Soros has NOT rigged 16 states' voting machines

[Patriot16]

This has been debunked by Snopes.org. http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-trum ... done-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The "Trump will win by a land-slide, but it doesn't matter because Clinton will win anyway," comes from an edited interview which makes Soros say just the opposite to what he actually said.

Patriot16

[markharr]

Sorry, but Snopes is run by a couple of libs out of their basement.

It is an opinion blog, not a real fact checking site.

[Patriot16]

Sorry, but Snopes is run by a couple of libs out of their basement.

It is an opinion blog, not a real fact checking site.

Sorry, Markharr, but Snopes is cosidered the gold standard for facts, has been rated "A" from factcheck, and is used by all the major news organizations including Fox.

Also, if you go to Snopes you can see the original version of the Soros interview against which to compare the doctored version. You can see this for yourself.

Patriot16

[nvr]

The Snopes couple often cherry-pick sources, accuse real sources of being merely conspiracists and frequently come out on the wrong side of reality for things related to politics.
On this one, I'm not sure, sounds like an altered video. I know most media are doing their part to fulfill this quote: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

[freedomforall]

Patriot, do you even get the criminal activity in the Hillary camp? Rigged voting or not, the Hillary camp is as crooked as the Willamette River.

[markharr]

Sorry, but Snopes is run by a couple of libs out of their basement.

It is an opinion blog, not a real fact checking site.

Sorry, Markharr, but Snopes is cosidered the gold standard for facts, has been rated "A" from factcheck, and is used by all the major news organizations including Fox.

Also, if you go to Snopes you can see the original version of the Soros interview against which to compare the doctored version. You can see this for yourself.

Patriot16

Not with me.

I don't consider snopes to be a credible source.

[Patriot16]

Sorry, but Snopes is run by a couple of libs out of their basement.

It is an opinion blog, not a real fact checking site.

Sorry, Markharr, but Snopes is cosidered the gold standard for facts, has been rated "A" from factcheck, and is used by all the major news organizations including Fox.

Also, if you go to Snopes you can see the original version of the Soros interview against which to compare the doctored version. You can see this for yourself.

Patriot16

Not with me.

I don't consider snopes to be a credible source.

Yet, even Fox news relies on it. This discussion with you is just like when Galileo was in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way and the Catholic Holy Fathers refused to even look through Galileo's telescope.

Patriot16

[markharr]

Sorry, but Snopes is run by a couple of libs out of their basement.

It is an opinion blog, not a real fact checking site.

Sorry, Markharr, but Snopes is cosidered the gold standard for facts, has been rated "A" from factcheck, and is used by all the major news organizations including Fox.

Also, if you go to Snopes you can see the original version of the Soros interview against which to compare the doctored version. You can see this for yourself.

Patriot16

Not with me.

I don't consider snopes to be a credible source.

Yet, even Fox news relies on it. This discussion with you is just like when Galileo was in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way and the Catholic Holy Fathers refused to even look through Galileo's telescope.

Patriot16

Interesting. You actually think that because Fox News believes something that means that I believe it too.

[kennyhs]

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.

Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.




David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above; are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website 'Snopes' about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when 'Snopes' was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.




In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.




So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.




Credit Goes Too http://worldtruth.tv/snopes-got-snoped/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Patriot16]

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.

Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.




David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above; are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website 'Snopes' about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when 'Snopes' was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.




In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.




So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.




Credit Goes Too http://worldtruth.tv/snopes-got-snoped/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah, "Worldtruth.tv", the reliable source of today's headline [I'm not making this up] about Atlantis being definitively discovered. I don't see how that gives any confidence in the stuff on Worldtruth.tv. But I CAN see how having false conservative news items constantly debunked by Snopes.com could make conservatives irritated. Finally, I notice that you didn't make the effort to see the two versions of the fraudulent Soros interview for yourself. Again, just like the Holy Fathers' refusal to even look through Galileo's telescope.

What I find bizarre and ironic about the Republican urban myth of election fraud is that the majority of election operations in the battleground states are run by Republicans. Look who is calling the kettle black.

