Former president's of the U.S. on the invisible government...

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Kester

They were F-18's, Harriers and other marine and Naval aircraft in stealth equipment.
They would fly in and leave, they had their own plain captains and everything. I worked in maintenance control and never heard a peep about them, all of the senior personnel just kept their lips sealed.
We did some really high profile stuff when I was there and I had a security clearance.
This is nearly ten years ago and the one high profile thing we did was equip a specific Helo with a a laser defense system. I won't tell you what helo it was and why it was getting equipped.

This never happened. You see, there's a belief that anything that has ever happened has been made public-in it's entirety. (because of some very public leaks which were obviously made to be leaked).

The compartmentalization, the fact that you are here but you either don't know yourself to say, or wouldn't say because whatever reason, is why people will never fully understand what's going on. And also the reason why many secrets are obviously kept. (that and some other reasons!)

a reply to: Phage

4. Do you believe they have long been working toward a one world government and religion and are evidently quite close to achieving it overtly on the world stage?

4) No.

I suppose #4 uses the prerequisite that the group exist, but surely you are aware of a great menagerie of very powerful world leaders, in business & politics that are also staunch globalists-seeking to unite the world in a one-world government or at the minimum achieve the same result whether or not it's officiated.

To Rockefellers words, which I don't think are taken out of context:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

― David Rockefeller

The joke is that everyone knows his position, so it's not "secret". The reality is there are plenty of meetings between his ilk and world political leaders & religious leaders, where decisions are made (assumedly-or what other purpose is there?-also probably confirmed somewhere) which are not official political debates, meetings, events, etc-and are of course secret-Builderberg, TLC meetings, etc

In other words, meetings in secret, to determine the future business and political plans enacted by our governments and industry. Hell, anyone in business is well aware that many of your business dealings can be done elsewhere than the boardroom. That's fine in certain business. It's not supposed to be in politics or public companies.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: onequestion

Now now, don't whine because another member told you to back up your claims.

And the proof is in the unedited speech that you posted a part of. Try reading the whole thing and not just a selectively edited part. Y'know...context. That thing that matters.

You did a funny Little edit saying you got your point across in your next post.....If your point was that you have no idea what it is you are talking about i would agree ...if i am wrong what exactly was your point ?

ETA ..my sincere apologies ..my question has been answered by another member

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
His point is that the OP completed deleted one of the quotes which he originally posted because it was pointed out that the quote was taken completely out of context.

His point is that it was a chicken# move on the part of the OP.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
His point is that the OP completed deleted one of the quotes which he originally posted because it was pointed out that the quote was taken completely out of context.

His point is that it was a chicken# move on the part of the OP.

Well # eh...i might just have missed that little tidbit....thx for clarifying

a reply to: Phage

It may have been bad form but I don't think that negates his premise entirely. Einstein had a pretty good idea of the universal big picture though some of his assertions were proven to be flat out wrong; point being that poking one hole in an argument is not sufficient to negate said argument. That too is bad form and proves nothing IMO, especially when all else is completely ignored. Just playing devil's advocate here...

a reply to: humanityrising
Do you think posting an out of context quote was fair play?
Do you thing deleted the quote in question after being called out for it was fair play?
Do you think that posting out of context quotes is a valid method of making a point?

a reply to: Phage

No need to be obtuse.

Answering your questions in the affirmative does NOT automatically negate the OP's main points.

P*ssing and moaning about the removed out of context post/quote is a red herring and a wild goose chase. Big deal. Let it go.

There's still more than sufficient evidence for the OP's main points. Deal with that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
His point is that the OP completed deleted one of the quotes which he originally posted because it was pointed out that the quote was taken completely out of context.

His point is that it was a chicken# move on the part of the OP.

Chicken# would be doing it without telling everyone beforehand.

What OP did was remove the questionable portion so as to direct discussion toward the remainder of the content.

