LDS Freedom Forum

patriotsaint wrote:

Jason wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:I agree that revisionists paint the founders in a bad light, but in every case I mentioned (except Jefferson) you can read the founder's own writings regarding what I posted.

I'm not saying that there aren't attempts to smear the founders. I'm simply saying that they made mistakes like any other men and there is ample evidence provided in their own journals etc. If they said it themselves, how is it revisionist or taken out of context? Hamilton confessed his affair publicly. Adams wrote of the Alien and Sedition acts and his regret. Franklin was quite open about his illegitimate son William (who later became the governor of New Jersey). So again I ask, what is being taken out of context or revised in the examples I provided?

Nothing....I think we are two entirely different wavelengths!

It would seem so! /shakes jason's hand

Jason wrote:
Shakes hand back! I was just venting in terms of generalities...not in regard to the specific information you posted. Sorry!

Jason wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:

Jason wrote:...

May I remind you that you were the one bringing up the "dirty laundry"....if in fact there is any....which you have yet to provide any evidence to support your statements....

I was pointing out that imperfect people, such as our founding fathers, can still do great things and they (as well as other imperfect people) shouldn't be written off. The truth is that even though God's truth is black and white... Life itself is not black and white. Truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

When I said that I didn't want to delve deeper into their sins, other than to acknowledge (for the sake of the "temperance in all things"-discussion) that that they had them, Mosby accused me of being a revisionist for not wanting to look deeper into their sins. I was then responding to his accusation.

Ironically, even in the discussion of the imperfections of the founding fathers, I was seeking temperance. I didn't go with the extreme of pretending they were perfect, neither did I find any value in trying to paint them as Satan himself. The truth, as it so often is, lies between those 2 extremes (although I would add that I believe that the founding fathers leaned heavily on the "good" side of that range ).

Do I need to quote your statement on adultery to keep you from dodging the issue?

Jason wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:

Jason wrote:...

So is it one out of a hundred then.....yet being portrayed as 99/100?

I'm not portraying anything, merely providing a reference on adultery as requested. I love the founders and am certain that the vast majority were wonderful men. There's a quote from a prophet somewhere saying they were the best spirits on the earth at that time. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

However, they were human like the rest of us. Franklin loved wine and women and had an illegitimate son. Jefferson was rumored to have had children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings. John Adams, despite being the "lion on the floor" to get the Declaration approved and signed gave us the horribly unconstitutional "alien and sedition acts".

Knowing that they were imperfect though doesn't take away my respect for them. A hard look at my life wouldn't be all that flattering. Especially if one were specifically looking for the negative.

That's the point....most of it is just rumors or worse yet....historical revision. If you go back to the history books utilized prior to foundation involvement (pre-1920's) you get a whole different version of history. Ironic that a couple hundred years after the fact....suddenly history professors know the intimate details of the founder's lives when those details weren't available 50 to a 100 years after their deaths.

But lots of folks buy this crap as the gospel truth today.

TonyOlsen wrote:

Jason wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:I was pointing out that imperfect people, such as our founding fathers, can still do great things and they (as well as other imperfect people) shouldn't be written off. The truth is that even though God's truth is black and white... Life itself is not black and white. Truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

When I said that I didn't want to delve deeper into their sins, other than to acknowledge (for the sake of the "temperance in all things"-discussion) that that they had them, Mosby accused me of being a revisionist for not wanting to look deeper into their sins. I was then responding to his accusation.

Ironically, even in the discussion of the imperfections of the founding fathers, I was seeking temperance. I didn't go with the extreme of pretending they were perfect, neither did I find any value in trying to paint them as Satan himself. The truth, as it so often is, lies between those 2 extremes (although I would add that I believe that the founding fathers leaned heavily on the "good" side of that range ).

Do I need to quote your statement on adultery to keep you from dodging the issue?

If it makes you feel better about yourself... sure go ahead.

