Thread: NWO Is Everywhere !

Chloe wrote:

Ron Paul has been in office for 30 years because he's honest, hard working and truly represents his constituents by following the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the number of years served has absolutely nothing to do with the measure of a persons honesty. If that were true, Sen. Ted Kennedy would be the second most honest man in the U.S. Senate (been serving for over 40 years).

I'm not saying Paul isn't honest, just pointing out that his honesty can't be judged by number of years served.

We are all in desperate need of a hero now .

History or near future may tell that RP was the best one , but too many disapointments from too many have me candadate shy .

I don't haver much of an opinion left on war in Iraq . I get sick everytime i see or hear of another troop killed or maimed,not to speak of all the ones who come back young old men and stressed. But then I don't know if we can leave the people in Iraq to be butchered by radicals either . We did this in first Gulf War . I feel e broke it, now we have to fix it ,yet i want them home, so I'm very confused and have no real opinion .

I will not agree with any candadate thats wants us to abandone our ally Israel . Even though I think the leaders in Israel are not much better than the rest of the worlds leaders, including ours.

Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed ,[ somewhere in Bible ,my understanding }.

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

Chloe, it's good to debate with you. You mostly present the facts or what you conceive them to be, just like I do.

I try my best to look at the broader picture of world happenings. And history can tell us a lot about our present . We are an evil nation in an evil world . We don't stand for anything anymore, and bad is good and good is bad . But no more evil than any other nation .

I think there are a few people who rule over us all . Then sometimes it seems we are just trying to survive the rest of the worlds fate . So I can't form opinions from fact because it is so blurred .

I agee with RP on more things than I do any of the others, but not on Israel . I think we will turn on Israel soon enough no matter who gets in there .

Just the fact that so small a piece of the earth as Israel can be so important and dangerous to the world , this alone proves to me the Bible is true and it tells me to be on the side of the nation He loves and will personally protect one day . It is all unfolding right before our eyes ,imo.

Thank you NoAmnesty. It's nice debating with you as well.

It's so sad to see what our nation has become. The founding fathers and the people of that time, were the ones who fought and sacrificed everything so that we could be a free and independent nation. They passed that legacy down to us with the hope that we would remain well informed and vigilant in protecting our country from a corrupt and overly powerful government.

Last Sunday at church, we sang America The Beautiful because of Memorial Day. I could barely get the words out as I was so choked up with emotion. I wondered how many people present that day, actually realized what is REALLY going on in our country? Do they know about the NAU and how our constitutinal rights are being dismantled incrementally? I thought about all our servicemen and woman throughout the years, who had given their lives to protect our way of life, while today, our own president treats the Constitution like a worthless piece of scrap paper!

As far as Israel is concerned, I've always believed that mixing politics and religion is a dangerous and complicated matter. I mean, no one ever wins. Look at how long the conflict between Jews & Arabs have been going on!

However, I get the impression that you are viewing world events from a religious perspective, and how it relates to the book of Revelation. Is that correct? If so, that's where we differ. While I believe in the basic foundation of the Bible as a moral and spiritual guide, I also believe that it is a book of mystery filled with parables and symbols that we as humans were never meant to fully comprehend. People have so many personal interpretations of it and that, in and of it self, tells me it should never be combined with politics!

The Neo-Cons fully enjoyed using Christian beliefs as a way of manipulating "believers" into accepting their foreign policies. Look at how Carl Rove used the Evangelicals to get Bush elected. I tend to stay out of that arena.

But if I do look at the Israeli - Arab conflict from a spiritual perspective, I believe GOD loves ALL people, and wants everyone to be treated fairly and humanely. The Arabs have families and children as well. I don't believe he would want one group to suffer over another.

I stand by Ron Paul's policy that we should keep out of foreign entaglements as the founders had warned us about. Jefferson called for "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." It's not America's job to get involved in the internal affairs of other nation's. It only puts Americans at far greater risk.

Originally Posted by MW

Chloe wrote:

Ron Paul has been in office for 30 years because he's honest, hard working and truly represents his constituents by following the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the number of years served has absolutely nothing to do with the measure of a persons honesty. If that were true, Sen. Ted Kennedy would be the second most honest man in the U.S. Senate (been serving for over 40 years).

I'm not saying Paul isn't honest, just pointing out that his honesty can't be judged by number of years served.

You're right, I certainly see your point! You've got to include some stupidity on the part of some voters as well (with regards to those who keep voting for Sen. Kennedy, that is!) :0

I was banned from an immigration site on http://www.city-data.com/ because I was with the MinuteMen.
Being that, I was considered a racist.
Citidta has forums for all states and cities and misc.
The Moderators on the Immigration site are over seas and prejudice.

