Do You Have A Choice?

26 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Here is G. Edward Griffin a writer and historian telling the truth about the system we live and vote in.  This video is an hour and seven minutes long so some of you may not have time to watch it in one sitting (I can understand that), but please watch the whole thing.  It is important to understand how the system works is we are going to vote intelligently and choose someone who might be on our side. 

And please do not refuse to watch it because it was recorded by Prison Planet.  Alex Jones had no control over Mr. Griffins words.

 

 

God bless,

Larry

Edited by ThePilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This guy is a Mason. No, better yet, he's a Jesuit. Don't believe his disinformation. He's nothing but a puppet of the Trilateral Commission. Now take your silver!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

This guy is a Mason. No, better yet, he's a Jesuit. Don't believe his disinformation. He's nothing but a puppet of the Trilateral Commission. Now take your silver!

:wow: I must be psychic.  Knew this would happen.  :clapping:

A quote from Mr. Griffin:

  


The TLC was created by David Rockfeller to coordinate the building of The New World Order in accordance with the Gardner strategy: "An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." The OBjective is to draw the United States, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe into political and economic union. Under slogans such as free trade and environmental protection, each nation is to surrender its sovereignty "piece by piece" until a full-blown regional government emerges from the process.

— G. Edward Griffin; The Creature From Jekyll Island

 

Does that sound like a member of said organization?

Edited by ThePilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The man in the video says that part of the conspiracy is to get the left and right to turn on each other while they grab power. PrOBably true but I've seen many Christians turn on each other looking for conspiracies around every corner. So maybe he's part of the government conspiracy?

 

I file it all under I Timothy 1:4. I've seen a few forums ruined by this conspiracy theory rubbish. It always seem to manage to creep in somehow. One nut even told me to give up my asthma medicine which apparently was a government conspiracy and take my tablespoon of silver (which the man in the video promotes).  If I didn't then I must be an unsaved Jesuit. This was on a KJV forum too.

 

We all know what the real conspiracy  is (II Thess. 2:6-8).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The man in the video says that part of the conspiracy is to get the left and right to turn on each other while they grab power. PrOBably true but I've seen many Christians turn on each other looking for conspiracies around every corner. So maybe he's part of the government conspiracy?

 

I file it all under I Timothy 1:4. I've seen a few forums ruined by this conspiracy theory rubbish. It always seem to manage to creep in somehow. One nut even told me to give up my asthma medicine which apparently was a government conspiracy and take my tablespoon of silver (which the man in the video promotes).  If I didn't then I must be an unsaved Jesuit. This was on a KJV forum too.

 

We all know what the real conspiracy  is (II Thess. 2:6-8).

As far as Griffin being a Mason you might read this, but I am sure you do not have time for such tripe as you know it all already. 

Anyone who does not agree with certain political views seems to be a conspiracy theorist to you. 

You have done all you can in your short comment to divert peoples attention from the real issues at hand by simply turning to old trick of denigrating the messenger.  It is an well used tactic of both the right and the left. 

 

God bless,

Larry

EKSmith likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Alex Jones.  :hide:

 

Enough said.

You are right enough said.  :bored:

I give up.  If people continue with voting the way they have, you will enjoy the outcome . . . . or not.

 

God bless,

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You are right enough said.  :bored:
I give up.  If people continue with voting the way they have, you will enjoy the outcome . . . . or not.
 
God bless,
Larry


If I understand you right, I think that my point may have been misunderstood.  I believe Alex Jones is a shyster who preys on the paranoid.  Conspiracy theories are his shtick. He is an entertainer who has found his market.
EKSmith likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

If I understand you right, I think that my point may have been misunderstood.  I believe Alex Jones is a shyster who preys on the paranoid.  Conspiracy theories are his shtick. He is an entertainer who has found his market.

