order" more than just a slogan."
 
1993 - Jan 13: Confirmation hearings are held for CFR member Warren Christopher's nomination to be Secretary of State.  He and Senator Joseph Biden discuss the possibility of NATO becoming a peacekeeping surrogate for the U.N. "to foster the creation of a new world order."  That is just what happened in Bosnia.
 
1993 - April 21: General Colin Powell receives the United Nations Association-USA's Global Leadership Award, and he remarks:  "The United Nations will spearhead our efforts to manage the new conflicts (that afflict our world)....Yes the principles of the United Nations Charter are worth our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."      !!!!!?????
 
1993 - May 4: New CFR president Leslie Gelb (formerly and editor at The New York Times ) says on "The Charlie Rose Show" that  "...you(Charlie Rose) had me on (before) to talk about the new world order....I talk about it all the time....It's one world now...."
 
1993 - June 22.  In case there is any doubt about whether President Clinton(CFR) supports world government, on this date he signs a letter to the World Federalist Association congratulating Strobe Talbott(CFR) on receiving (june 24) the WFA's first "Norman Cousins Global Governance Award."  The WFA is a leading force for world federal government.  Clinton's letter states:  "Norman Cousins worked for world peace and world government...Strobe Talbott's lifetime achievements as a voice for global harmony have earned him this recognition....He will be a worthy recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award.  Best wishes....for future success."
 
1993 - July 18:  CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in The Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA:  "What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system....a first step toward a new world order."
 
1993 - September 9:  Concerning whether U.S. troops should remain in Somalia as part of a U.N. operation, General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that a pullout would be "devastating to our hopes for the new world order and our ability to participate in multinational organizations to deal with problems like this."
 
1993 - W. Scott Thompson (Rhodes Scholar 1963-66) writes "Conflict and Conflict Resolution:  On to the Twenty-First Century"  for the federal United Stated Institute of Peace, of which he is a board member appointed by President Reagan in 1986.  In this article, Thompson writes about "a positive factor: the greater reliance on (and opportunity for) the United Nations to resolve perennial conflicts....In addition to a strengthened U.N., a New World Order requires understandings and divisions of labor among like-minded friends across the globe."
 
1994 - World Federalist Association will publish The Genius of Federation:  Why World Federation Is the Answer to Global Problems, which will state:  "Let the U.N. establish new agencies such as an International Criminal Court....National sovereignty would be gradually eroded until it is no longer an issue.  Eventually a world federation can be formally adopted with little resistance."
 
1994 - April 14:  Americans are killed as a result of a "friendly fire" attack while patrolling over Iraq, and Vice-President Al Gore will refer to them as "those who died in the service of the United Nations."     !!!!!?????
 
1994 - May 3:  President Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive 25, which strengthens the U.N. and describes how American soldiers will serve under foreign commanders.  PDD25 will only be released to top administration officials and a few member of Congress, the general public is refused access.
 
1994 - the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor March 1995 quotes Vladimir Zhirinovsky on Nov 9 at a press conference at the U.N. said,  "There has long been a hidden agenda to merge America and Russia under the New World Order."
 
1995 - Jan 27:  Billionaire financier George Soros at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, says the world needs a "new world order," and he further warns: "I am here to alert you that we are entering a period of world disorder."
 
1995 - July/August: In the CFR's Foreign Affairs, prominent CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. exclaims:  "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."
 
1995 - The report, "Our Global Neighborhood," by The Commission on Global Governance (partly funded by the U.N. Development Program and endorsed by the U.N. Secretary-General) is released, and states:  "A new world order must be organized....Global governance is the way we manage global affairs....nations have to accept that in certain fields, sovereignty has to be exercised collectively....We need to accept that there may be circumstances within countries when the security of people is so severely violated that external intervention becomes justified.  We propose that the U.N. Charter be amended to permit intervention in such circumstances....We believe that there is a need for a highly trained U.N. Volunteer (military) Force....Accelerated progress must be made toward demilitarizing the international society...We strongly endorse community initiatives to ...encourage the disarming of civilians....The inadequac
 
1996 - Jan 24:  U.S. Army Specialist Michael New is convicted at a court-martial on a charge of refusing an order to wear a U.N. insignia.
 
1996 - A Reporter's Life by Walter Cronkite is published, in which he proclaims:  " if we are to avoid catastrophe, a system of world order--preferably a system of world government --is mandatory.  The proud nations someday will ....yield up their precious sovereignty."
 