I am also will known on some of citidatas other state sites. The Moderators on the other sites fought for 3 days with the head Moderator and got me back on.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/immigration/

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

I was banned from an immigration site on http://www.city-data.com/ because I was with the MinuteMen.
Being that, I was considered a racist.
Citidta has forums for all states and cities and misc.
The Moderators on the Immigration site are over seas and prejudice.

I am also will known on some of citidatas other state sites. The Moderators on the other sites fought for 3 days with the head Moderator and got me back on.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/immigration/

I wasn't banned had also had no free speech on that site, so I left. Free speech was only given to the people of color and white was always wrong and morals were called hate speech ,imo.

Chloe, there is no way we can talk about nations and leave out beliefs ,especially where Israel is concerned .

Far as Jefferson is concerned, he too had allies and was also fighting the same muslims we fight today ,he even studied the quran to know his enemy better 'Barbary Pirates' who were costing us millions in trade and blackmail, he stopped paying them off and instead started killing them off, and thats what saved us from becomming another France .

If you ever understand the quran you will know that the whole idea to being muslim is to submit the whole world to islam .

Christians are to evangelize, not submit . There is a big difference .

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

I never was for this war and hope to God they stop all the killing of my troops and innocent others. My son was one of the first ones to go, and I'm damn glad he's out of it now, and he's to old to go back.

But I won't blame all the evil of radicals on this war, like Ron Paul did .

The whole crazy world is killing each other, and nobody will stop it , not RP or anyone else . Only a supernatural power can stop us from destroying the human race .

I think you don't understand Paul who has repeatedly said that the people that executed are responsible for what they did that day and that the US (as well as any other country) is responsible for how their actions overseas naturally come back to effect them (it is NOT a vacuum out there and the CIA has overthrown democratically elected leaders in the region as well as the US giving billions of dollars of aid to DICTATORS (musharif is another example)!! Are we ever gonna learn??? Google and read a very short book on-line entitled "war is a racket" by Highly decorate USMC Major-General Smedley Butler (it opens your eyes to things that the public never gets to focus on working behind the scenes).

The CIA refers to the "reaction" of people as a result of our activity as "BLOWBACK".

Our First President under the U.S. constitution, George Washington stated it all best (from his farewell speech to the nation):

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

Chloe, there is no way we can talk about nations and leave out beliefs ,especially where Israel is concerned .

Far as Jefferson is concerned, he too had allies and was also fighting the same muslims we fight today ,he even studied the quran to know his enemy better 'Barbary Pirates' who were costing us millions in trade and blackmail, he stopped paying them off and instead started killing them off, and thats what saved us from becomming another France .

If you ever understand the quran you will know that the whole idea to being muslim is to submit the whole world to islam .

Christians are to evangelize, not submit . There is a big difference .

See, I believe that's the whole crux of the problem. Figuring out centuries old squabbles by looking to the Bible or the Koran. EVERYONE has their own interpretaions of both - there are differences of opinion within Christians, within Jews, and within Muslims. That's why I feel when dealing with politics you have to leave religion out of the picture. It seems to seperate us more than bringing about peace.

Respect and tolerate other peoples beliefs, but don't allow religion to dictate one's foreign policy and how other people should govern and live. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Serbs/Bosnians, Jews and Arabs. Has this mix of government and religion given them any peace and tolerance for one another? I see this as a mix of philosophies between two different worlds - geo-politics and the spiritual. It never works.

Maybe Israel is important in the realm of Christian and Jewish beliefs, but if people can't come together and find a peaceful solution after all these years, maybe we need to come up with a more rational and worldly solution.


After the attacks on 9-11, I was swept up in the whole panic about how ALL Muslims wanted us either dead or converted over to Islam. While I do believe that there are some radical Muslims who believe in this, they are in the minority. I feel this whole issue about how they are all out to "convert us" is govt. propaganda to instill fear and to justify this so called war on terrorism. I mean, look at the recent controversy over Rachel Ray wearing a scarf for a Dunkin Donuts ad. Michelle Malkin deemed it a "jihadist scarf" and condemned it so the ad was pulled. How absurd!

There's something like 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and the ones you are speaking of are a minority of radicals - which you can find in any group
This is an excerpt from an interview with conservative author Dinesh D'Souza that addresses exactly what we are debating:

D'Souza: Despite the Koran's call to "slay the infidels" this has never been read as a mandate to forcibly convert or kill non-Muslims. No Muslim empire ever did that. The Mughals ruled northern India for 200 years. They could have killed the Hindus. They could have forcibly converted them all. They did none of this. Similarly under the Ottomans there were Jews and Christians who went to synagogue and church. The Ottomans gave them relative autonomy over their own communities.