Patriot16

[Patriot16]

Sorry, Markharr, but Snopes is cosidered the gold standard for facts, has been rated "A" from factcheck, and is used by all the major news organizations including Fox.

Also, if you go to Snopes you can see the original version of the Soros interview against which to compare the doctored version. You can see this for yourself.

Patriot16

Not with me.

I don't consider snopes to be a credible source.

Yet, even Fox news relies on it. This discussion with you is just like when Galileo was in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way and the Catholic Holy Fathers refused to even look through Galileo's telescope.

Patriot16

Interesting. You actually think that because Fox News believes something that means that I believe it too.

It is no secret that many of your conservative colleagues do, in fact, believe that if Fox says it, then it's true.

Patriot16

[Army Of Truth]

Not with me.

I don't consider snopes to be a credible source.

Yet, even Fox news relies on it. This discussion with you is just like when Galileo was in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way and the Catholic Holy Fathers refused to even look through Galileo's telescope.

Patriot16

Interesting. You actually think that because Fox News believes something that means that I believe it too.

It is no secret that many of your conservative colleagues do, in fact, believe that if Fox says it, then it's true.

Patriot16

Definitely not me! I follow TRUTH, not Fox, not CNN, not NBC, not Obama or Hillary, and especially not snopes. :ymsmug:

[markharr]

Ah, "Worldtruth.tv", the reliable source of today's headline [I'm not making this up] about Atlantis being definitively discovered. I don't see how that gives any confidence in the stuff on Worldtruth.tv. But I CAN see how having false conservative news items constantly debunked by Snopes.com could make conservatives irritated. Finally, I notice that you didn't make the effort to see the two versions of the fraudulent Soros interview for yourself. Again, just like the Holy Fathers' refusal to even look through Galileo's telescope.

What I find bizarre and ironic about the Republican urban myth of election fraud is that the majority of election operations in the battleground states are run by Republicans. Look who is calling the kettle black.

Patriot16

Looks like we are at an impasse.

You go on quoting snopes. And Army of Truth myself and others will go on not considering snopes to be a legitimate source.

Also not credible.

Politico: Politico writer Kenneth vogel sent a copy of a story to the DNC before he sent it to his editors.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The Washington post: Held joint fundraisers with the DNC
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CBS news: colluding with DNC on polling data wording.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CNN: allowed the DNC to screen an op-ed in advance of broadcast.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MSNBC: DNC has direct line to MSNBC programming
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Hill: Caught photoshopping a Hillary campaign rally to make it look like it had more attendees.
http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshop ... ok-bigger/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There are more but these are the major ones.

[freedomforall]

Ah, "Worldtruth.tv", the reliable source of today's headline [I'm not making this up] about Atlantis being definitively discovered. I don't see how that gives any confidence in the stuff on Worldtruth.tv. But I CAN see how having false conservative news items constantly debunked by Snopes.com could make conservatives irritated. Finally, I notice that you didn't make the effort to see the two versions of the fraudulent Soros interview for yourself. Again, just like the Holy Fathers' refusal to even look through Galileo's telescope.

What I find bizarre and ironic about the Republican urban myth of election fraud is that the majority of election operations in the battleground states are run by Republicans. Look who is calling the kettle black.

Patriot16

Looks like we are at an impasse.

You go on quoting snopes. And Army of Truth myself and others will go on not considering snopes to be a legitimate source.

Also not credible.

Politico: Politico writer Kenneth vogel sent a copy of a story to the DNC before he sent it to his editors.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The Washington post: Held joint fundraisers with the DNC
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CBS news: colluding with DNC on polling data wording.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CNN: allowed the DNC to screen an op-ed in advance of broadcast.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MSNBC: DNC has direct line to MSNBC programming
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Hill: Caught photoshopping a Hillary campaign rally to make it look like it had more attendees.
http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshop ... ok-bigger/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There are more but these are the major ones.

Please, Markharr, we don't want to confuse Patriot by posting facts. Let's be content to allow a person to wallow in their own mire.

