FDR Admiration Society

[PoliticalChic]

2. The Allies had the contacts with the anti-Nazi resistance in every other nation....except Germany.
Stalin forbid any talks with anti-Nazi Germans.

a. The Allied command was not allowed to support or associate itself with the anti-Nazi resistance.Following the Soviet orders,only unconditional surrender would be considered....an order which obviously prolonged the war;the German army, which would have overthrown Hitler and surrendered to the Allies,would not be allowed to expect any hand in determining conditions of their post-war treatment.


b. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force)directive prohibited activities aimed at pr"


Never doubt me.
I'm never wrong.

There were other reasons for

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

I sure hope folks read your post.....and this:
1. Joseph Stalin was far more farsighted and clever than either Adolph Hitler, or Franklin Roosevelt.He was allied with both, at one time or another, and used both to further world communist domination.

Stalin looked toward goals that included spreading his version of international socialismthroughout Europe, post-war, and toward this end needed any possible German resistance obliterated.

He used America and the Allies for this purpose....FDR made it easy to do that.



2. The Allies had the contacts with the anti-Nazi resistance in every other nation....except Germany.
Stalin forbid any talks with anti-Nazi Germans.

a. The Allied command was not allowed to support or associate itself with the anti-Nazi resistance.Following the Soviet orders,only unconditional surrender would be considered....an order which obviously prolonged the war;the German army, which would have overthrown Hitler and surrendered to the Allies,would not be allowed to expect any hand in determining conditions of their post-war treatment.


b. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force)directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime.
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


c."Archival evidence indicates thatthe Soviet’s wanted the war to continuelong enough for them to conquer Eastern Europe and in order for Germany to be utterly destroyed or “pastoralized” which was called for inthe Morgenthau Plan which was actually written by Soviet spy Harry Dexter White.The Soviets were also clamoring for a “second front” in France in order to deflect the allies out of Italy and the Balkans which was too close to Russia."
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up



So.....Stalin forbid contacts with the anti-Nazi, anti-Communist Germans
Roosevelt acquiesced...even though it prolonged the war and created over a hundred thousand US casualties.
German anti-Nazis were hung out to dry.....by Roosevelt.



3. On May 10, 1945, shortly after the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, General Dwight Eisenhower saluted and gave credit to Europe's resistance forces. He mentioned them by name, as follows: France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. 'You fought on,' he said in a speech carried by the BBC, "regardless of the disappointments you suffered and the danger you have undergone."
NYTimes, May 11, 1945, "Eisenhower Praises Anti-Nazi Resistance."


a.Who is missing from Eisenhower's list of national anti-Nazi resistance?

That's right:German anti-Nazis, of whom thousands were executed by the Reich.
"The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945, Third Edition," by Peter Hoffman



b. Allen Dulles, first civilian to head the CIA, and its longest serving director. In "Germany's Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance," Dulles wrote of thatthe German was the only anti-Nazi underground not supported by the United States. (p.22).

On page 140, Dulles states"The plotters (anti-Nazi German resistance)....were told clearly and repeatedly that we had made common cause with Russia...." as the reason they were frozen out.



c. The NYTimes told the same story, March 18, 1946: "Full Story of Anti-Hitler Plot Shows That Allies Refused To Assist."


My post is linked and documented, and yours is simply lies and hot air by a Roosevelt boot-licker.

 

[Dale Smith]

2. The Allies had the contacts with the anti-Nazi resistance in every other nation....except Germany.
Stalin forbid any talks with anti-Nazi Germans.

a. The Allied command was not allowed to support or associate itself with the anti-Nazi resistance.Following the Soviet orders,only unconditional surrender would be considered....an order which obviously prolonged the war;the German army, which would have overthrown Hitler and surrendered to the Allies,would not be allowed to expect any hand in determining conditions of their post-war treatment.


b. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force)directive prohibited activities aimed at pr"


Never doubt me.
I'm never wrong.