1996 - May 11 Journalist Joan Veon interviews David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World (1995) and former Ford Foundation project specialist in Manila.  In this interview, Korten claims that:  "the World Trade Organization is creating a world government in which one organization which is totally unelected, wholly secretive....with the power to virtually override and local or national laws if those in any way inconvenience global corporations....It was a terrible shock (to those of us who supported Bill Clinton) when Clinton came in and GATT and NAFTA became the centerpieces of his policy....And in a sense, there was almost a seamless transition from President Bush to President Clinton in that regard....Our democracy has been rendered meaningless by big money.  The truth is there are politicians (who) are owned lock, stock and barrel by the big money interests....Our elections create, to some extent, a facade of choice."   
1996 - October 23:  On "The Charlie Rose Show" on the Public Broadcasting System, Mikhail Gorbachev states: "We are part of the Cosmos.  Cosmos is my God.  Nature is my God....The future society will be a totally new civilization which will synthesize the experience of Socialism and Capitalism...."
 
1998 - May 5:  The New York Times publishes "The New World Order" by A. M. Rosenthal, in which he writes:  "The U.S., its democratic allies and major dictatorships are rapidly building a new world order....The U.S. gets to sell strategic material to China, offering as an extra a visit by the U.S. President to honor the Communist leaders and expand their power and political life span.  Religious and political mavericks in the totalitarian partners of the new world order get prison, or death, often both.  The press of the democracies gets to write about the growth of order in the new order.  Other citizens of the democracies get to say costs of imported goods are down, how nice.  Americans and Europeans may come to object for political or moral reasons, or because the new world order may after all cost
 
2001 - "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order."  (Gary Hart, at a televised meting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C. Sept 14.)
 
 
 
SELECTED WARNINGS ABOUT A 'NEW WORLD ORDER'  from the founder of The John Birch Society, Robert Welch, and published in the Society's Bulletin:
 
1972 - May, page 10   "Or, as fellow Insider Mr. James Reston of the New York Times enthusiastically puts it, deliberately using the two-hundred years old language and slogan of the Conspiracy -- 'Mr. Nixon cannot become the head of a new world order (Novus Ordo Seclorum) unless the Communist nations are brought into the world order....' "
 
1972 - Sept, page 29  "This plan is to establish -- very soon -- the first stages of a 'new world order.'  This will be the novus ordo seclorum for which a self-perpetuating inner circle of Conspirators has been working and scheming relentlessly during some six generations...."
 
1972 - Oct, page 28   "There should be no surprise for longtime readers of the Bulletin....that those plans include the conversion of the United States into a socialist nation....and the merger of that enslaved segment of mankind with other Communist nations into a New World Order.  That goal, under that very name -- originally written in bastardized Latin as novus ordo seclorum -- has been envisioned by a Master Conspiracy for the past two hundred years as the ultimate product of all its crimes against humanity, and of all its subversive onslaughts against western civilization."

 

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11699
  • Manna: 169
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #256 on: Sat Feb 18, 2012 - 15:43:11 »
Now I am being credited with Nick's quotes.  (By the way he makes his living as an accountant so I think he understands and audit)  However, I am inclined to join Nick in no longer responding to RP supporters there is no reasoning with folks living in a fantasy world.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #257 on: Sun Feb 19, 2012 - 09:12:26 »
Now I am being credited with Nick's quotes.  (By the way he makes his living as an accountant so I think he understands and audit)  However, I am inclined to join Nick in no longer responding to RP supporters there is no reasoning with folks living in a fantasy world.

Yeah right. You have nothing to say to counter what president, congressmen, senators and other prominant people have said so run away.

You're running from a truth you can't handle. You're in denial

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #258 on: Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 08:06:50 »
If the Ron Paul supporters I've read on here are any indication Paul actually has a very poor understanding of economics.

Thats just silly.

No, it isn't.  The Fed is audited every year.  That's a fact.  A gold standard is logically impossible.  That's a fact.   

 

Then change the Constitution that requires a gold standard

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #259 on: Thu Feb 23, 2012 - 14:16:59 »
This from a Baptist Pastor and former presidential candidate

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4609

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #260 on: Thu Feb 23, 2012 - 14:37:48 »
If the Ron Paul supporters I've read on here are any indication Paul actually has a very poor understanding of economics.