I have witnessed more resistance than actual substance coming from some persons whose only, apparent, purpose is to call people on their posts for which they don't like.
Some here at least post researched truth and not merely words of opinion. Voter fraud is a concern, and I, for one, think that anything is possible in an effort to get Hillary into office.
The smart thing to do is omit machines and let the people vote by marked ballots like in years past. In other words, to trust the machines now is very risky, knowing the ever present forthought of possble tampering. Where is the assurance of confidence in today's world. And at this point I don't trust the Electoral College either. I feel caution and vigilance is warranted at this point.

Those involved in the NWO are desperate and willing to do whatever it takes to win. This is as unAmerican as it gets, even from within our failing borders.

[Patriot16]

Ah, "Worldtruth.tv", the reliable source of today's headline [I'm not making this up] about Atlantis being definitively discovered. I don't see how that gives any confidence in the stuff on Worldtruth.tv. But I CAN see how having false conservative news items constantly debunked by Snopes.com could make conservatives irritated. Finally, I notice that you didn't make the effort to see the two versions of the fraudulent Soros interview for yourself. Again, just like the Holy Fathers' refusal to even look through Galileo's telescope.

What I find bizarre and ironic about the Republican urban myth of election fraud is that the majority of election operations in the battleground states are run by Republicans. Look who is calling the kettle black.

Patriot16

Looks like we are at an impasse.

You go on quoting snopes. And Army of Truth myself and others will go on not considering snopes to be a legitimate source.

Also not credible.

Politico: Politico writer Kenneth vogel sent a copy of a story to the DNC before he sent it to his editors.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The Washington post: Held joint fundraisers with the DNC
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CBS news: colluding with DNC on polling data wording.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CNN: allowed the DNC to screen an op-ed in advance of broadcast.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MSNBC: DNC has direct line to MSNBC programming
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Hill: Caught photoshopping a Hillary campaign rally to make it look like it had more attendees.
http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshop ... ok-bigger/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There are more but these are the major ones.

Please, Markharr, we don't want to confuse Patriot by posting facts. Let's be content to allow a person to wallow in their own mire.

I have witnessed more resistance than actual substance coming from some persons whose only, apparent, purpose is to call people on their posts for which they don't like.
Some here at least post researched truth and not merely words of opinion. Voter fraud is a concern, and I, for one, think that anything is possible in an effort to get Hillary into office.
The smart thing to do is omit machines and let the people vote by marked ballots like in years past. In other words, to trust the machines now is very risky, knowing the ever present forthought of possble tampering. Where is the assurance of confidence in today's world. And at this point I don't trust the Electoral College either. I feel caution and vigilance is warranted at this point.

Those involved in the NWO are desperate and willing to do whatever it takes to win. This is as unAmerican as it gets, even from within our failing borders.

Thank you for the leaked emails. They were interesting and I accept them as legitimate. However, with all due respect and with my sincere condolences, I categorically reject your NWO beliefs. I personally consider them to be wild delusions which you and your conservative colleagues unskeptically and enthusiastically accept because of your specific personality traits and psychological needs. I have no doubt that my own belief system has also to some degree been distorted from reality because of my personality traits, just as yours have. But I recognize that possibility, something you do not. Be that as it may, I respectfully suggest that it is your NWO beliefs which cause you to mistrust the Electoral College and other institutions in this country including the local election units at least half of which are Republican-controlled and would be -- I would think -- resistant to pressure from any NWO conspiracy groups. I suggest that large-scale voting fraud is more of a risk from Republicans deliberately trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters as was wide-spread for many, many years, in the Jim Crow south. My opinion is that my Democratic Party is incapable of the discipline and competency required for an organized attempt to pull off successful voter fraud across the country. I admit that there are people who suspect Kennedy of voter fraud in 1960 in Texas and Illinois, but I've read that most reputable election gurus have said they think the potential 1960 fraud is not probable today because of safeguards against it.

