Visions of 1933: President Roosevelt Helped Lead The World To War?

fdr-delivers-speech (1)

President Roosevelt:  Innocent Bystander Or Deliberately Helping to Bring the Entire World into World War II

Note:  Unfortunately, it’s impossible to discuss this without delving into sources that are anti-Semitic.  These anti-Semitic sources appear to be willing to bring out some of the well-documented evidence showing that Roosevelt was working behind the scenes as early as 1938 with the Polish government, months before Germany had invaded Poland in 1939.

While these sources are referenced, the Bible teaches very clearly that the Jews are God’s chosen people and that Hitler and Stalin in fulfillment of Scripture would affect policies that forced the Jews back to their land.  The Bible does not support anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism has been the tool used by God to gather His people back to their land.  The Mystery of the Jews returning to their homeland is one of the great promises of God to bring the full restoration of salvation to the World.

The goal of this article is not to rewrite history or even to state that the United States should not have fought against the Axis, but simply to expose what happened, showing a timeline of events and links to articles and documents that indicate President Roosevelt’s essential role in bringing not only the US but the entire world into war against the Axis, to show how accurate a prophecy of God actually is.

Part 1. Bringing America Into WWII

American Isolation

Before WW II and after WW I,  Americans were polled  and 90% were recorded as not wanting to be a part of another war.  To maintain their position, isolationists had a strong representation in politics.

·         In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a Congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts.  The bill ran into strong opposition from the leading isolationists in Congress…

·         The isolationists then succeeded in passing the Neutrality Pact

    • On August 31, 1935, Congress passed the first Neutrality Act prohibiting the export of “arms, ammunition, and implements of war” from the United States to foreign nations at war and requiring arms manufacturers in the United States to apply for an export license.  American citizens traveling in war zones were also advised that they did so at their own risk.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt originally opposed the legislation but relented in the face of strong Congressional and public opinion.  On February 29, 1936, Congress renewed the Act until May of 1937 and prohibited Americans from extending any loans to belligerent nations.


Roosevelt’s Policies leading America into WW 2

Due to the Isolationism and Neutrality acts, Roosevelt resorted to methods which involved deceiving the American public with declarations that he had no intention of leading the United States into war, and doing everything possible to provoke Germany and Japan into attacking.  Of course, he broke the Neutrality Act in supplying England with arms (1940), and Russia with millions of tons of supplies.  America didn’t enter the war until Dec 7, 1941.

  1. The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September 1940.

    1. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws.  Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time concluded that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.

  2. The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941.

  3. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941.

  a.   Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks, but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when the administration’s spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, “when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany.”

  1. The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941.

  2. The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base, obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind.

  3. The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars.

  4. The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941.

  5. Besides committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, this conference considered the presentation of an ultimatum to Japan and the occupation of the Cape Verde Islands, a Portuguese possession, by United States troops.

  6. The orders to American warships to shoot on sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11.

  7. The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German Declaration of War, which followed Pearl Harbor.

  8. The authorization for the arming of merchant ships and the sending of these ships into war zones in November, 1941.

  9. The freezing of Japanese assets in the United States on July 25, 1941.

    1. This step, which was followed by similar action on the part of Great Britain and the Netherlands East Indies, amounted to a commercial blockade of Japan. The war-making potentialities of this decision had been recognized by Roosevelt himself shortly before it was taken. Addressing a delegation and explaining why oil exports to Japan had not been stopped previously, he said:

    2. It was very essential, from our own selfish point of view of defense, to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out down there…. Now, if we cut the oil off, they [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Netherland’s East Indies a year ago, and we would have had war.

  10. When the Japanese Prime Minister, Prince Fumimaro Konoye, appealed for a personal meeting with Roosevelt to discuss an amicable settlement in the Pacific, this appeal was rejected, despite the strong favorable recommendations of the American ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew.

