You don't love Romney, how about another Bush?

[Army Of Truth]

So, I ask a very simple question; "Show me who these people are!" Lundbaek is great in showing the modern gadiantons exist, and I knew that, but as of yet has shown no proof of just who these people are!

Just as you have not Cad!

Bob

Modern day "Gadiantons" or LDGs (Latter-Day Gadiantons) are easy to find. Any politician who votes for laws that erode our rights and are unconstitutional.

Romney voted for the draconian unconstitutional NDAA. Lets just name Section 1021, for example, which allows the President to detain ANYONE he wants for ANY reason, WITHOUT trial, WITHOUT a lawyer, WITHOUT a jury, to be kidnapped and detained ANYWHERE in the world - INDEFINITELY. What part of that section is constitutional?

[bobhenstra]

So, I ask a very simple question; "Show me who these people are!" Lundbaek is great in showing the modern gadiantons exist, and I knew that, but as of yet has shown no proof of just who these people are!

Just as you have not Cad!

Bob

Modern day "Gadiantons" or LDGs (Latter-Day Gadiantons) are easy to find. Any politician who votes for laws that erode our rights and are unconstitutional.

Romney voted for the draconian unconstitutional NDAA. Lets just name Section 1021, for example, which allows the President to detain ANYONE he wants for ANY reason, WITHOUT trial, WITHOUT a lawyer, WITHOUT a jury, to be kidnapped and detained ANYWHERE in the world - INDEFINITELY. What part of that section is constitutional?

Well, at last a hint, where in the scripture do we have examples of what you suggest?

[bobhenstra]

By the way Army, Mitt did not vote for the NDAA, he wasn't in the congress, he had no vote there!

And to get things straight, I also voted twice for Ronald Reagan, and I believe he was the greatest president this nation has ever had. I also believe Mitt Romney would have been a greater president! However, some of the things Reagan did I didn't like!

Bob

[samizdat]

Elder Oaks put people like Mitt Romney within the category of those who were engaged in PRIESTCRAFT...when he was doing the things he was doing to get praise from the world, more than obeying God. That is the same as fellow priesthood-holder Harry REID is doing. Ah, but he's on the blue team so he's different.

He did so in his first talk as an Apostle in 1984. Look at the life of Dallin H. Oaks and then compare it with Mitt Romney. Both started out great, really great. Romney could have done great things within the Church but the money of politics was just too tempting for him. Oaks could have been a marvelous SCOTUS judge but the Church called him and he answered.

Goldman and other banks lining up behind Romney in 2012 in the same way that they lined up behind Obama in 2008 was the red flag for me. Then I needed to investigate for myself, put two and two together, and see that Romney would not have done things any differently...

[Army Of Truth]

By the way Army, Mitt did not vote for the NDAA, he wasn't in the congress, he had no vote there!

And to get things straight, I also voted twice for Ronald Reagan, and I believe he was the greatest president this nation has ever had. I also believe Mitt Romney would have been a greater president! However, some of the things Reagan did I didn't like!

Bob

In case you didn't see this or chose to ignore it, here is Mitt himself saying he WOULD sign the NDAA:

http://youtu.be/ivE5gJdsJrw

http://www.infowars.com/romney-would-sign-ndaa/

Prior to his recent assertion that it is perfectly normal to dispense with the Fourth Amendment and suspend habeas corpus, Romney said he wasn’t up to speed on the law and promised to post an analysis on his website, which he never did.

Romney said you don’t have the “right to join a group that has challenged America” and then mentioned al-Qaeda, the terror group that the FBI admits poses little threat to the nation.

The NDAA, however, is not about indefinitely detaining Muslim cave dwellers. It’s about disappearing American citizens who oppose the bankster cartel now in control of the government.

The law is a “violent and sudden usurpation” of the Constitution of the sort James Madison warned about. The founders considered habeas corpus the most fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could not hold people without cause. It was so important the founders included it in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

[Army Of Truth]

Well, at last a hint, where in the scripture do we have examples of what you suggest?