I have not forgotten what I said, neither did my last statement imply that I did not say it. I pointed out that many of the Founding Fathers were imperfect (including evils such as Adultery), but I don't want to go deeper into it. I mentioned that they were imperfect, you asked "how so", and I brought up the adultery. I then didn't want to go deeper into it and was called a revisionist.

What exactly do you feel I'm dodging from here? Are you disappointed that I don't want to delve deeper into their sins other than simply acknowledging that they were imperfect... and despite their imperfections, God work a great work through them? I honestly do not know what your objection or disappointment is.

I would ask you to clarify, but this might just be one of those questions I ask which you do not answer.

pjbrownie wrote:See I'd just pick out the cockroach,
but that's me

pjbrownie wrote:See I'd just pick out the cockroach, but that's me

dconrad000 wrote:...from another thread...applies here, also...

dconrad000 wrote:Here is how I see it:

Controlled Opposition

From the standpoint of Rupert Murdock and his ilk -- who write GB's checks...it is called controlled opposition. They need a place for conservatives to tune in, where they can have some control. It does not hurt the secret combination that much to have GB talk about the constitution; government corruption; warning against socialism and communism; warning people that hard times are ahead and they should get prepared, etc., etc. Good conservatives already understand those things, anyway...and those are areas that conservatives can and do resonate with GB on.

Where they really get their $40 million dollars per year's worth with GB, however -- is to have him demonizing the 9/11 truth movement; and at critical junctures, when it makes a difference in elections -- to have true constitutionalists like Ron Paul and Debra Medina derailed. (He then of course, after the damage is done & it's too late -- always seems to come out and says I'm sorry, I was wrong.)

They have also certainly gotten their money's worth, as well with GB's promotion of George Bush & his policies (the entire time he was in office); beating the drums for the phony war on terror; pushing through the Patriot Acts I & II; pushing through the Bankster Bailout; promoting new taxes to pay for the Bankster Bail out...and of course only when the jig is up on all those things and it's too late, does GB then seem to always come out against those things...so that his conservative audience can forgive him and say he's growing, he's changing.

Whether GB is aware of it or not...whether he is sincere in the things that he does or not...he is being played like a fiddle...and I can assure you, that those cunning men who are paying out the $40 million per year feel as though they are certainly getting their money's worth.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:I will ask this again:

Isn't Beck's endgame theory of conspirators planning on "collapsing the system" along the same lines, if not much worse, than government false-flag attacks?

Seems to me that if Glenn accepts one, he must accept the other.

Mark wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:I will ask this again:

Isn't Beck's endgame theory of conspirators planning on "collapsing the system" along the same lines, if not much worse, than government false-flag attacks?

Seems to me that if Glenn accepts one, he must accept the other.

Not necessarily Info. Glenn has discussed at length the Cloward Piven strategy that seems to be in play with this administration. There is ample evidence at hand to suspect that this philosophy can very well be a real possibility of being implemented by these snakes. However govt false flag attacks is another animal completely. The United States has enemies galore all over this globe. Any number of these enemies can combine to bring us to our knees financially or otherwise. Heck Soviet spetsnaz special ops made a living out of grey terror attacks and disruptions of their enemies systems. If you blame all US terror attacks on an internal govt false flag philosophy like Bullhorn Jones and others have done multiple times you are painting yourself into a corner and can be used as a useful idiot by these other outside conspirators who would love to shift blame for their part in those attacks. That is communist 101 strategy. To ignore that is to completely ignore centuries of lessons from the past.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Mark wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:I will ask this again:

Isn't Beck's endgame theory of conspirators planning on "collapsing the system" along the same lines, if not much worse, than government false-flag attacks?

Seems to me that if Glenn accepts one, he must accept the other.

Not necessarily Info. Glenn has discussed at length the Cloward Piven strategy that seems to be in play with this administration. There is ample evidence at hand to suspect that this philosophy can very well be a real possibility of being implemented by these snakes. However govt false flag attacks is another animal completely. The United States has enemies galore all over this globe. Any number of these enemies can combine to bring us to our knees financially or otherwise. Heck Soviet spetsnaz special ops made a living out of grey terror attacks and disruptions of their enemies systems. If you blame all US terror attacks on an internal govt false flag philosophy like Bullhorn Jones and others have done multiple times you are painting yourself into a corner and can be used as a useful idiot by these other outside conspirators who would love to shift blame for their part in those attacks. That is communist 101 strategy. To ignore that is to completely ignore centuries of lessons from the past.