If you go to Istanbul today you can see these Jewish and Christian churches. These were not built after the secular Ataturk regime. They were built during the Ottoman period. There is a great deal of nonsense being said today about how Islam is the problem and how Islam leads to terrorism. But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism dates back around 25 years, to the Khomeini revolution. The reasonable question to ask is what is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of fanaticism? Why has traditional Islam become such a fertile recruiting pool for radical Islam?

tts: OK. Why has it?

D'Souza: The Islamic world is divided into traditional Muslims and radical Muslims. The traditional Muslims are the ones who have practiced Islam in the way it has been practiced since the days of Muhammad. The Islamic radicals are a new force that has gained power in the last few decades. My point is that we cannot win the war on terror without driving a wedge between these two groups. The reason is that the radical Muslims are recruiting from the pool of traditional Muslims. So no matter how many radicals America captures or kills, it's no use if twice as many traditional Muslims join the radical camp. What unites the radical and the traditional Muslims is not merely opposition to American values or culture, but a deep conviction that their religion is threatened. This is their unifying slogan: "Islam is under attack."

What differentiates the two groups is that the radicals want to fight a jihad against America, using any means necessary, including terrorism, while the traditionalists would prefer to find a different approach.

tts: What should America do?

D'Souza: We should show them the other America, which is conservative and traditional America. When Muslims look at America, all they see is Hollywood and family breakdown. They don't see the Americans who work hard, look after their families, and go to church. If traditional Muslims understood that there is a part of America that shares its traditional values, and that there are Americans who are working hard to combat the depravities of American society, then this would go a long way to diminish their attraction to radical and terrorist strategies. They will see, for the first time, that they have potential allies in Americans who share their respect for traditional values, and who have no problem with Muslims living by those values in their own countries.

Attacks on Islam, the religion, or on the founder of the religion are going to have the effect of alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them into the radical camp. The radicals are going to say, "See, we've always told you that Islam is the West's real target. That's what they want to get rid of." So it's very imprudent for us to blame Islam as a whole, even if Islam is to blame. But as a matter of fact Islam is not to blame. Remember that Islam has been around for 1300 years. It's absurd to blame the prophet Muhammad or the Koran for something that's quite recent.

http://www.tothesource.org/1_17_2007/1_17_2007.htm


"It is amazing that the clamor of support for Israel here at home comes from men of deep religious conviction in the Christian faith, who are convinced they are doing the Lord’s work. That, quite frankly, is difficult for me as a Christian to comprehend. We need to remember the young people who will be on the front lines when the big war starts- which is something so many in this body seem intent on provoking." Ron Paul 2002

This was a very interesting site I happened upon while doing some online research. You don't hear about this group from the media:

Jews Against the Occupation
Our Mission


Jews Against the Occupation is an organization of progressive, secular and religious Jews of all ages throughout the New York City area advocating peace through justice for Palestine and Israel.Â* Our points of unity are as follows:

Â*
NO OCCUPATION IN OUR NAME

We as American Jews reject the Israeli government assertion that it is "necessary" to subjugate Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe. We assert that security can only come from mutual respect, and that the occupation of Palestine is only worsening the position of Jews in the Middle East and around the world.
Â*
Â*
Â*
RESTORE HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS

The Israeli military fires bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest, failing to distinguish between peaceful and violent resistance. The Israeli government has been demolishing Palestinian houses and crops in the Occupied Territories, while allowing Jewish settlers -- many of them American -- to illegally occupy the same land.
Â*
Â*
Â*
END U.S. AID TO ISRAEL

The U.S. government provides more aid to Israel than to any other country—the vast majority of this is for military purposes. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have propped up the occupation and fueled the Israeli government’s war machine (as well as disguising the occupation’s true cost). This aid must end.
Â*
Â*
Â*
STOP ECONOMIC ATTACKS ON PALESTINE
Â*
The Israeli government has attacked the Palestinian economy by: closing Palestinian banks; imposing extreme taxes on business; withdrawing operating licenses; destroying industrial equipment; bulldozing farmland and banning fishing; restricting workers' movement; controlling the export of Palestinian goods; closing the borders of the Occupied Territories; and refusing to fund infrastructure like water and electricity -- even in Arab villages within Israel.

http://www.jatonyc.org/