Examples of what - the Constitution? I'll be glad to show you some examples:

Doctrine and Covenants 101:77

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

Doctrine and Covenants 101:80

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Doctrine and Covenants 109:54

54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

[Army Of Truth]

Romney is just like all the other lying politicians, selling FEAR and WAR and agreeing to strip all of us of our rights protected by (not given by) the Constitution. Once these LDGs redefine who a "terrorist" is, guess what? We'll ALL be stripped of our rights, our guns, and our Constitution. We will then be slaves for the LDGs to do whatever they want with. Historically - this part has NOT been good.

[bobhenstra]

Elder Oaks put people like Mitt Romney within the category of those who were engaged in PRIESTCRAFT...when he was doing the things he was doing to get praise from the world, more than obeying God. That is the same as fellow priesthood-holder Harry REID is doing. Ah, but he's on the blue team so he's different.

He did so in his first talk as an Apostle in 1984. Look at the life of Dallin H. Oaks and then compare it with Mitt Romney. Both started out great, really great. Romney could have done great things within the Church but the money of politics was just too tempting for him. Oaks could have been a marvelous SCOTUS judge but the Church called him and he answered.

Goldman and other banks lining up behind Romney in 2012 in the same way that they lined up behind Obama in 2008 was the red flag for me. Then I needed to investigate for myself, put two and two together, and see that Romney would not have done things any differently...

That is nonsense Sam, Mitt met with General Authorities before he decided to run, both times. To place him in that same category that Elder Oaks was speaking of is simply wrong, and you have no proof of your false accusation! We'll never know how good a president Mitt might have made! Much better than Obama, only way to go from Obama is up!

Bob

[samizdat]

Romney is better than Obama in that Obama would take us to destruction in a bullet train going 300 miles an hour and Romney in a stock car going 200 miles per hour.

The inspiration in Obamacare was Romneycare. Romney would not have gotten ANYTHING done in the Senate as Harry Reid was going to torpedo anything that came Romney's direction.

It's more than one man, Bob. There is a cadre of people, bankers, corporations, defense, and the like who truly run the country. The Book of Mormon calls them Gadiantons.

And just because Romney told the GAs he was going to run by no means means that Romney had full GA support. What he did was priestcraft plain and simple going after the big money instead of the Constitution.

Heck, had Romney won we might even be looking at world war already. We will have it under Obama, but Romney would have gotten us there even quicker. Hence the bullet train versus the stock car.

[bobhenstra]

I already know the answer to my question, found in Isaiah chapter three and Helaman 6-8. But I thank you for your valiant efforts!

Bob

[Col. Flagg]

Yet you conveniently ignore the counsel of the priesthood leaders (who have said gift) Lunbaek posted earlier in the thread about seeking constitutionally minded men for office. Hypocrite....but we established that earlier in the thread.

Cad, I voted for the man who has the gift!

=))

[Col. Flagg]

Elder Oaks put people like Mitt Romney within the category of those who were engaged in PRIESTCRAFT...when he was doing the things he was doing to get praise from the world, more than obeying God. That is the same as fellow priesthood-holder Harry REID is doing. Ah, but he's on the blue team so he's different.

He did so in his first talk as an Apostle in 1984. Look at the life of Dallin H. Oaks and then compare it with Mitt Romney. Both started out great, really great. Romney could have done great things within the Church but the money of politics was just too tempting for him. Oaks could have been a marvelous SCOTUS judge but the Church called him and he answered.

Goldman and other banks lining up behind Romney in 2012 in the same way that they lined up behind Obama in 2008 was the red flag for me. Then I needed to investigate for myself, put two and two together, and see that Romney would not have done things any differently...

This Bob. :ymapplause:

[Col. Flagg]

I already know the answer to my question, found in Isaiah chapter three and Helaman 6-8. But I thank you for your valiant efforts!