  11. Final step on the road to war in the Pacific was Secretary of State Hull’s note to the Japanese government of November 26. Before sending this communication Hull had considered proposing a compromise formula which would have relaxed the blockade of Japan in return for Japanese withdrawal from southern Indochina and a limitation of Japanese forces in northern Indochina.

  12. However, Hull dropped this idea under pressure from British and Chinese sources. He dispatched a veritable ultimatum on November 26, which demanded unconditional Japanese withdrawal from China and from Indochina and insisted that there should be “no support of any government in China other than the National government [Chiang Kai-shek].” Hull admitted that this note took Japanese-American relations out of the realm of diplomacy and placed them in the hands of the military authorities.

  13. The negative Japanese reply to this note was delivered almost simultaneously with the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was a strange and as yet unexplained failure to prepare for this attack by giving General Short and Admiral Kimmel, commanders on the spot, a clear picture of the imminent danger. As Secretary of War Stimson explained the American policy, it was to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot, and it may have been feared that openly precautionary and defensive moves on the part of Kimmel and Short would scare off the impending attack by the Japanese task force which was known to be on its way to some American outpost.

The Scope of WWII:

World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War, was a global war that was underway by 1939 and ended in 1945. It involved the vast majority of the world’s nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million people serving in military units. In a state of “total war“, the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the service of the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it resulted in 50 million to over 75 million fatalities. These deaths make World War II by far the deadliest conflict in human history.[1]

Military Historian  Major-General JFC Fuller

In the view of British historian J.F.C. Fuller, President Roosevelt “left no stone unturned to provoke Hitler to declare war on the very people to whom he so ardently promised peace. He provided Great Britain with American destroyers, he landed American troops in Iceland, and he set out to patrol the Atlantic seaways in order to safeguard British convoys; all of which were acts of war … In spite of his manifold enunciations to keep the United States out of the war, he was bent on provoking some incident which would bring them into it.” / 26

Admiral Harold R. Stark:

So belligerent and unlawful were the Roosevelt administration’s policies that Admiral Harold R. Stark, chief of US naval operations, acknowledged in a confidential September 1941 memorandum for the President: “He [Hitler] has every excuse in the world to declare war on us now, if he were of a mind to.” / 27

Part 2: Helping to bring the Entire World into War

There really isn’t any question that Roosevelt did everything in his power to lead America into the war and was actually breaking national law to do so. The question is, what was Roosevelt’s role in helping to bring the entire world into war?

Documents released by the Germans after their capture of the Polish embassy in Warsaw indicate that Roosevelt was preparing for War with Germany, in 1938 Roosevelt was demanding the European countries reject Germany’s diplomatic offers. Promising to support them militarily (an act illegal in the articles of war for a neutral country) If they did so. A promise he failed to keep or was unable to.

Roosevelt’s Responsibility:

While it always takes willing parties to go to war.  It’s not clear if Hitler’s intent was simply to annex and restore back the original lands of Germany and it’s people’s or enter into total war.  The situation continually evolved with various political realities occurring along with the instigation of Roosevelt’s machinations; the progression of war proceeded quite rapidly.

There are several competing theories why President Roosevelt needed to do this: Was it the banking institutions desire to punish Hitler for delinking from paying the interest and establishing his own currency? was it simply FDR’s policies not working quite as well as Hitlers?, was it FDR’s secret desire to see Russia succeed in its Socialist policies and Germany fail?”  These are all topics debated, and motives simmering just below the surface of the forces surrounding WW2.

The Prophecy:

It was 1960 and President Kennedy was elected.  Bro. Branham was looking back at some visions the Lord had given him long ago.

  1. 1932: (Listen to this.) As I was on my way… Or as I was getting ready to go on my way to church this morning, it came to pass that I fell into a vision. Our services is being held on Meigs Avenue at the old orphans’ home, where Charlie Kern lives in part of the building.” (He lives just across the street now, you know.) And it came to pass that while I was in this vision I seen some dreadful things take place. I speak this in the Name of the Lord.