Thats just silly.


No, it isn't.  The Fed is audited every year.  That's a fact.  A gold standard is logically impossible.  That's a fact.  

 


They are NOT audited "every year" by Congress and it's Congress who, as per our Constitution is the ONLY entity legally charged with control of our currency.
But as far as audits here is Berny Sanders (yeah I know he's a socialist) talking about the FIRST EVER audit of the Fed revealing $16  TRILLION transferred to foreign banks.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3


So if you don't believe Sanders because he's a filthy socialist, maybe we can believe Forbes?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

Wikipedia's summery of the Transparency Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act

A more comprehensive take on the audit of the Fed but specifically an audit of the Gold.
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1089.html

Though I admit there have been "audits" these "audits" are NOT audits by Congress who literally conducted the FIRST audit EVER of the Fed (a partial one at that) last year and revealed over $16 Trillion in bailouts to foreign banks and corporations.


It's such a shame we have so many people who are so willing to leave our children strapped with the massive amounts of debt (servitude) that we're incurring on our children's behalf. I can't see how that is something our Lord would approve of.
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 26, 2012 - 13:50:00 by Captain Shays »

Offline studybuddy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Manna: 4
  • Gender: Female
  • Math 4:24
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #261 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 01:46:48 »
I am very interested in following this thread as I have very few people in my everyday life that I feel are truly informed on the candidates.

Some of the top points of concern for me is: whether or not the candidate lives the morals they claim. (Christian claims & cheating spouses don't equate), Does the candidate seem to have a viable plan for supporting Israel?,  Will they send our military into an "undeclared war" with insufficient backing & then fail to take care of our returning wounded vets. or the families of vets?, they will have to secure our boarders in a MUCH more effective way & quit making ways for illegal immigrants to get "amnesty"., how do they plan to export illegals with "anchor babies"?  What do they plan to do to get companies taking advantage of NAFTA to bring their jobs back to home soil?, Military personnel receive a cost of living increase for each of the FIRST THREE dependents born; yet welfare recipients get cost of living  increases for EVERY dependent born; moreover, there is very little follow through to identifying "fathers" who are living with the mother & child, but not married, therefore not accountable.  Also how do the stand on the controlling marijuana issue.

I am genuinely curious for evidence on how each candidate has tracked on these issues, so please help me make an informed choice.


Offline OurGodIsOne

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #262 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 10:05:09 »
Santorum.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #263 on: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 10:21:48 »
Study Buddy)  Some of the top points of concern for me is: whether or not the candidate lives the morals they claim. (Christian claims & cheating spouses don't equate),

Captain Shays) Rick Santorum has been married to the sme wife for many years. Romney also has. They both have intact beautiful families. Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for over 50 years, and also has a beautiful intact family.
NewtWorld Order Gingrich has cheated on two different wives and is married to his third.


Study Buddy)  Does the candidate seem to have a viable plan for supporting Israel?,

That depends on what "supporting Israel" means Buddy. In the many years of this country's "support" of Israel, we have also "supported" their enemies as well. The same enemies who on three different occassions surrounded Israel and attacked them. Since the Jimmy Carter years on average we have subsidized Israel with $3.5 Billion per year while we have subsidized their enemies with $7.5 Billion every year. It's one thing to say we "support" Israel and another to have our good intentions be the road that leads to hell. If we were to eliminate ALL foreign aid to ALL countries including Israel then they would actually be much better off.
But, it's worse than that, because associated with those subsidies is a notion that we can inform them on what they can or cannot do in their own protection. Just recently our government told them not to attack Iran. When Israel attacked Iraq in the 80's our government condemned them. Only three Representatives refused to sign on to that condemnation and Ron Paul was one of them. Three different times Israel had the PLO on the ropes and could have wiped them out once and for all and, this while Yasser Arafat was still just a terrorist thug with the nickname "King of Terror" and our government stopped Israel. Most of them went on to murder more innocent Iaraeli's.
During the Oslo Accords the negotiations came to an impasse when the King of Terror turned "Prime Minister" Arafat demanded that Israel release 1,000 prisoners ALL who had Israeli blood on their hands. Clinton pushed for their release and Barak capitulated and released them. They ALL went on to murder more innocent Jews in the Infatada. One of those released prisoners was a man named Mohammod Atta who was one of the terrorists who flew a plane into the World Trade Center on 911. This is what our "support" or customary support has done.