Bob

Truth hurts don't it Bob. I don't like getting into it with you over this issue, but you've left me no other choice. If you can't see that Romney has compromised himself for political and financial gain, then I don't know what else to say.

[samizdat]

Some may serve for hope of earthly reward. Such a man or woman might serve in Church positions or in private acts of mercy in an effort to achieve prominence or cultivate contacts that would increase income or aid in acquiring wealth. Others might serve in order to obtain worldly honors, prominence, or power.

The scriptures have a word for gospel service “for the sake of riches and honor”; it is “priestcraft.” (Alma 1:16.) Nephi said, “Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.” (2 Ne. 26:29.). In these latter days, we are commanded to “seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion.” (D&C 6:6.) Unfortunately, not all who accomplish works under that heading are really intending to build up Zion or strengthen the faith of the people of God. Other motives can be at work.

Service that is ostensibly unselfish but is really for the sake of riches or honor surely comes within the Savior’s condemnation of those who “outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within … are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” (Matt. 23:28.) Such service earns no gospel reward.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Why do we Serve, October 1984 GC (Elder Oak's First talk as an Apostle)

[samizdat]

From about the Olympics on Romney did PRECISELY that which Elder Oaks condemned.

[andsmith0723]

Romney would've been the greatest president we ever had. I don't get how so many of you on this site can't see it. Bob is right, you were part of the reason why we got another 4 years of Obama. This is what happens when you let your deep held conspiracy world views -all though accurate- guide your voting. You miss the forest for the trees.
Even worse, to justify your bad voting decisions you attack Romneys character and treat him as if he's a son of perdition. Sad

[lundbaek]

Back to the who's who in the latter-day gadiantons' club. I'd almost rather do this on a separate thread or topic, but for now....

I have an email from Joel Skousen. Editor of World Affairs Brief, in which he wrote "No one outside the second highest level of the conspiracy knows. It's the best kept secret in the world, and we will never know until the secret acts of men are revealed at the Second Coming. That said, it isn't important that we know who is at the top. We would never be able to prove it anyway because they control the surveillance teams within government as well as the highest judges in the land, who would never prosecute. It is sufficient to see the workings of this conspiracy to know that it exists---the coverups, lies, false flag operations and wars they create." That puts the monkey on our backs to do the necessary homework.

It may interest some that in his book "Memoirs", published in 2002, David Rockefeller, Sr. made the following remarks: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Dr. Carroll Quigley, late renowned history professor at Georgetown, Princeton and Harvard Universities, in his book "Tragedy and Hope", which I read in its entirety, stated: "There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
"The chief problem of American political life...has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Pg 1247 - 1248
(In personal correspondence, retired columnist Charley Reese told me in about 2003 that according to Quigley’s widow, her husband was preparing to revise and update the book when he discovered the printing plates had been destroyed by the publisher. In another statement to me from Charley Reese which I apparently have lost, Quigley said he realized he had offended some powerful people in writing "Tragedy And Hope". )

I don't want to hijack this thread any further.

Oops, one more thing. Someone ridiculed the belief that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor. In 1954, when I was 16 years old, a retired USN Admiral Robert Theobald, who was a rear admiral at Pearl Harbour on 12/07/41 spoke at the Salem Marine Society in Salem, Massaachusetts of his convictions that FDR & Co. did know of the impending attack, and that Admiral Halsey concurred that intel had been withheld from the commanders on Hawaii. In 2001 I had a private conversation with a Mrs. Ralph Briggs in Henderson, Nevada, who told me that her husband, Ralph Briggs, knew from a Japanese radio transmission he intercepted on 4 December 1941 that the Japanese planned to attack the United States. She let me read an affidavit he wrote and told me that he was muzzled by the Navy and why he waited so long to blow the whistle. Thanks to now declassified intelligence files preceding Pearl Harbor, many other evidences of foreknowledge of the Japanese attack have gotten out of the bag.