The president which now is, President Franklin D. Roosevelt… (Now remember, this is twenty-eight years ago.) will cause the whole world to go to war; and the new dictator of Italy, Mussolini, shall make his first invasion towards Ethiopia, and he will take Ethiopia; but that’ll be his last. He shall come to his end.

(…)Now, look what happened now. In… President Franklin D. Roosevelt took America to England’s tea party. That’s right. Germany never picked on us; we picked on them, throwed the whole world into a war, to cause a world war.~Condemnation By Representation, 1960

*England was attempting to free up the western European states to allow Europe to withstand the Russian advances. At the Locarno treaty.

  1. “ (…) At that time I was just a boy: 1933, on June. (…) Said, “We now have a president (Dwi… Mr. Roosevelt), and this Mr. Roosevelt will cause the world to go into a world war through his–in his time of his administration, his–his–as president,”” ~Conference 1960

I said, “The President that now is (I copied this off of the old Scripture–old thing yesterday)–that the President that we now have, which was (how many remembers whose it was?) Franklin D. Roosevelt…” I said, “The President we have in now will run even in the fourth term (He’s on his first then.)–will run into the fourth term, and we will be taken to a second world  war.” ~The Seventieth Week of Daniel 1961

*Roosevelt is the only president in American History to date elected to four terms. He didn’t succeed in bringing the United States into war until his 3rd term.

“How many remembers that vision, here in the church? Sure. Said that, how that even Kennedy would be elected in this last election. How that women would be permitted to vote. How that Roosevelt would take the world to war.” ~Ephesian Church Age

Now, she’s gone. Write it in your Bible; see if it’s right. 1933, one morning going to the Baptist tabernacle, I went into a trance, saw a vision. I saw President Roosevelt was going to help lead the world to a world war, told it that morning. They was going to lock me up for it. And I said, “They’ll go to war with Germany.” Eleven years before the Maginot Line was built, I said, “There…” in that same vision I saw Germany fortified in concrete. And America took a terrible beating there, and many of you boys know what happened, was there.  ~Jehovah Jireh 1961

  1. I seen it, thirty–1931. Seven things happened. I got it right on paper here with me, wrote it in 1931. How that I said, “This President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, he will cause all the world, help do it, send the world to war.” Hadn’t come to war yet, during times of depression. I said, “Another thing…” And my mother, a square-back Democrat, if she didn’t look at me hard when I said that. I said, “I don’t care if there’s a Republican or if he was a Socialist or whatever he is, this is THUS SAITH THE LORD.” ~Jezebel Religion 61-0319

*Many people today still refuse to believe Roosevelt led the world into war. The day I was writing this article a lady got very perturbed that some of these articles were saying such things about President Roosevelt.~BJW

Following is the timeline of events from the treaty of Versaille until the beginning of WW2.

Basic Timeline of events from WWI (Treaty of Versailles)

  • 1919 June 28-Treaty of Versailles Reparations set: at 31.4 billion dollars (about 442 billion in 2013 currency)

  • 1924-Dawes plan of scaling down the Reparations accepted by Germany (There were several issues simmering left over from the Treaty of Versailles. The Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, the lands in Poland given by the treaty of Versailles.  )ny, France

  • 1925-October Stressman bring Locarno Pact which bring back some of Germany’s border land, England agrees to support any nation that will get invaded as a counterbalance to ensure diplomatic means.

  • 1929-October General Stock Market Crash 1929 Oct 29

    • Within 1 month 16 billion dollars vanished and in a year 40 billion

  • 1931 -Germany suspends annual payments of the reparations act in the Treaty of Versailles during the global financial crisis and Adolf Hitler unsurprisingly declines to resume them when coming to power in 1933.

  • 1932-Hitler and Roosevelt both elected

  • 1933- Hitler and Roosevelt both installed as Chancellor Of Germany and President of the United States

  • June 1933- Rev. Branham received the 7 visions of events that would describe world events (Bro. Branham states several other dates as well 1931, and 1932.   The vision says that Roosevelt “the president that now is.” 1933 was chosen based off the vision rather than bro. Branhams other statements of 1932 and 1931.   Not until Roosevelt’s 3rd term did America finally enter the war against Germany. FDR is the only president to date serving more than two terms.)