This is not about Alex Jones.  I do not like Alex Jones personality.  I think he hypes things that should not be hyped.  If I had my druthers Alex Jones or Prison Planet would not appear on the video.  But I don't have my druthers and it does, but that does not change the facts that are stated in the video.  ASOG made the statement that Griffin is a Mason.  He got that from an unsubstantiated claim from those who do not care for the things Griffin states in his writings.  I could post the rebuttal to that in this forum also but ( oh heck with it I will post it anyway no matter how long it is).  Here it is for anybody that has the time or inclination to read it:

 

https://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=questionM06&refpage=membership

 

God bless,

Larry

Edited by ThePilgrim
EKSmith likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm not hearing "conspiracy theory" stuff. I've not heard the entire video yet, but what I have heard has been basically sticking with the facts. This is information others have discussed as well, not just some fringe.

 

It should be quite OBvious the Dems and Repubs are basically one. Years ago Buchanan and others pointed out the Dems and Repubs were two wings on the same bad bird. Prior to that many used the phrase of the two parties being different sides of the same coin.

 

There is a reason we can look back over the past half century, and even much farther back, and see that both parties have been steadily heading the nation in the same wrong direction. If there were real differences between the two there would be real and substantial change occurring depending upon who is in power. We would also see one party eliminating the previous efforts of the other party. Instead, we see a continual expansion of the federal government, a continuation of working toward world government, a continuation of the ruination of America.

 

We can also look at the money and see the power players support both parties. They do this because both parties are going the same direction.

 

One can look at how the Dems and Repubs have continually rewritten election laws in order keep outsiders out of the mix and help them have more control over even those in their own parties they don't want up front. Both parties almost had panic attacks at what occurred with Ross Perot and the beginnings of a potential serious third party with the Reformed Party. They went to great lengths to destroy this and they succeeded. Again they paniced when Jesse Ventura won the governorship and rewrote the rules again.

 

The Dem/Repubs have so tightened control over nationally televised presidential primary debates that they not only keep other parties and independents way, they can keep those not totally in step in their own party out of the way. A former Republican governor, Alan Keyes and many others have been kept out of debates.

 

Both parties work mightily behind the scenes to try and control who gets into the primaries and then they work even more diligently to thwart the campaigns of those they don't want to win while building up the most pliable party players.

 

America is in the very poor shape she's in today because whether the Dems or Repubs are in control, they control the direction of America in the same bad direction.

EKSmith and ThePilgrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is not about Alex Jones.  I do not like Alex Jones personality.  I think he hypes things that should not be hyped.  If I had my druthers Alex Jones or Prison Planet would not appear on the video.]


Ah, then it is I who have misunderstood your point. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Fox News is reporting that Republican insiders and those with deep pockets are working behind the scenes to try and promote Jeb Bush as the Republican of choice for the next president.

 

Once again we see the Party leaders working to maintain the status quo by promoting a liberal leaning, big government loving, one worlder as the best choice for Republican president.

EKSmith likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I think he had my house bugged for his talking points on secular government.

 

 

 

 

Edit to add...stopped at the 44:45 point...I'll hear the finish later. 

Edited by "I am chief"
EKSmith likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thanks for the video pilgrim .only if lot more people could watch this , I've felt this way for years but most don't believe you when you tell them about it, I would have voted for Ron Paul because I know his voting record and how he has been trying to expose the federal Reserve sense the 80's .                 I'm an independent Baptist by faith and independent in politics and have only voted Republican once and that was for Reagan. well I'm half way into the video now, so later, and thanks my friend.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I got four minutes in and gave up. First, the chap appeared to be trying to claim the fact of both main US parties being collectivist (or 'big government', as he later defined it) as some sort of revelation. How is that news? We know that neither party claims to be libertarian or anarchist, for example.

 

Secondly, he argued that two things can be said to be exactly or mostly the same so long as they have at least one thing in common. For example, he said that all the nations of World War Two "agreed on ideology". So apparently Roosevelt and Hitler, to pick just two people from different states, had no differences in belief. How so? Apparently they were both collectivists, and therefore, he asks "wherein lies the difference"?

 

That just sounds crazy to me. Almost all political parties hold some--usually foundational--beliefs in common, but that doesn't ergo mean they are the same on everything. Almost all political parties are statist (i.e. not anarchist). Almost all are anthropocentrist (people are more important than animals). Most are nationalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I got four minutes in and gave up. First, the chap appeared to be trying to claim the fact of both main US parties being collectivist (or 'big government', as he later defined it) as some sort of revelation. How is that news? We know that neither party claims to be libertarian or anarchist, for example.