[Col. Flagg]

Romney would've been the greatest president we ever had. I don't get how so many of you on this site can't see it. Bob is right, you were part of the reason why we got another 4 years of Obama. This is what happens when you let your deep held conspiracy world views -all though accurate- guide your voting. You miss the forest for the trees.
Even worse, to justify your bad voting decisions you attack Romneys character and treat him as if he's a son of perdition. Sad

By their fruits shall ye know them. What were Romney's fruits? What were Obama's fruits? What were Ron Paul's fruits? Romney and Obama were funded and backed by the same powerful money and corporate interests, in fact, Romney may have been slightly worse since he was 100% in the military-industrial complex's corner... not sure I can say the same about Obama, although, he has stepped up the so-called 'war-effort' for the MIC since being re-elected. Romney is also clueless when it comes to secret combinations in our midst. Neither men are their own man either... they are beholden to special interest groups, big money and their party. Big red flags. Anyone who thinks we'd be seeing different right now with a Romney presidency just isn't awake or aware to the fact that Gadiantons are in control and in order to get elected or even promoted to the top of your own political party, you have to be compromised. This is why it was so difficult for someone like Ron Paul to win the nomination. It has nothing to do with 'electability' or his ideas, words or actions... it was because he would have tried to make a difference for we, the people while refusing to play ball with the powerful elite behind the scenes. That's reality.

[caddis]

Romney would've been the greatest president we ever had. I don't get how so many of you on this site can't see it. Bob is right, you were part of the reason why we got another 4 years of Obama. This is what happens when you let your deep held conspiracy world views -all though accurate- guide your voting. You miss the forest for the trees.
Even worse, to justify your bad voting decisions you attack Romneys character and treat him as if he's a son of perdition. Sad

Oh good. Another Mormon voter that likes to blame others because they stuck to their principles and followed the counsel found in D&C and from past LDS leaders.
If you have no problem with bending your principles then you should have voted for "our guy". That way those unwilling to compromise theirs could have been added to the numbers and possibly defeated the great zero.
As soon as the red team figures out they need us more than we need them they might actually win again. The only way that will happen is when they stop running progressives to represent the red team.

[Rensai]

Don't kid yourselves. Why are you fighting or blaming each other? Romney didn't lose because the libertarians didn't support him and worrying about how others voted is pointless. The vote is a sham. Go research it. There was voter fraud taking place in key areas. The truth is, you have no say in this government and your vote doesn't matter so why argue about it your meaningless votes? The gadiantons wanted Obama so that's the end of it.

http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelal ... /page/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11 ... n-romneys/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vote Fraud - Diebold Whistleblower Speaks Out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rMpQKqZhM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bobhenstra]

Because it's fun! Libertarians are easy to tweak!

[Army Of Truth]

Because it's fun! Libertarians are easy to tweak!

:)) :)) =))

I think Republicans and Democrats are even more easier.

[andsmith0723]

Romney would've been the greatest president we ever had. I don't get how so many of you on this site can't see it. Bob is right, you were part of the reason why we got another 4 years of Obama. This is what happens when you let your deep held conspiracy world views -all though accurate- guide your voting. You miss the forest for the trees.
Even worse, to justify your bad voting decisions you attack Romneys character and treat him as if he's a son of perdition. Sad

By their fruits shall ye know them. What were Romney's fruits? What were Obama's fruits? What were Ron Paul's fruits? Romney and Obama were funded and backed by the same powerful money and corporate interests, in fact, Romney may have been slightly worse since he was 100% in the military-industrial complex's corner... not sure I can say the same about Obama, although, he has stepped up the so-called 'war-effort' for the MIC since being re-elected. Romney is also clueless when it comes to secret combinations in our midst. Neither men are their own man either... they are beholden to special interest groups, big money and their party. Big red flags. Anyone who thinks we'd be seeing different right now with a Romney presidency just isn't awake or aware to the fact that Gadiantons are in control and in order to get elected or even promoted to the top of your own political party, you have to be compromised. This is why it was so difficult for someone like Ron Paul to win the nomination. It has nothing to do with 'electability' or his ideas, words or actions... it was because he would have tried to make a difference for we, the people while refusing to play ball with the powerful elite behind the scenes. That's reality.