  • 1934- President Hindenburg dies, Hitler dissolves the office of the presidency declares himself Fuhrer, controls the legal system, military, and financial institutions.

  • Hitler Creates the Federnote (Federgeld) currency.  Germanys industrial economy had grown 100% under the reparations act.  Within 6 years and without the financial burdens of the reparations act an economic revival changes Germany from one of the poorest nations into an industrial powerhouse.

  • 1938-Germany annexes the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia-reclaiming the area taken in the treaty of Versaille along with the population that is primarily Germanic. (The groundwork for this was laid in Britain’s Locarno Pact.  Hitler is actually just doing what was already set in motion 13 years ago.)

  • 1938-The Poles viewed the Munich Settlement of 1938 very differently than did Roosevelt and his circle. The President bitterly attacked the Munich agreement, which gave self-determination to the three and a half million Germans of Czechoslovakia and settled a major European crisis, as a shameful and humiliating capitulation to German blackmail. Although wary of German might, the Polish government supported the Munich agreement, in part because a small Polish territory which had been a part of Czechoslovakia against the wishes of its inhabitants was united with Poland as a result of the Settlement.

  • The Polish envoys held the makers of American foreign policy in something approaching contempt. President Roosevelt was considered a master political artist who knew how to mold American public opinion, but very little about the true state of affairs in Europe. As Poland’s Ambassador to Washington emphasized in his reports to Warsaw, Roosevelt pushed America into war in order to distract attention from his failures as President in domestic policy.

  • 1938-Poland is promised material support from the U.S. through England with the expectation they reject Hitler’s diplomacy.

  • 1938-Roosevelt through the European Ambassador Bullit demands Poland reject Hitler’s demands, thereby forcing Hitler’s hand to use force rather than diplomacy.  Ambassador Bullit also galvanized France and great Britain saying “You will be denied material and moral support.. if you stand idly by.

  • Again Roosevelt is rejecting diplomatic means forcing resolution by military force.

  • Sept. 1938-Roosevelt meets with the British Ambassador: “The President said that if Britain and France “would find themselves forced to war” against Germany, the United States would ultimately join as well. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually declaring war and force other states (including neutrals)” Ibid..

  • Events quickly unraveled. On March 31, 1939, Poland received a blank check (19) from England, which unilaterally offered to guarantee her sovereignty; not only if Germany invaded Poland, but also if Poland invaded Germany! This merely served to stiffen Polish resistance to Hitler’s genuine desire to achieve a permanent solution of all outstanding issues emanating from the Treaty of Versailles. Ibid..

  • During the next five months the Polish government progressively intensified the oppression, harassment of and attacks on the 1.5 million ethnic Germans living in Poland. These attacks, in which over 58 000 German civilians were killed by Poles in an orgy of savagery, culminated in the Bromberg Massacre on September 3, 1939, in which 5 500 people were murdered. These provocations and atrocities were stoically ignored.(20) Eventually Hitler was forced to employ military intervention in order to protect the Germans in Poland. Ibid. (The article is somewhat  disingenuous as the Sept 3rd massacre would’ve happened after Germany invaded:- at times it’s difficult to distinguish the various documents intents-we are not trying to say more or less than what happened. )

  • On August 30, 1939, in an act of statesmanship, Hitler again offered to the Poles the Marienwerder proposals,(21) namely retention of the existing 1919 borders, the return of Danzig (97% German), the construction of a 60-mile autobahn and rail link connecting West and East Prussia (from Schoenlanke to Marienwerder) and an exchange of German and Polish populations. On the orders of the international bankers, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, strongly advised the Poles NOT to negotiate. This is how and why World War II was started. The ensuing forced war resulted in victory for the international financiers and defeat and financial slavery for all the people of Europe. Ibid.