 

Secondly, he argued that two things can be said to be exactly or mostly the same so long as they have at least one thing in common. For example, he said that all the nations of World War Two "agreed on ideology". So apparently Roosevelt and Hitler, to pick just two people from different states, had no differences in belief. How so? Apparently they were both collectivists, and therefore, he asks "wherein lies the difference"?

 

That just sounds crazy to me. Almost all political parties hold some--usually foundational--beliefs in common, but that doesn't ergo mean they are the same on everything. Almost all political parties are statist (i.e. not anarchist). Almost all are anthropocentrist (people are more important than animals). Most are nationalist.

Well I will just pick on two things you said and let the rest of the mistakes pass. 

"Most are nationalist."  If you listen to what they say both Democrat and Republican, you could not possibly come to that conclusion.  The Bushes, the Clinton, OBama all have as their agenda the One World Order.  I realize just using those words immediately gets me labeled as a conspiracy theorist, but if you listen to all of them and their advisers, they all use the exact words themselves. Now if they are in favor of a new world order, how can they be nationalists? 

 

God bless,

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Larry, if you only want to respond to two of my points, why not make them the only two main points I made? Those were, A] both the big US parties being big-government is not news, and, B] two people/parties/nations having one viewpoint in common doesn't necessarily mean there are no important diferences between their other ideas.

 

Whether or not the Republican party and the Democratic party in the US in particular are nationalist or not is so peripheral (and note that I didn't even say that they were, nor would I claim to know), that I'm happy to just take it on your say-so that those two parties aren't.

Edited by Alimantado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

One thing I noticed clearly in the last sets of presidential debates between OBama and the Mormon, were that they both had the same goals and destinations, just different ways of getting there. So yeah, two sides of the same coin. To coin a phrase.

 

The fact that you can't get Rush or Hannity or any of the main-stream conservative talking heads to back the idea of the third-party candidate as haveing a chance to win, tells me clearly that they don't WANT anything different. Rush has a big enough audience that if he began to push for a good third party guy, there would truly be panic among the two parties in their comfort. But Rush is a party-player as is Hannity and all of them.

 

I follow the Ron Paul, Libertarian way of thinking, at least in many respects. For instance, tmany are against libertarians because they claim they are pro-homosexual marriage and marijuana use-however, that's not the case: they just believe, as the constitution demands, that these should be issues of state's rights to decide. Many states would stil be anti-homosexual, except the federal courts in those states trample the citizens' wills and declare that anti-homosexual marriage laws are unconstitutional, which of course, they aren't.  Its the feds causing the prOBlems. The states should be deciding most issues thermselves. And I suspect most would remain fairly conservative because most people want it that way. education, etc, should be state-lever, or local-level stuff. and the feds should be staying out ot them.  But even many conservatives think its the federal government's jOB to declare all these laws as binding on the states, but it just isn't so.

 

So, a Libertarian wants to drop decisions down to the states, and get the feds out of them, for the most part. Its not about being pro or anti, its about getting their hands off where they don't belong. Our constitution was written with intelligent, common-sense, polite people in mind, not for an over-reacing federal power running every aspect of life. If we could get a good constitutional president in, as well as senators and congressmen, maybe some changes could be made.

John81 and EKSmith like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I got four minutes in and gave up. First, the chap appeared to be trying to claim the fact of both main US parties being collectivist (or 'big government', as he later defined it) as some sort of revelation. How is that news? We know that neither party claims to be libertarian or anarchist, for example.

I saw this too...nothing a Bible believing, reading, praying, saved Holy Spirit indwelled Christian couldn't already see.

 

I can see that governments are pulled toward a collective end...it's the individuals we are compelled to go after in all nations. The answer isn't secular for America it's Christ alone.

 

I believe evil men will continue to wax worse and worse. However, we are still stewards of the government (Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution). So we must get out there and do the very utmost we can in that regard.

 

Edit...I have some notes from watching  I may have time later to post about this.

Edited by "I am chief"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 A Muslim on one side and Mormon on the other not much of a difference, which one to vote for is a prOBlem when you're a christian ? are there enough Christians to start a third party whom will allow God to lead,  if so" Victory is ours''  and if not " Even so, Come, Lord Jesus "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There are not enough born again Christians in America to win an election on their own. Not enough secular Christians, so-called conservatives or others would join together with born again Christians to support a third party that was truly Christian in standards.