I'm sorry to see how your improbable beliefs have eroded your confidence in our American institutions and I consider all the hatred for the Federal Government to be tragically misdirected. I personally believe our Federal Government is probably the most self-evidently beneficial and benevolent in all of human history. I'm sorry if it stings you to read that, but this forum's rules require that we all be able to express our beliefs, however varied and after having read your stated beliefs, I stated mine. We don't have to accept each other's beliefs, but we do have to allow them to be stated.

That having been said, I respectfully suggest that there will be little or no voter fraud outside of Republican attempts to disenfranchise Democrats, that Clinton will win the Presidency, that Democrats will retake control of the Senate, that Pres. Obama will not declare martial law and will peacefully transfer power to Pres. Clinton, that no one will come after your guns, that InfoWars' Alex Jones runs the risk of a stroke, heart attack, or suicide from his trauma oven the election, that evangelicals will put much effort into intercessory prayers for God to kill Pres. Clinton, that conservatives fleeing to Canada will find to their horror that Canada is too liberal for them, and that Trump will have a hard time accepting his defeat, but will go on to establish his own broadcast network, only to find himself no more successful than Gov. Palin when she tried the same thing, except he won't falsely claim, as Palin did, that he can see Russia from his porch.

Patriot16

[markharr]

Thank you for the leaked emails. They were interesting and I accept them as legitimate. However, with all due respect and with my sincere condolences, I categorically reject your NWO beliefs. I personally consider them to be wild delusions which you and your conservative colleagues unskeptically and enthusiastically accept because of your specific personality traits and psychological needs. I have no doubt that my own belief system has also to some degree been distorted from reality because of my personality traits, just as yours have. But I recognize that possibility, something you do not. Be that as it may, I respectfully suggest that it is your NWO beliefs which cause you to mistrust the Electoral College and other institutions in this country including the local election units at least half of which are Republican-controlled and would be -- I would think -- resistant to pressure from any NWO conspiracy groups. I suggest that large-scale voting fraud is more of a risk from Republicans deliberately trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters as was wide-spread for many, many years, in the Jim Crow south. My opinion is that my Democratic Party is incapable of the discipline and competency required for an organized attempt to pull off successful voter fraud across the country. I admit that there are people who suspect Kennedy of voter fraud in 1960 in Texas and Illinois, but I've read that most reputable election gurus have said they think the potential 1960 fraud is not probable today because of safeguards against it.

I'm sorry to see how your improbable beliefs have eroded your confidence in our American institutions and I consider all the hatred for the Federal Government to be tragically misdirected. I personally believe our Federal Government is probably the most self-evidently beneficial and benevolent in all of human history. I'm sorry if it stings you to read that, but this forum's rules require that we all be able to express our beliefs, however varied and after having read your stated beliefs, I stated mine. We don't have to accept each other's beliefs, but we do have to allow them to be stated.

That having been said, I respectfully suggest that there will be little or no voter fraud outside of Republican attempts to disenfranchise Democrats, that Clinton will win the Presidency, that Democrats will retake control of the Senate, that Pres. Obama will not declare martial law and will peacefully transfer power to Pres. Clinton, that no one will come after your guns, that InfoWars' Alex Jones runs the risk of a stroke, heart attack, or suicide from his trauma oven the election, that evangelicals will put much effort into intercessory prayers for God to kill Pres. Clinton, that conservatives fleeing to Canada will find to their horror that Canada is too liberal for them, and that Trump will have a hard time accepting his defeat, but will go on to establish his own broadcast network, only to find himself no more successful than Gov. Palin when she tried the same thing, except he won't falsely claim, as Palin did, that he can see Russia from his porch.

Patriot16

So who do you work for? NSA, IRS, EPA?

[freedomforall]

[quote="Patriot16"][/quote]
No NWO, huh? I say you need to get out more.
Closed mindedness can be very dangerous. NWO has been spoken of by many church leaders, authors and even people in government; the very methods used by it are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The Bushes are for it, Clintons is for it, big bankers are behind it, it's a huge topic today...and you say it doesn't exist?