  • 1938-1939-FDR stated a policy that the Soviet Union could build destroyers in the United States.

  • Sept. 1st 1939 invasion of Poland.

  • England and France forced by treaties and Roosevelt’s hardlining both declare war on Germany which begins the “Phony War”


We’ve seen that  Roosevelt’s influence was felt on all fronts: Europe, Russia, and Asia.

  1. Roosevelt rejected diplomacy as a solution forcing the nations of France, England, and Poland to fight rather than deal diplomatically.

  2. Roosevelt materially supported the UK and Russia, an act of war.

  3. Roosevelt placed what amounted to an economic blockade on Japan cutting off their oil supplies and forcing them into war when he could not get Germany to attack the US

Military historians acknowledge Roosevelt’s actions gave Germany any number of excuses to attack America.

The Vision Rev. Branham saw is amazingly born out in actual fact.

  1. Roosevelt the only president to serve more than 2 terms and an unprecedented 4

  2. Helped lead the entire world into war.

Sources for this Article:

The Peaceful view of FDR’s actions

Was FDR pro-jewish?

FDR’s Scandals.

Policies Leading to WW2

Review of the Secret Polish Documents

Hitler and the Bankster: Forced Servitude

Hitler did not want war:



13 thoughts on “Visions of 1933: President Roosevelt Helped Lead The World To War?

  • There are those that believe King Roosevelt saved us from the big bad Japanese and those that face facts. FDR wanted and needed the war for many reasons, plus he was being advised of the same. You won’t have to convince me.

  • I have told people since I was a late teen, that FDR was the worst president in history, aside from Carter; that, of course, was before Obama. I wish this was a downloadable pdf file. No matter, I will turn it into one on my pc, and then edit the mistakes–not content, simply editorial.

  • Please ensure Present Truth Ministry is cited in your PDF along with a link to the site. Thank you for your support! Benjamin Wheeldon

  • Interesting question. At some point documentation is valuable but there is another side of documentation that becomes false. The whole “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it still make a sound?” The argument being that unless their is proof of the noise, there was no noise. This is often how people look at documentation. If there were no documents still in existence (signed by a notary republic) it never happened. But this in itself creates a lie harder to believe than if we just accept that the laws of physics did not change for in this case. . the tree. That the sign of the tree falling in fact indicate there was a noise.

    There is also the hyperdocumentation of the Catholic Church, wherein there are 2 skulls of John the Baptist, some several dozen original nails that were used in the Cross of Christ etc.
    So while we would love to have a copy of that original prophecy and would gladly share it. It appears that for now we are forced to go off of testimony. Fortunately testimony has been a commonly accepted method of recording an event as well and is as accepted a method as documentation.
    In fact the majority of the Bible is based off of the testimony of others after the fact. So we feel that this is certainly within the bounds allowed by scripture.
    Hopefully that balances out your concern! Best wishes.

  • Really? It’s impossible to discuss this without delving into sources that are anti-Semitic? You need conspiracy theorists to prove your point? Has it crossed your mind that you are so desparate to prove your point that you are willing to go to sources that are, in fact, untrustworthy and disreputable? Does this mean that this website has anti-semitic leanings?

  • Interesting reply, you made it through the first paragraph and pointed out exactly what I pointed out that they were anti-semitic which you probably wouldn’t have known unless i had stated it. Proving that your objective ability is in doubt. Clearly you did not make it even to the second paragraph where the Biblical stance was put forward. Finally if we didn’t rely on government records that were from anti-semitic governments-It’s doubtful we would know as much about the Holocaust as we do..The Germans were extensive record keepers.

    In the article that is quoted we find this statement..
    “Charles C. Tansill, professor of American diplomatic history at Georgetown University, considered them genuine. “… I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic,” he wrote.[8] Historian and sociologist Harry Elmer Barnes confirmed this assessment: “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents.”[9] In America’s Second Crusade, William H. Chamberlin reported: “I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.”[10]

    More importantly, Edward Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed the authenticity of the documents in his diary, which was published in 1963 under the title In Allied London. In his entry for 20 June 1940, he wrote:
    The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki in Washington, Lukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.