Glenn Beck himself believes that this is not the case. He believes that our economies are tied together for better or worse and those countries like Russia and China depend on us being around. Also, how is this Cloward & Piven strategy NOT internal? I wonder if you realize that the goal of the NWO is to take down the U.S. just as you believe the communist ideology has the same goal. Communism/socialism is just a tool of the NWO. Once we are out of the way (being a sovereign nation) then their plans will roll forth at break-neck speed to create a one world government. I also wonder if you have read up on Operation Northwoods. Don't you think a "progressive" administration would implement something similar to this to bring about incremental changes based on fear? i.e. The Patriot Act.

What are your thoughts on the underwear bomber?

Mark wrote:
I am not following you info. I never said that this Cloward and Piven strategy is not internally administered. It is being implemented by elitist socialist driven ideologues from within. However I get the idea from you that you think this one worlds govt threat comes exclusively from the western world as well. That is illogical to me. There are many tyranny driven ideologues throughout the world who seek to control and dominate their brethren. It is not an exclusively western thing. Communist dictators only seek to partner with western money men to the extent that they can use them until they eventually will abuse them. Do you really think that those who rule over countries like Russia and China are planning together with the Rockefellers and Goldman Saks bigwigs to create a world govt where they will share in power and control over the masses? Power is a jealous master. It aint gonna happen. Back stabbing will become common place. Strength and might will rule the day.

Original_Intent wrote:

Mark wrote:
I am not following you info. I never said that this Cloward and Piven strategy is not internally administered. It is being implemented by elitist socialist driven ideologues from within. However I get the idea from you that you think this one worlds govt threat comes exclusively from the western world as well. That is illogical to me. There are many tyranny driven ideologues throughout the world who seek to control and dominate their brethren. It is not an exclusively western thing. Communist dictators only seek to partner with western money men to the extent that they can use them until they eventually will abuse them. Do you really think that those who rule over countries like Russia and China are planning together with the Rockefellers and Goldman Saks bigwigs to create a world govt where they will share in power and control over the masses? Power is a jealous master. It aint gonna happen. Back stabbing will become common place. Strength and might will rule the day.

That's where I disagree with you, Mark. The communists, socialists and Nazi's have always been funded by "capitalists". I agree with you it is not an internal only thing. I would say that they do not view it as an internal vs. external idea even. For instance, false flag events I do not consider as being done from within. That is not the defining characterisitc of a flase flag event, it is that misdirection as to the cuplrits are involved. Not saying it has happened, but Russia could run a flase flag event against the U.S., and make it look like Afghanistan did it. So I have seen a bit of confusion that people think that false flag always means blaming the U.S. government.

Second point along the same lines is event things that are done by our government - those people that orchestrate such things in my opinion are infiltrators. I see them all as the enemy, and the internal vs. external is kind of nebulous and unimportant. They certainly do not feel some nationalistic pride in the U.S., they are just carrying out their assignment for those that want to bring the U.S. down.

Mark wrote:I am not following you info. I never said that this Cloward and Piven strategy is not internally administered. It is being implemented by elitist socialist driven ideologues from within. However I get the idea from you that you think this one worlds govt threat comes exclusively from the western world as well. That is illogical to me. There are many tyranny driven ideologues throughout the world who seek to control and dominate their brethren. It is not an exclusively western thing. Communist dictators only seek to partner with western money men to the extent that they can use them until they eventually will abuse them. Do you really think that those who rule over countries like Russia and China are planning together with the Rockefellers and Goldman Saks bigwigs to create a world govt where they will share in power and control over the masses? Power is a jealous master. It aint gonna happen. Back stabbing will become common place. Strength and might will rule the day.