That's reality-According to Col. Flagg*
Romneys fruits are being a very succesful, happily married, righteous priesthood holder with impeccable smarts and governing skills. He'd have been among the smartest presidents ever.
What proof do you have that romney was "compromised"? According to you there was absolutely no way for Romney to become the parties nominee without somehow being a gadianton puppet. Last I checked Romney was not a shoe in for the nomination, he struggled and struggled even losing four years prior in 2008. Where's the evidence that he wouldn't have "made a difference for we, the people?" You're spouting pure speculative CRAP. You act as if you know Ron Paul as a dear friend knowing his every hearts intent, and the same of Romney. Your "reality" is...again I repeat...pure speculative crap.

[Col. Flagg]

That's reality-According to Col. Flagg*
Romneys fruits are being a very succesful, happily married, righteous priesthood holder with impeccable smarts and governing skills. He'd have been among the smartest presidents ever.

Was Joseph Smith rich, married, politically-savvy and charismatic when the Lord restored the gospel through him? I happen to think Obama is pretty smart too. See where I'm going?

What proof do you have that romney was "compromised"?

Like myself and others have already stated, he was being funded and supported by the same entities that backed Obama the first time around (and some, the second as well). Both parties are incredibly corrupt and in order to become their nominee as well as supported by the mainstream media, you have to be compromised, in other words, beholden to others' financial interests that trump the public's. Romney was quite the warhawk when it came to this bogus 'war on terror'... he supported most (if not all) of the unconstitutional crap that was born and has continued to evolve since the false flag/inside job that was 9/11 while clamoring for bail-outs for the parasites/criminals in our financial system who should have been prosecuted for high crimes against humanity instead. And let us not forget... the 'Priesthood holder' once said on a Boston TV station that he didn't know for sure whether God had spoken to anyone since Moses. :ymsick:

According to you there was absolutely no way for Romney to become the parties nominee without somehow being a gadianton puppet.

Bingo!

Last I checked Romney was not a shoe in for the nomination, he struggled and struggled even losing four years prior in 2008.

Was Romney ever crucified by the Washington, DC body politic and mainstream media the way Ron Paul was? Was he ever 'put through the ringer'? Was he embraced by the republican party? No, no and yes. And let us not forget about Romney's voting record... if he saw that any of his positions threatened his political career/ambitions, he simply changed his mind, hence, he earned the nickname 'Flip Romney'. I can't think of one issue he hasn't either wavered or flip-flopped on. Now there's a man of integrity, principle and conviction. :ymsick: Watch and weep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0m_xXvQlvg

Where's the evidence that he wouldn't have "made a difference for we, the people?"

Obviously, there is no way of knowing this, but we can deduce many things based on his words, actions as Massachussetts Governor and support/disdain for all things political and when you look at it all, a sad picture emerges. Based on Romney's support for so much unconstitutional, illegal and criminal legislation born from the fraud of 9/11, it is clear that Romney either supports the Gadiantons, is completely oblivious to what is really going on, is just plain ignorant or all three. In either of those 3 cases, it's a vote of no confidence for me when it comes to standing for the Constitution, rule of law and principle.

You're spouting pure speculative CRAP.

What's speculation?

You act as if you know Ron Paul as a dear friend knowing his every hearts intent, and the same of Romney.

By their fruits man... by their fruits. I like and know Ron's fruits... they're his voting record and it is admirable and a defense of the Constitution, freedom, liberty and truth. No such luck with Mitt.

Your "reality" is...again I repeat...pure speculative crap.

Go and research Ron Paul's voting record and then compare it with Mitt Romney's and his statements while running for President... it's not even a contest.

[bobhenstra]

Flagg, Ron Paul's fruits were dumping you his followers taking your money and getting out of the race at the last moment! He's a quitter, a thief and inspite of the obvious, you still do not see it!

The blind leading the blind!