There were other reasons for

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

 

[Camp]

There were other reasons for

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

 

[Dale Smith]

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

 

[Camp]

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

You had a similar discussion about your sources in the past. You listed a number of writers you studied. I looked them all up and not a single one qualified as an accepted historian. They were all conspiracy writers known for books about the JFK assassination, 911 and even aliens. None of them were known for academically researched scholarly histories.
A quick review of PoliticalChic's distortion of actual quotes shows how easy it is to twist facts and assemble them into what may appear to be academic research to the unaware, but is actually a rather routine method of disinformation distribution. Your postings don't even reach that level of sophistication. There is no way for the reader to even attempt a validation of your claims. At least, with PoliticalChic, there is a reference point to use to focus on debunking or critiquing. Your postings use data that just falls into the unknown source category. Your views are based on faith and seemingly faith alone. It is OK for you to have that faith, but unfair and unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

 

[Camp]

The TVA is one of the huge projects of the New Deal. The Tennessee Vally at the beginning of the only provided electricity to 2% of the population, making it the poorest region in America. Within a few years, 30 dams were built that brought electricity to 75% of the population. Of course, along with the electricity came factories and jobs for the long-range benefits of the program.

www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1653.html

 

[Dale Smith]

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

You had a similar discussion about your sources in the past. You listed a number of writers you studied. I looked them all up and not a single one qualified as an accepted historian. They were all conspiracy writers known for books about the JFK assassination, 911 and even aliens. None of them were known for academically researched scholarly histories.
A quick review of PoliticalChic's distortion of actual quotes shows how easy it is to twist facts and assemble them into what may appear to be academic research to the unaware, but is actually a rather routine method of disinformation distribution. Your postings don't even reach that level of sophistication. There is no way for the reader to even attempt a validation of your claims. At least, with PoliticalChic, there is a reference point to use to focus on debunking or critiquing. Your postings use data that just falls into the unknown source category. Your views are based on faith and seemingly faith alone. It is OK for you to have that faith, but unfair and unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

Antony Sutton? Jim Marrs? Dr.John Coleman? Antony Sutton worked for the Hoover Institute and when he came up with disturbing information tying the military industrial complex to providing military equipment to Russia that then in turn sent it to the Viet Cong that then used it against our soldiers? That is a fact. Jim Marrs is one of the best investigative journalists of our time and especially when it comes to the public murder of JFK...or do you buy the "official story"...because if you do, you are beyond any kind of help. Dr. John Coleman was part of MI5 and MI6 and he had access to many records and was privy to many secret documents that proved that USA.INC has a shadow government. As far as the debt system that is the Federal Reserve banking system that has made us surety on the debt? Holy shit, dude...there is more than enough documents out there that prove it. Your all caps fiction on every bill you get, any citation notification that you get in the mail, your all caps name on your birth certificate, driver's license, social security card, your banking statement is always in "all caps" because they are wanting you to contract with your all caps fiction. I have been able to maneuver around their acts, statutes and codes because I have educated myself on Admiralty law and the remedies. I got out of their UCC system by filing a few simple forms and reclaimed my pre 14th amendment "citizenship". You are an indentured debt slave......your sweat equity is pledged as a surety on the Chapter 11 bankruptcy Act of 1933...and that is a fact....do some research and prove me that I am wrong.......you can't but I dare ya to try.

 

[Camp]

jimmars.com

Why did you find my posting a link about the TVA funny Dale?

 

[Dale Smith]

jimmars.com

Why did you find my posting a link about the TVA funny Dale?

Because FDR was a 100 % sellout????? Start there.........

 

[Camp]

jimmars.com

Why did you find my posting a link about the TVA funny Dale?

Because FDR was a 100 % sellout????? Start there.........

No, it is an indication that you are a hater and your claims to be interested in debate are just a bullshitter promoting his anti-government delusional conspiracy theories. Unable to start a thread of your own that would obtain and maintain interest and attention, you are simply riding the coat tails of another by hijacking a thread. A doomsday prophet stuck in the paranoid world of no nothing nut jobs.
Anyone who is offended and objects to a program that brought electricity, clean water, prevented disease and brought jobs to millions of the poorest Americans in the country has something wrong with them. What is really outrageous is that the states that benefitted paid for everything themselves via loans made to them by the federal government. All FDR did was make the loans available and offer his guidance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

That guy, Cramp....he donnn need no stinkin' research!!!!