Also. As Christians we need to be mindful to adhere to biblical accuracy. ALL through our bible it's CLEAR that God is the protector of Israel. Not the United States. So we need to be aware of what the truth is for to apply to anything or anyone the attributes of God, is actually a form of blasphemy. If God says that He is the protector of Israel then for a politician or a candidate for office makes promises like Gingrich, Santorum and Romney have made that "I will not stand by and allow our friends Israel to be destroyed" they are blaspheming and we should not vote for them.
We also know from scripture that once the Jews come back into their country Israel they will NEVER AGAIN be destroyed until Jesus returns and wipes out the antichrist and the one world government and sets His throne up in Jerusalem. So to say or imply that Israel will be destroyed without US "support" is not only blasphemy but a bold faced lie.

Then we have the Christian Just War Principles that the early Church designed and many Christian nations since then have adhered to as well the Founding Fathers of this great country.
These principles fall in line with our belief in the Prince of Peace and reject the gods of war in this fallen world system.
They are based in scripture which allow killing in four instances

1) capital punishment

2) by accident

3) self defense

4) in defense of your loved ones.

ALL other killing is a violation of the Commandment "Thou shall not murder".

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who's foreign policy and national defense falls in line with the Christian Just War Principles (which he often invokes) and that of the founding fathers as well as the Constitution.

 Study Buddy) Will they send our military into an "undeclared war" with insufficient backing & then fail to take care of our returning wounded vets. or the families of vets?,

Captain Shays) ALL of the candidates except for one advocates going to war without a formal declaration. Ron Paul.

 (Study Buddy) they will have to secure our boarders in a MUCH more effective way & quit making ways for illegal immigrants to get "amnesty"., how do they plan to export illegals with "anchor babies"?

Captain Shays) ALL of the candidates has expressed a policy to reduce illegal immigration and border security. We all have to review those policies and decide for ourselves who has the integrity to follow through and who has the most rational and compassionate plan for accomplishing it. As for me, I support Ron Paul mainly because compared to ANY OTHER elected politician over the course of his 30+ years in office he has been consistent in his voting record always adhering to his oath to uphold the Constitution not only in his rhetoric but also in his voting record. What I have seen from the others is their changable, shifting and inconsistent character in rhetoric and voting so I trust Ron Paul to do what he says and say what he means even if I may disagree with him.
Ron Paul would use the troops that now secure the North-South Korean border and the Iran-Iraq border to secure our own border with Mexico. He woujld cut out ALL government aid to ilegal immigrants like housing, health care and education. If we did that most of them would go home on their own and we wouldn't need to round them up and deport them.
 
(Study Buddy) What do they plan to do to get companies taking advantage of NAFTA to bring their jobs back to home soil?,

Captain Shays) Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who has expressed his support of a repeal of not only NAFTA, but CAFTA, SPP, WTO and IMF. ALL of these  extra-national "trade agreements" have greatly diminished our sovereignty as a nation, worked to destroy our production base (NAFTA cost us over a million jobs by 2000) and have subverted the free market. NONE are "free market" ALL are more government.
EVERY ONE of the other candidates wants to "reform" those agreements but NOT repeal them. ONLY Ron Paul wants to repeal them. You can't reform cancer. You need to cut it out!


Study Buddy) Military personnel receive a cost of living increase for each of the FIRST THREE dependents born; yet welfare recipients get cost of living  increases for EVERY dependent born; moreover, there is very little follow through to identifying "fathers" who are living with the mother & child, but not married, therefore not accountable.

Captain Shays) Our active military personnel support Ron Paul more than ALL the other candidates, Obama, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich COMBINED multiplied by FIVE. They know that he would NEVER send them into an undeclared, unnecessary war without a declaration. That he would WIN the war then come home. He also would support them after they serve our country and they KNOW that. We just can't say that about the others. Obama is going to decrease their benefits.

Study Buddy) Also how do the stand on the controlling marijuana issue.

Captain Shays) PLEASE read "Vices Are Not Crimes" by Lysinder Spooner. Also READ the book of Genesis. When God created all the plants, and fish and animals He said "It is good" (for our use). There was ONLY ONE plant that we were forbidden to eat of it's fruit-the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the center of the Garden. Unless we can believe that Marijuana is that plant, then, it's one of the other plants that God created and said was good and for our use. If we are to believe that our God is all wise and all knowing then we should believe that HE knew what He was doing when He made Marijuana. For one man to tell another man "you can touch this plant but not that plant" is not only arrogant and authoritarian but somewhat blasphemous. In Romans 14:2 says "One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegitables".
14:3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt he who does not eat, and let not him who does eat judge him who eats for God has accepted him".
14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own maser he stands or falls: and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand".
 