    In this ‘First Series’ of documents I found three reports from this Embassy, two by myself and the third signed by me but written by Balinski. I read them with some apprehension, but they contained nothing liable to compromise myself or the Embassy or to impair relations with our British hosts.[11]

  • I actually am very aware of the appalling site which you referenced in your article (although I was warned by my browser not to visit it but I persevered). You rely on information from a website which has articles that deny the existence of Nazi gas chambers, that calls the conviction and imprisonment of Herman Hess a fraud, defends Joseph Goebbels and speaks glowingly of the Nazi economic programs in Germany?

    You question my objectivity when you publish revisionist neo-Nazi drivel?

    Your credibility is what is in question.

    As I stated, it appears that your desperation to prove a point has you joining hands with facists. And you then think that I will listen to anything else you say?

    I admire intellectual honesty, the opposite? Not so much.

  • Thanks for your opinion, amazingly it was difficult to determine which credible sources to list.. Those that covered up FDRs scandalous behavior, those that painted him as pro Jewish, yet his policies stole billions from the wall street Jewish investors, and ignored his turning away the ship of Jewish refugees trying to escape the holocaust. Those that had him lying continuously to the American people. Finding credible sources was difficult to say the least.
    Again this only points to a larger issue- the fallacy that simply citing various documents as evidence for a stance proves it true. You’re more than welcome to list the items in this article that are untrue.
    Btw you might be interested to know that the US governments policy of quantitative easing is pretty close to what Hitler did during the 30’s

  • As I stated, the use of neo-nazi propaganda simply impinges on your own reputation. It also demonstrates that you are desperate to prove your point.

    Have you considered that perhaps the reason, as you stated, that “finding credible sources was difficult” is that the facts are not on your side.

    You appear to be arguing against the vast majority of scholars to prove what? That FDR helped to start WW2?

    I am not sure how this helps support your Christian cause but it certainly has a negative impact on your credibility. Although i am not particularly familiar with this website, it appears to be to try to support the prophecy of this Branham fellow mentioned above.

    Please note that, while you state that the purpose of your post was to demonstrate that FDR “Helped Lead The World To War”, the wording of the prophecy that you quote states that FDR would “cause the whole world to go to war”.

    Even if you are correct in your premise re FDR (which the vast majority of scholars would argue against you), there is a big difference between FDR “helping” to cause something and FDR actually causing WW2. For you to argue the latter exhibits even more credulity on your part.

    Finally, another hit to your credibility – Hitler did not engage in anything like quantitative easing. His predecessors did and that is what helped him come to power.

  • Well I’m not really interested in repeating the same argument a 3rd time. Your posts are bordering spam and have little if anything even to do with the actual article.

    Feel free to post the “vast majority of scholars.” You refer to; specifically to deal with the events on the timeline. Most aren’t even debatable: they happened; they were in direct contradiction to national policy as well as entirely provocative. If they disagree with this “vast majority of scholars” then it’s the “vast majority of scholars” that are wrong and whose credibility is lacking.