However, they were human like the rest of us. Franklin loved wine and women and had an illegitimate son. Jefferson was rumored to have had children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Mark wrote:I am not following you info. I never said that this Cloward and Piven strategy is not internally administered. It is being implemented by elitist socialist driven ideologues from within. However I get the idea from you that you think this one worlds govt threat comes exclusively from the western world as well. That is illogical to me. There are many tyranny driven ideologues throughout the world who seek to control and dominate their brethren. It is not an exclusively western thing. Communist dictators only seek to partner with western money men to the extent that they can use them until they eventually will abuse them. Do you really think that those who rule over countries like Russia and China are planning together with the Rockefellers and Goldman Saks bigwigs to create a world govt where they will share in power and control over the masses? Power is a jealous master. It aint gonna happen. Back stabbing will become common place. Strength and might will rule the day.

Mark, you were talking of how we got to where we are because of outside communistic influences. The thing is, I agree with you on that point. I do not believe that these evil influences for one world govt. come solely from the western world. I agree with Original Intent that it isn't necessarily internal vs. external, but rather all external whether or not the occurrences originate within our own political process. As for your thoughts on dictators aligning themselves with western moneybags, I agree that power is a jealous master and not all countries/dictatorships wish to be in a league where power is shared. But for the most part I would argue that much of what we see today, with regards to world superpowers, is that there seems to be a push for global governance. (This is also compliance from countries such as Russia and China.) They don't need to destroy us with their military might because they know that they already have us in the bag (Cloward & Piven.) Where Glenn Beck comes in, my personal opinion is that I hope that he is in the honest process of waking up to new truths. I am disappointed from time to time when he speaks out against true patriots like Ron Paul. Also when it comes time to put the rubber to the road, his actions doesn't seem to match up with what he preaches. I want to be wrong about him, but I cannot honestly trust in him at this point. I believe he has half of the entire vision. I'd call it the "politics" part of it, which is all true. The second half is the nitty-gritty inner workings and cloaked international mechanics that have been hidden from much of history. His pride will not allow him to even consider venturing further than the first half because it portrays the U.S. in a not-so glorious light. My metaphor on this whole thing is: Glenn Beck is the Baptist in a bible bash with LDS missionaries about the Book of Mormon. Still a Christian, but misled and unwilling to consider the possibilities.

China, Russia issue joint statement on new world order

Xinhua | July 15, 2005

China and Russia here Friday issued a joint statement on a new world order in the 21st century, setting forth their common stand on major international issues, such as UN reforms, globalization, North-South cooperation, and world economy and trade.

The statement was signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao after their talks.

During their talks, the two leaders discussed ways to further enhance the strategic and cooperative partnership between China and Russia, and exchanged views on major regional and international issues.

The joint statement said the two countries are determined to strengthen their strategic coordination in international affairs and promote peace, stability and prosperity of the world.

UN REFORMS

The joint statement says that UN reforms should be aimed at strengthening the world body's leading role in international affairs, improving its efficiency and increasing its potential for dealing with new challenges and threats.

UN reforms should be based on consensus through consultations, and should fully embody the common interests of the vast number of member countries.

The United Nations is the world's most comprehensive, representative and authoritative organization, and both its role and function are irreplaceable, said the joint statement on a new world order in the 21st century.

The United Nations should play a leading role in global affairs and be the core for establishing and executing basic norms of international law, the statement added.

The statement calls for UN peacekeeping operations to be carried out in accordance with the tenets and principles of the UN charter.

Resolutions of the UN Security Council must be strictly abided by. Cooperation between the UN on the one hand and regional and subregional organizations on the other should be developed, according to the joint statement.

The joint statement also calls on the world body to play a bigger role in the study of global economic and development problems.

MULTILATERALISM

The joint statement says that countries must be allowed to decide autonomously on their internal affairs while international issues should be solved through dialogue and consultations on the basis of multilateralism.

The international community should completely renounce the mentality of confrontation and alliance; there should be no pursuit of monopoly or domination of world affairs; and countries of the world should not be divided into a leading camp and a subordinate camp, said the joint statement.