Revealing the truth about his hero is a red flag to him!!

 

[Dale Smith]

jimmars.com

Why did you find my posting a link about the TVA funny Dale?

Because FDR was a 100 % sellout????? Start there.........

No, it is an indication that you are a hater and your claims to be interested in debate are just a bullshitter promoting his anti-government delusional conspiracy theories. Unable to start a thread of your own that would obtain and maintain interest and attention, you are simply riding the coat tails of another by hijacking a thread. A doomsday prophet stuck in the paranoid world of no nothing nut jobs.
Anyone who is offended and objects to a program that brought electricity, clean water, prevented disease and brought jobs to millions of the poorest Americans in the country has something wrong with them. What is really outrageous is that the states that benefitted paid for everything themselves via loans made to them by the federal government. All FDR did was make the loans available and offer his guidance.

Dude, FDR sold us out and at the expense of every "citizen" that had a birth certificate and signed off on a Social Security card because their sweat equity was signed off on the debt.....all FDR had to do was kick the globalist bankers to the curb and proclaim that we would print our own script currency regulated by the Treasury Department per the organic US Constitution and it did not happen because he was in on the scam....you can make all the excuses that you want......,but the fact remains that the crippled POS sold us out...no revision of history can change it no matter how hard you try....

 

[Dale Smith]

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

That guy, Cramp....he donnn need no stinkin' research!!!!

Revealing the truth about his hero is a red flag to him!!

Seriously, he is more to be pitied than scolded.............I can lead him to water but I can't make him drink.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here the FDR/New Deal hater shows her lack of WWII history knowledge. Most of the resistance in Germany was impacted and influenced by the socialist and communist that escaped capture and annihilation. Like the resistance groups in the Nazi-occupied countries, the resistance people would have great influence and impact after the Nazi's were defeated. SHAEF wanted to limit the size and scope of the resistance that would be confronted after that defeat. Assistance to them during the war would only strengthen the communist contingent after the wars end.
Of course, add to these factors the one that the resistance in other countries were not German, rather peoples who were living under occupation of a brutal foreign military occupation, to the fact that what the OP is suggesting is a scenario that puts the resistance in Germany one of entering into a civil war and killing their fellow countrymen. No one at SHAEF viewed that as a viable concept or possibility.

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

That guy, Cramp....he donnn need no stinkin' research!!!!

Revealing the truth about his hero is a red flag to him!!

Seriously, he is more to be pitied than scolded.............I can lead him to water but I can't make him drink.....

I'd rather beat him like a rented mule.


And I do.

 

[Camp]

livingnewdeal.org/projects/comanche-county-courthouse-comanche-tx/

texasescapes.com/CentralTexasTownsNorth/ComancheTexas/ComancheCountyCourthouses.htm

The Living New Deal is an organization that has been mapping and archiving New Deal sites across America. They have found over 10,000. The above, The Comanche County Courthouse is one of them.

 

[Camp]

Neither you or Dale refute or challenge my postings. You simply whine and pat yourselves on the back. When I refute and debunk your nonsense you fail to respond. Over and over you pull the same routine. Claim you are right and never wrong, toss a few insults and name calling and then issue a new flood of misdirected out of context quotes.
You claimed and still claim Canaris was a viable conduit for negotiating a conditional surrender. You added names of other Germans who could do the same. I showed how dopey your idea was by exposing the facts about how the Nazi's caught them and killed them and in the case of Canaris, his whole family. Bitch slapping you has become routine.

 

[Dale Smith]

Neither you or Dale refute or challenge my postings. You simply whine and pat yourselves on the back. When I refute and debunk your nonsense you fail to respond. Over and over you pull the same routine. Claim you are right and never wrong, toss a few insults and name calling and then issue a new flood of misdirected out of context quotes.
You claimed and still claim Canaris was a viable conduit for negotiating a conditional surrender. You added names of other Germans who could do the same. I showed how dopey your idea was by exposing the facts about how the Nazi's caught them and killed them and in the case of Canaris, his whole family. Bitch slapping you has become routine.[/QUOTEt

You haven't been able to dispute anything I have claimed.......nothing whatsoever.......bring it on because I know of which I speak......