 

Not voting for certain candidates or positions is a viable option. If one is facing a choice on a ballot between a really bad candidate and an even worse candidate, it's a viable option to vote for neither in that category and go on to the next section of the ballot.

 

The primaries is where Christians could have a strong voice. Even though the powers that be try to limit the choices even in primaries, there is at least usually some candidates who aren't totally sold out in the running. However, Christians, conservatives and others continually fail to take advantage of the primaries, which allows the party powerful to promote their own and the more "moderate" and liberal portions of the Party, with media support, to determine who the candidate will be.

 

If nothing else, the Ron Paul supporters showed how a small but determined group can effect big results. This even to the point where the Party machine used manipulation and outright tampering to curtail the positive impact such was having for the Ron Paul candidacy.

 

Meanwhile, Christians were fickle and without any sense of loyalty or purpose. They flocked first to Bachmann, then at the first sign of bad press dropped her for the next in line, until some bad press caused them to scatter like rats from a burning building to the next, then the cycle kept repeating itself until we ended up others choosing the candidate. Thus at the end of the last two presidential primaries we had left leaning, big time compromisers as the candidate.

 

What might happen if Christians were to engage in long term, concerted, consistent direct prayer regarding candidates and coming elections years before the elections rather than just putting forth a general call for prayer at the last minute?

EKSmith likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To be honest, I would vote for an honest atheist who was a strict constitutionalist. When Jessie Ventura was governor, he personally is pretty anti-Christian, but from his place as governor, he upheld the constitution, knowing it wasn't his place to act just according to his likes or dislikes.

 

And I might have an issue with voting for an outspoken Christian, because most of those in politics are Romneys and Palins, one a mormon, the other a pentecostal, both with a bit of dominionist in them. See, most of the political Christian types think it is our jOB to rule by the Bible, which in some aspects of course, is a good thing, meaning, lead through OBedience to the laws of the land, and keep yourself personally unspotted by the world. But many would try to , make biblical laws, and with the exception of the OT laws, there really aren't any, save some already on the books, ie, murder, kidnapping, theft, etc.  Honestly, I would be afraid of what a 'Christian' by today's standards, President would do. Could be worse than what's been done up till now. 

 

But someone who honestly believes in the tenents of the constitution, who believes that the things written therein are the absolute law of the land, regardless of their personal feelings, I would trust.

 

This is not a perfect idea, by the way. I am sure that there could be good, godly Christians who would hold tenaciously to the constitution, as well as the Bible in their personal life, but none of the "Christian" candidates we have seen to date are not that. No Pat ROBertsons or Mitt Romneys or Sarah Palins, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Atheists rule by their belly, no Constitution is going to stop them.  By default, they are Statists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That's not always true, swath.  There are many atheists who are libertarians - quite vocal about supporting the Constitution.  

 

I think it's interesting to note that Roger Williams, one of the first notable Baptists here in America (and persecuted for his "free-thinking" ways by Puritan and Pilgrim alike) said that this country needs a guiding document that even an atheist, if elected, would be constrained to follow and thus protect the religious liberties we are given by God.  This was quite a while before our Constitution, indeed, even long before the War for Independence.  And he was right.  The founders wrote a document that, if followed, would restrict the government from becoming lords and masters. However, too many Americans - and notably Christians - are lazy when it comes to the issues and who is running, and have allowed this mess to come to pass. Pretty excuses are always given, but an excuse is simply a lie wrapped in the skin of a reason... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 A Muslim on one side and Mormon on the other not much of a difference, which one to vote for is a prOBlem when you're a christian ? are there enough Christians to start a third party whom will allow God to lead,  if so" Victory is ours''  and if not " Even so, Come, Lord Jesus "

Both lost, yes. Then it boils down to which one will provide for and allow for my God given rights. I'll continue to stick to my position...voting for a loser is just another way of promoting the one who works hardest for the devil. However, God gives us what we deserve...anybody for an ice cold OBama kool aid?

EKSmith and HappyChristian like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now