    Quantitative easing is successful when de-linked from the Gold Standard, and with low interest rates. Hitler produced his own currency in just such an environment. We’re currently at pretty near 0% interest rate as was Germany at the time. The reason inflation hasn’t occurred is exactly because the Gold has not been called in and Currency value is presently only determined by the various government values and calculations that say’s it’s worth a certain value. When it’s tied to Gold suddenly the debts, interest etc will take an entirely different life of it’s own. Please also read the cited article. Your comments make me wonder if you even read anything.
    If you don’t mind I’m planning to use your comments as a case study in how easy it is to make someone’s words seem to contradict themselves.
    1) For example you refer to one quote of Rev. Branham. This is typical fare for our unbelieving acquaintances. To take a quote and refuse to contextualize it. There are 6 other quotes listed in the article on the prophecy.
    2) Regarding your accusations you’ve made basically the same statement 3 different times now. Although the first time was a simple generalization, you label the anti-Semitic source “conspiracy theorists” then go on to claim the sources are “untrustworthy and disreputable”, and accusing PTM site of anti-Semitic leanings. (apparently you didn’t read past the first paragraph before leveling the shotgun-)
    3) Your next diatribe delves deeper into the issue while changing the narrative somewhat calling the site “appalling” and then record having to persevere in spite of (unexpected?) browsers warnings. This time your accusation of desperation appears at the end of his statement, whereas the first time it was at the beginning. It appears you are somewhat confused not knowing what order to make your statements in or remembering to order them consistently. (You do appear to believe in progressive lambasting though perhaps you expand more along the way.)
    4) Your most recent diatribe reverts to the author’s credibility rather than the articles and now changing from simple “conspiracy theorists” to describing the article as “Neo-Nazi propaganda” This takes up a smaller portion of your comment and you begins to refer to a “vast majority of scholars” which you have yet to reference. You do not actually deal with any of the events recorded in the timeline but instead rely on personal attacks to make your ‘intellectually honest” points.
    5) One wonders: why did you change focus from the first to the last time, from conspiracy theorists to Neo Nazi Propaganda? Both ideas are quite different and distinct and one also wonders why you would be “Having to persevere through” the web browsers warnings to a site that you were “quite familiar with” making it sound like it was your first time there and you’re misleading the vast majority of those willing to work through your statements.
    6) That beings said, I’m having a difficult time trusting your integrity you appear willing to change and adjust your story each time even misleading the reader to believe you are quite familiar with a sight that apparently you only recently visited and dug into..
    7) *side point.. Plagiarism: You seems to plagiarize the talking points of a little known site antagonistic of what we call Message belief. You have not cited that website as a source but it appears you have plagiarized their reasoning’s. Either you’re one of those sites authors masquerading as an anonymous “truth seeker” or a plagiarizer; that being said God hates such that plagiarize the words of others and call it their own.
    8) Finally it’s pretty clear I’ve twisted your words much the same as folks like you have constantly twisted Rev. Branham’s in this rather childish pointing out of the minutiae between helping and causing. That’s the point it’s ridiculous when those of your persuasion have made the case across Rev. Branham’s 17 yrs. of recorded preaching, but your own statements don’t even survive after 2 weeks.
    9) So best wishes. Credibility is not determined by the critics.

  • Branham prophesied in 1931,1932 or 1933 that women would be permitted to vote. 28 years later he tells about these prophecies and says he has them written down on paper. Where is that paper? In the fly leaf of a bible? Buried in the cornerstone of Branham Tabernacle.

    If Branham had done his homework, he wouldn’t have mentioned women getting rights to vote in his “visions”.
    They already had the rights since 1920. Or do we somehow…cover for the message here too and make up a lie to cover the first lie?

  • I will first say that brother Branham was unclear in what he was speaking about and varied in how he described it, but if you look at how he consistently brings it up, it appears he is referring to the past tense that women got the right to vote and then his prophesy is that as a result they will elect the wrong man. He did not prophesy that women would get the right to vote in 1933. That seems fairly clear when you read each time he describes the prophesy.

    E-75 † Notice. I said, “Mussolini is standing up as a dictator; he will make his first invasion to Ethiopia. But he will take Ethiopia, but he will come to a disgraceful end, him and that woman both.” And they hung them with their feet up, and her clothes hanging over her head in the street, and spit on them.
    I said, “Science will improve.” I said, “Another thing, the nation has permitted women to vote, one of the most horrible disgraces they’ve done.” And I said, “In voting they’ll elect the wrong man.” I’m neither Democrat nor Republican. I’m a Christian. Both sides is rotten. But they made their fatal mistake the other day. Women done the works.

Comments are closed.