 

[rightwinger]

The "New Deal" was no great deal at all. FDR and his banker pals abused the public trust when they created and registered millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it. They couldn't enslave the "man on the land" but they could the corporate fiction that they created with the birth certificate that they then created a bond out of and made themselves the trustee of it using actuary tables to get an idea on what you would earn over your lifetime....and then borrowed against it...your sweat equity was put up to the highest bidder....in return, you got "privileges" and a pittance of what the bond would pay in S.S and unemployment "benefits". They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR said we had to under the penalty of a huge fine and imprisonment. By signing the Social Security card, you gave them consent to do with your bond whatever they wanted. It's called "pledging" and it is an ancient form of debt slavery.

It was an intentional national system designed to keep track of the people. Every American was basically forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living and this is the legacy left by FDR and his New (snicker) Deal...I call it a swindle but what do I know? I just spend thousands upon thousands of hours reading and listening to lectures from accredited researchers that dedicated theirs live figuring out how things got so fucked up

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

That guy, Cramp....he donnn need no stinkin' research!!!!

Revealing the truth about his hero is a red flag to him!!

Seriously, he is more to be pitied than scolded.............I can lead him to water but I can't make him drink.....

I'd rather beat him like a rented mule.


And I do.

Funny how your only supporter is a nutjob conspiracy theorist

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dale, there are different ways and methods of sourcing history books, articles and theses. Some of the methods, the ones used by scholarly histories and are recognized as such, use time consuming and frustrating vetting methods. They examine quotes and sources to see where the quotes came from and whether they are used in context. A history that is written without this kind of careful vetting of a source is tarnished and contaminated to the point that is not taken seriously by academic's. A quoted source from a blogger quoting another blogger is not a valid source to use in for example, submitting a thesis for a doctorate degree. It would invalidate the thesis and be returned with a failing grade. Written histories are supposed to be writings of indisputable facts which support the writers explanation of why and how those indisputable facts are used to form conclusions. The conclusions can be argued, but rarely can the facts used. Conspiracy theories are based on conclusions reached by speculative and subjective opinions without providing the detailed vetting to prove the conclusions of the writer. That is why so many folks reject them as anything more than interesting entertainment and commentary.

My research has come from MANY different sources that have never even met each other. I spend more time vetting information than I do investing in new information because I have to have my "T"'s crossed and my "i"s dotted because it takes a long time to build up credibility but just one miss-step to lose it when people are on the fence. It is a long and exhaustive but I will put what I have learned up against anyone here and I will back it with facts and data. I know exactly what I am talking about...trying to marginalize them by calling them "conspiracy theories" is nothing but laziness on your part.

​

That guy, Cramp....he donnn need no stinkin' research!!!!

Revealing the truth about his hero is a red flag to him!!

Seriously, he is more to be pitied than scolded.............I can lead him to water but I can't make him drink.....

I'd rather beat him like a rented mule.


And I do.

Funny how your only supporter is a nutjob conspiracy theorist

Truth is my 'supporter.'

Don't you wish you could say that?

 

[Camp]

Neither you or Dale refute or challenge my postings. You simply whine and pat yourselves on the back. When I refute and debunk your nonsense you fail to respond. Over and over you pull the same routine. Claim you are right and never wrong, toss a few insults and name calling and then issue a new flood of misdirected out of context quotes.
You claimed and still claim Canaris was a viable conduit for negotiating a conditional surrender. You added names of other Germans who could do the same. I showed how dopey your idea was by exposing the facts about how the Nazi's caught them and killed them and in the case of Canaris, his whole family. Bitch slapping you has become routine.[/QUOTEt

You haven't been able to dispute anything I have claimed.......nothing whatsoever.......bring it on because I know of which I speak......

listverse.com/2014/08/09/10-outlandish-conspiracy-theories-about-the-usa/

teamlaw.net/Mythology-CorpUS.htm