[Patriot16]

No NWO, huh? I say you need to get out more.
Closed mindedness can be very dangerous. NWO has been spoken of by many church leaders, authors and even people in government; the very methods used by it are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The Bushes are for it, Clintons is for it, big bankers are behind it, it's a huge topic today...and you say it doesn't exist?

Whoa, there pardner. NWO, as you define it, has NOT been spoken of by many church leaderes, authors, and even people in government. You define the NWO as an organization headed by the [plug in your own version] Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers which controls or attempts to control everything in the world. When Pres. Benson and the others spoke about "international conspiracies," or "Gadianton Robbers," they meant the Russian and Chinese communists. Period. I don't think you'll find a single Conference talk or other official talk from LDS leaders (except for the Skousens, who I don't consider GAs, much less LDS leaders) explicitly mention the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers. If you find even one such talk, please document it. Granted, there are nutcase members of the Tea Party congressional Freedom Caucus who buy off on your NWO definition, but it is nevertheless a minority view generally derided by most other people.

Patriot16

[freedomforall]

No NWO, huh? I say you need to get out more.
Closed mindedness can be very dangerous. NWO has been spoken of by many church leaders, authors and even people in government; the very methods used by it are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The Bushes are for it, Clintons is for it, big bankers are behind it, it's a huge topic today...and you say it doesn't exist?

Whoa, there pardner. NWO, as you define it, has NOT been spoken of by many church leaderes, authors, and even people in government. You define the NWO as an organization headed by the [plug in your own version] Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers which controls or attempts to control everything in the world. When Pres. Benson and the others spoke about "international conspiracies," or "Gadianton Robbers," they meant the Russian and Chinese communists. Period. I don't think you'll find a single Conference talk or other official talk from LDS leaders (except for the Skousens, who I don't consider GAs, much less LDS leaders) explicitly mention the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers. If you find even one such talk, please document it. Granted, there are nutcase members of the Tea Party congressional Freedom Caucus who buy off on your NWO definition, but it is nevertheless a minority view generally derided by most other people.

Patriot16

If you only knew!

[theBruceGuy]

Whoa, there pardner. NWO, as you define it, has NOT been spoken of by many church leaderes, authors, and even people in government. You define the NWO as an organization headed by the [plug in your own version] Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers which controls or attempts to control everything in the world. When Pres. Benson and the others spoke about "international conspiracies," or "Gadianton Robbers," they meant the Russian and Chinese communists. Period. I don't think you'll find a single Conference talk or other official talk from LDS leaders (except for the Skousens, who I don't consider GAs, much less LDS leaders) explicitly mention the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers. If you find even one such talk, please document it. Granted, there are nutcase members of the Tea Party congressional Freedom Caucus who buy off on your NWO definition, but it is nevertheless a minority view generally derided by most other people.

Patriot16[/quote]

Here is a link to the talk by President Benson [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJNMcD2IY_k[/youtube]

In it he recommends the book "None dare call it conspiracy" by Gary Allen. Try reading that, full of bilderbergers, Rothschilds etc.

[Patriot16]

Whoa, there pardner. NWO, as you define it, has NOT been spoken of by many church leaderes, authors, and even people in government. You define the NWO as an organization headed by the [plug in your own version] Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers which controls or attempts to control everything in the world. When Pres. Benson and the others spoke about "international conspiracies," or "Gadianton Robbers," they meant the Russian and Chinese communists. Period. I don't think you'll find a single Conference talk or other official talk from LDS leaders (except for the Skousens, who I don't consider GAs, much less LDS leaders) explicitly mention the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, or the Rockefellers. If you find even one such talk, please document it. Granted, there are nutcase members of the Tea Party congressional Freedom Caucus who buy off on your NWO definition, but it is nevertheless a minority view generally derided by most other people.

Patriot16

Here is a link to the talk by President Benson [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJNMcD2IY_k[/youtube]

In it he recommends the book "None dare call it conspiracy" by Gary Allen. Try reading that, full of bilderbergers, Rothschilds etc.[/quote]

Fine, but did Pres. Benson's talk use any of those names?

Patriot16

[freedomforall]

Fine, but did Pres. Benson's talk use any of those names?