Every country must be assured of the right to choose its own path of development that fits its national realities, the right to participate in international affairs as an equal, and the right to development on an equal footing, it says.

Differences and disputes must be solved through peaceful means rather than through unilateralism or coercion. There should be no use or threatened use of force, says the joint statement.

Only on the basis of universally recognized tenents and norms of international law, and under an impartial and rational world order, can problems facing mankind be solved, says the document.

All countries should strictly observe the principles of mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence, it says.

The joint statement believes that the world is undergoing a historic change. The establishment of a new world order will be a long and complicated process, it says.

The central task of mankind in the 21st century is to safeguard peace, stability and security for the whole mankind, and to realize full-scale coordinated development on the basis of equality, maintenance of sovereignty, mutual respect, mutual benefit and ensurance of good development prospects for future generations.

Hu arrived here on Thursday for a state visit. He will also visit Kazakhstan and Britain, where he will attend the G8 plus five summit.

NEW SECURITY FRAMEWORK

The joint statement calls on the international community to establish a new security framework on the basis of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation.

The framework should have the universally recognized norms of international relations as its political foundation, and mutually beneficial cooperation and common prosperity as its economic foundation, says the joint statement.

The establishment of this framework should be based on the equal security rights of all nations while dialogue, consultation and negotiation on an equal footing should be the means for settling conflicts and maintaining peace, the joint statement says.

China and Russia support efforts to maintain global strategic stability, and the multilateral process of establishing legal systems on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, it says.

The two sides will work together to put the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into effect as soon as possible and to push for the universality and effectiveness of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (INT), the Biological Weapons Convention and the Convention on the Banning of Chemical Weapons ( CWC).

They also call for the peaceful use of outer space, and voice opposition to weapons deployment and arm races in outer space. They push for relevant international legislation to this end.

The two leaders believe that in face of new threats and challenges, further effective measures should be taken to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as well as their carriers and relevant materials, according to the joint statement.

The joint statement says the two sides have decided to cooperate more closely in related international organizations and forums and expand cooperation with other like-minded countries. The issue of proliferation of WMDs should be resolved through political, diplomatic and international cooperation within the framework of international law, says the joint statement.

The two sides think that a UN-led global system should be set up to deal with new threats and challenges on the basis of the UN Charter and international law, it says.

The joint statement says regional integration is an important character in the development of the current international situation.

Open, non-exclusive regional organizations are playing a positive role in shaping a new world order.

The two countries appeal for the promotion of further economic cooperation in regional integration and for the establishment of security cooperation mechanisms.

They also voice support for regional organizations to set up ties with each other and produce an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation, the joint statement says.

ATTENTION TO GAP OF DISPARITY

All countries should have an equal opportunity to enjoy the profits of globalization in such fields as economy, society, science, technology, information and culture, said the joint statement, calling for mutually beneficial cooperation and common development.

Developed countries and developing ones should make efforts to eliminate discrimination in economic relations, and narrow the gap of disparity between the rich and the poor, says the joint statement.

The international community should formulate a comprehensive economic and trade regime acceptable to all, through negotiation on an equal footing. Pressure and sanctions should not be used to force a country into unilaterally making economic concessions, it says.

It also calls for respect for the history and traditions of those countries with diverse ethnic groups and their efforts to maintain national unity. Attempts to encourage secession or incite ethnic hatred within a country should not be accepted.

Diversity in cultures and civilizations should not be the source of conflict, but rather resources from which all countries can learn.

Different historic backgrounds, cultures, social and political systems, values and modes of development should not be used as pretext for interference in other countries' internal affairs, says the document.

The Chinese president arrived in Moscow Thursday for a state visit, the first leg of his three-nation tour, which will also take him to Kazakhstan and the United Kingdom.

In Kazakhstan, he will attend a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. Then he will fly to Scotland for an informal meeting between leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized countries and five developing nations -- China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico.

pjbrownie wrote:See I'd just pick out the cockroach, but that's me