But, we must be careful what we do with our liberty

14:13 Therefore let us not judge each other anymore but rather determine this-not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way".
14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean to him it is unclean."
14:15 For if because of food your brother is hurt you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
14:16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil:
14:17 for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righeousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit
14:18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable and to God and approved by men
14:19 So then let us persue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another
14:20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
14:21 It is not good to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything by which your brother stumbles
14:22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who condemns not himself in what he approves.
14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not frokm faith is sin.
\

We also know that it's not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out.

What I have gatherd from my understanding of the liberties we have in Christ is that it's according to our own conscience and not a matter for the government--other people-- by force --to tell us what to eat or drink.
To say or imply that the govenrment should make ANY plant illegal is to assume that our all knowing all wise Lord made some sort of mistake when He made that plant and that the people who seek to make those plants off limits know better than God Himself.

ALL laws in the beginning of our country served but two purposes.

1) to keep us safe from whomever would do us harm. Primarily a foreign enemy, but after that, our own government, bullies, the mob, gangs, corporations, our neighbors and strangers

2) To protect our liberties from whomever would threaten them. The aforementioned list applies.

Constitutionally, the Federal Government HAS NO AUTHORITY to engage in a war on drugs or ANY OTHER individual choice we can make. Those all fall into the realm of state and local government structures.

On this ALL of the candidates except for one, Ron Paul have the same exact policy. Use the force of the Federal Govt to engage in a war on (some) drugs. The founders held to the same [osition as Ron Paul and he holds to the same position as the founding fathers


Study Buddy) I am genuinely curious for evidence on how each candidate has tracked on these issues, so please help me make an informed choice.

Captain Shays) I hope that I helped

« Last Edit: Fri Mar 02, 2012 - 10:38:32 by Captain Shays »

Offline RichSr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Manna: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #264 on: Tue Mar 06, 2012 - 10:20:11 »
I cannot demand of Rush to apologize, when so many that call themselves woman conservative treat every other  conservative like treash.
First of all; DEMAND that women be treated with respect.
NEXT DEMAND Conservatives be treated the same as  liberals; and vice versa.
Next; Start treating each other  EQUALLY. That means stop chopping each other up.
  G O L D E N  R U L E!
Let us start considering what the political system does....
When we cast a vote for a candidate, what do we think we are voting for?
Consider what abortion is ; and what we are voting for, when we vote for it.
1) Taking the life of a defenseless child. Who should be voting for or against abortion?  What would Jesus vote for?  WE will ALL stand before GOD and give an account to GOD for our voting record.
2) what should we be voting for as constituents? Lazy ness? or thje work ethic?

I have a post I dod for one of the tea parties; I will try to re do it.

I am looking for a proper place to post it.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #265 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 13:46:15 »
I cannot demand of Rush to apologize, when so many that call themselves woman conservative treat every other  conservative like treash.
First of all; DEMAND that women be treated with respect.
NEXT DEMAND Conservatives be treated the same as  liberals; and vice versa.
Next; Start treating each other  EQUALLY. That means stop chopping each other up.
  G O L D E N  R U L E!
Let us start considering what the political system does....
When we cast a vote for a candidate, what do we think we are voting for?
Consider what abortion is ; and what we are voting for, when we vote for it.
1) Taking the life of a defenseless child. Who should be voting for or against abortion?  What would Jesus vote for?  WE will ALL stand before GOD and give an account to GOD for our voting record.
2) what should we be voting for as constituents? Lazy ness? or thje work ethic?

I have a post I dod for one of the tea parties; I will try to re do it.

I am looking for a proper place to post it.

Great points but I would like to ad my concern for unborn children in the wombs of women in foreign countries that my country bombs when their country never attacked us or threatened us along with the existing children who many cruely just label "collatoral damage".

Always remember that we're followers of "The Prince of Peace" not some god of war from this fallen world system

Offline Jett22

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Manna: 18
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #266 on: Tue May 08, 2012 - 13:24:53 »
Down to two.