His name is in the book as an endorsement. He strongly asked members of the church to read it.

Here is the proof:

NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
Copyright © 1971 by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham

Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:40)
This document is provided for reference purposes only. Statements in this document do not reflect the opinions of Reactor Core staff or Jonathan Walther. If you find ought to disagree with, that is as it ought be. Train your
mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning, and claim to truth. There is no justice when even a single voice goes unheard. (1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 John 4:1-3, John 14:26, John 16:26, Revelation 12:10, Proverbs 14:15, Proverbs 18:13)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION
 1. DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS
 2. SOCIALISM — ROYAL ROAD TO POWER FOR THE SUPER-RICH
 3. THE MONEY MANIPULATORS
 4. BANKROLLING THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
 5. ESTABLISHING THE ESTABLISHMENT
 6. THE ROCKEFELLERS AND THE REDS
 7. PRESSURE FROM ABOVE AND PRESSURE FROM BELOW
 8. YOU ARE THE ANSWER
o FOURTEEN SIGNPOSTS TO SLAVERY
o WHAT WILL YOU DO?
o MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
NOMINATED AND APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT NIXON TO
GOVERNMENT POSTS
o OPERATION COUNTERATTACK
WHAT THOSE "IN THE KNOW" SAY
 I wish that every citizen of every country in the free world and every slave behind the Iron Curtain might read this book. Ezra Taft Benson — Former Secretary of Agriculture
 NDCC is an admirable job of amassing information to prove that communism is socialism and socialism (a plot to enslave the world) is not a movement of the downtrodden but a scheme supported and directed by the wealthiest of people. If enough Americans read and act upon NDCC, they really can save the Republic from the conspirators — whose plans for the destruction of our country are galloping fast toward completion. Dan Smoot — Former Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover
 Now that NDCC is available, I no longer need to answer "no" to the question which is often put to me, namely: "Mr. Dodd, is there a book which I can read so I can know what you know?" No higher praise is possible for this book. Norman Dodd — Chief Investigator Reece Committee to Investigate Foundations
 This book concerns the way in which our nation and other nations are actually governed. As Benjamin Disaeli said, this is not the way in which most people think nations are governed. The whole subject of the Insiders who so largely control our political and economic lives is a fascinating mystery. For the reader who is intelligent but uninitiated in the literature of superpolitics, I can think of no better introduction to the field than NDCC. Dr. Medford Evans — Former Chief of Security for the Atom Bomb Project
 Since people of the Jewish faith have been the number one historical victims of the Communist Conspiracy, we wish every member of our faith would carefully read this book so they will become aware of the forces which often attempt to manipulate them.
Dr. Barney Finkel — President, The Jewish Right
 Whatever one dares to call the apparatus described and documented in this book, he will ignore it at his peril. 1972 may well be our last chance to defuse this destructive device. This book tells you how you can expose and demolish it. Dean Clarence E. Manion — Former Dean Notre Dame law School
.............................................................................................................................................
Ezra Taft Benson Speaks Out:

I have read the book...have you?

Like I said, if you only knew!


Here, I'll give you a link to the book so you will have no problem or expense in finding it.
http://whale.to/b/allen_b1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freedomforall]

The "Missing Chapter" from Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Ezra Taft Benson

[David13]

The demorats have been engaging in voter fraud forever.
Anyone who doesn't admit that is either asleep or a liar.
Go back in history. All the notorious corrupt political machines were democrats.
It was never any secret.
dc

[Patriot16]

The demorats have been engaging in voter fraud forever.
Anyone who doesn't admit that is either asleep or a liar.
Go back in history. All the notorious corrupt political machines were democrats.
It was never any secret.
dc

Using my friend, Dr. Google, to follow your admonition to go back in history, I found several items which suggested at least the possibility that Republicans rigged elections multiple times. Perhaps the most complete collection of up to eight instances is in a recent article in The Federalist [http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/8-t ... en-rigged/]. So neither of the political parties has a monopoly on rigging elections. As you stated above, anyone who doesn't admit that is either asleep or a liar.

Patriot16