He stated that he was going to remove the portion in question, before doing so, then asked the other member to share their opinion on the other 90% of the content, but he declined to do so, because he apparently did not find it interesting enough to comment on...

reply to Phage

a reply to: humanityrising
Do you think posting an out of context quote was fair play?
Do you thing deleted the quote in question after being called out for it was fair play?
Do you think that posting out of context quotes is a valid method of making a point?

He didnt purposely post an out of context quote. He posted what was found in the linked article. It seems like you're implying that he read the entire speech, realized the context, then sneakily copy/pasted only part of it while fully realizing the dishonesty of doing so. His only error was that he did not go through and read the entirety of every speech quoted in the article to make sure there were no mistakes.

The person who wrote the article probably did the same thing, in essence, and just went around collecting quotes relevant to the topic of their article without reading the whole speech each quote came from. It's a common error and is not necessarily indicative of dishonesty, but merely a form of laziness we are all guilty of at one time or another.

For example, did you actually click the link before implying the OP was guilty of unfair play, and by extension, dishonesty with the ATS membership? Or were you too lazy to be bothered to do so?
Or did you in fact click the link, see what was there, and still put forth your accusation, fully realizing the truth of the matter, making you, yourself, a dishonest man?

I found the transcript of the speech in question. The iran-contra hearings closing statement, by Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition, Senator Daniel Inouye, if anyone is interested to read it and make their own conclusions.
danielkinouyeinstitute.net...

a reply to: 3n19m470

THANKS for your fine posts, work, reasoning, etc.

Much appreciated.

Woodrow Wilson

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

dosmosis.blogspot.com...

a reply to: CB328

*sigh* Here is the full context. He was talking about large corporations pushing out little guys before they have a chance, not about a secret government.

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares.

www.gutenberg.org...

a reply to: 3n19m470

His only error was that he did not go through and read the entirety of every speech quoted in the article to make sure there were no mistakes.

Not just mistakes. There were statements taken out of context, something anyone with any ability to think critically would at least suspect. I know I did, that's why I looked into it. Did you?

But hell, lets just post any old stuff and say "See, there is a secret government, look what the Presidents said!" Let's not vet anything. Let's just regurgitate more garbage because that's what it means to deny ignorance.

And look, right above this. It goes on. Amazing, but not surprising.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The good senator of Hawaii was referring to North and his cronies trying to run things in an autocratic way, free of oversight and not reporting to anybody, and doing as they pleased, when it pleased them to do so.

Not some secret cabal of illuminati bankers running things.

But we know that there's a secret government run by unelected Freemasons.

And we know that even within this secret government, there's another hidden government run by the Illuminati.

But, even within the secretive Illuminati, there's another supersecret government that goes by the name "I AM".

So, there are secrets within secrets.

a reply to: Phage

Again, Darwin made plenty of mistakes. Is evolution completely debunked then?

a reply to: humanityrising

Is evolution completely debunked then?

Different sort of "mistakes", but no, evolution has not been debunked much at all.

The claim that the presented Presidential quotes support the idea of a secret government certainly has been.

Got any that actually do?

a reply to: AMPTAH

And I wonder who do they answer too.....perhaps Manly P.Hall gave us ALL the answers in his most short and insightful book......

What the Ancient Wisdom Expects of His Disciples.

INDEED. WORTH REPEATING WITH EMPHASIS

originally posted by: boncho
To Rockefellers words, which I don't think are taken out of context:

ROCKEFELLER QUOTE BEGIN

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

― David Rockefeller

ROCKEFELLER QUOTE END

The joke is that everyone knows his position, so it's not "secret". The reality is there are plenty of meetings between his ilk and world political leaders & religious leaders, where decisions are made (assumedly-or what other purpose is there?-also probably confirmed somewhere) which are not official political debates, meetings, events, etc-and are of course secret-Builderberg, TLC meetings, etc

In other words, meetings in secret, to determine the future business and political plans enacted by our governments and industry. Hell, anyone in business is well aware that many of your business dealings can be done elsewhere than the boardroom. That's fine in certain business. It's not supposed to be in politics or public companies.

And all that is the tiniest tip of a very huge iceberg.

Documentable