Here is a link to a comparison chart for those that care...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0oRX5D16N4XclBxaWxneDYtalU/edit?pli=1

causalset

  • Guest
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #267 on: Wed Jun 06, 2012 - 17:29:44 »
I vote for Ron Paul. He is the only true conservative. People like Romney are liberal and would probably go along with new world order just as much as Obama would. I mean honestly if it comes down to voting between Obama and Romney I probaby wouldn't vote because both are bad. Although I might consider writing Ron Paul in; of course writing him in wont' elect him but perhaps some sort of point would be made who knows.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4451
  • Manna: 151
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #268 on: Wed Jun 06, 2012 - 17:34:51 »
I vote for Ron Paul. He is the only true conservative. People like Romney are liberal and would probably go along with new world order just as much as Obama would. I mean honestly if it comes down to voting between Obama and Romney I probaby wouldn't vote because both are bad. Although I might consider writing Ron Paul in; of course writing him in wont' elect him but perhaps some sort of point would be made who knows.

I've considered doing the same thing. I hate seeing Obama in office, but how is Romney any better?

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #269 on: Thu Jun 07, 2012 - 16:31:38 »
There are a host of major issues...to many of us out here. Those issues though they may be very important issues really don't get talked about during elections or just about any other time in the mainstream. I for one, believe in my heart of hearts that a few of certain issues in just about any combination has the potential to destroy this country every bit as much as a foreign enemy has the potnetial to destroy us but even more so.
When you think of all the weapons we have it's difficult to imagine any country on earth who thinks they might be successful in attacking the United States. The greatest dangers lie within our own borders and are more sinister because we don't even recognize them as threats. The Federal Reserve System comes to mind. Thomas Jefferson warned that central banks are a greater threat to our liberty than standing armies on our borders. But now we have our own government acting even worse than our former government Great Briton under King George. If you doubt me, just watch Kelly Thomas get tortured to death by police when they didn't know they were being watched by a camera and listened to by a microphone as they murdered him Watch as  Hpe Steffy's clothes were wripped off of her by five cops, and four of them being men as she screamed "what are you doing?" and "help". Consider that the autorization was just signed into law to deploy 30,000 military drones to fly over our country and spy on the citizens of this country. Consider that our miitary now has the authority to arrest and detain citizens indefinately, without charges being filed and without our ability to even consult an attorney. Consider that a man from New Jersey got arressted and his 20,000 taken from him in Tenessee as he drove through on his way to buy a car and they kept his money for months before giving it back to him. Consider that an 84 year old woman was strip searched at an airport by TSA operatives while flying to visit with her son. Consider that that same orginization the TSA is on video as one of their operatives has their hands down the pants of a 6 year old girls who was crying "mommy make them stop".

Have you noticed that I didn't mention a single terrorist from another country? In every case it was our own government that did those things and took away the rights of ordinary people.

Offline Jett22

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Manna: 18
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #270 on: Thu Jun 07, 2012 - 17:31:19 »
The elites running the government peddle hatred and division and are successful because of our ignorance.

The only way to combat them is through education, love and unity.

Forget Democrats/Republicans, they control them both at the State/National level. 

Forget liberal/conservative, black/white/hispanic, rich/middle class/poor.

Every time we attack each other based on division and hatred, they win.

Even brothers and sisters in Christ attack each other on these basis.

I bet Christians who support Obama or Romney or Ron Paul have way more in common in what they want for the country than not.

The elite controlled media focuses on the differences and pits groups against each other.

As long as we stay divided as democrat/republican (or insert whatever group you want), then they will continue stealing our freedom while we bicker about contraceptives or gay marriage or any other divisive topics the elite/media want to bring up.

Faith.Man

  • Guest
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #271 on: Wed Jun 20, 2012 - 11:04:58 »
I will vote for Romney because he is pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment.  Ron Paul has some really strange foreign policy ideas and has been associated with some bigoted hate groups in the South.  BHO doesn't have a clue on how to be a president, only a dictator, and a divider not a uniter.  So I'm left with Romney.  We can't afford four more years of Chairman Obama.

Faith.Man

  • Guest
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #272 on: Thu Jun 28, 2012 - 10:52:54 »
" IF YOU DON'T LIKE MITT, HERE'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER"
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most
important question regarding the upcoming presidential election….
 
“…..if Mitt wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:

1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.

We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
 
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….

 

     
anything