Posted on 09/12/2006 10:51:48 PM PDT by dangus
The era of the free-masons.
Between 1937 and 1958, an amazing succession of publicly Masonic Supreme Court justices were appointed to the Supreme Court. Collectively, they radicalized American politics. Since their ascension, it can truly be said that every major socio-political change in America has been brought about by judicial, rather than legislative, means. They utterly dominated the Supreme Court during the Warren, Stone, and Vinson courts (1941-1969.) At times, as many as eight of the nine justice were Masonic.
The following is a listing of Masonic US Supreme Court justices appointed in the last 70 years. This is no conspiracy theory; all were very publicly Masonic. Allegations of covert Masonry (such as Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower) have been rejected for the purposes of this list.
Hugo Black (1937-1971)
S. F. Reed (1938-1957)
William Douglas (1939-1975)
Robert Jackson (1941-1954)
James Byrnes (1941-1942)
Wiley Rutledge (1943-1949)
Harold Burton (1945-1958)
Fred Vinson (1946-1953)
Tom C. Clark (1949-1967)
Sherman Minton (1949-1956)
Earl Warren (1953-1969)
John Marshall Harlan (1955-1971)
Potter Stewart (1958-1981)
Also, Thurgood Marshall (1968-1991) was a freemason.
Today, there are five (okay, four and a quarter) conservatives on the United States Supreme Court. Is it a coincidence that they are also the five members who cannot be freemasons?
Freemasons generally disdain Catholics, and Catholics may even incur excommunication by becoming Freemasons; all five are Catholic: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Sam Alito. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not likely a freemason, nor is there credible evidence linking the other liberals to masonry.)
Unlike Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson, John Kennedy was also not masonic. His appointments, Abe Fortas (1962-1965), and Byron White (1962-1993) were the only non-radical-leftists for several years on the court. Nixon, a Quaker, was also non-Masonic; Burger, while still liberal, was decidedly more moderate than his colleagues. Rehnquist was decidedly conservative. Unfortunately, the Senate blocked further conservatives, resulting in the selection of Lewis Powell, Jr.
Gerald Ford was a Freemason, and his selection, John Paul Stevens, while not publicly Masonic, continued the radical policies of prior freemasons. Was Stevens simply covertly Masonic? Sources alleging he was are not reliable, but his ties are definite.
Today, there are five (okay, four and a quarter) conservatives on the United States Supreme Court. Is it a coincidence that they are also the five members who cannot be freemasons?
Freemasons generally disdain Catholics, and Catholics may even incur excommunication by becoming Freemasons; all five non-liberals are Catholic: conservatives Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito, and moderate Anthony Kennedy. (Clarence Thomas was not Catholic when he was appointed, but was Catholic previously and is currently Catholic.) All four solidly conservative justices have been linked to an anti-Masonic, Catholic group.
ha ha, this could become a routine. I get home from the office around 10, try to get started on my "take home" stuff, and instead waste a couple of hours hating on masons.
Can we discuss the DC street map tomorrow?
In all serious, if your information on the Supreme Court is correct, I guess it's not all that surprising.
Masons are a cult, like Moonies. I was offered, and rejected membership.
I often suspect nonsense about all US Presidents but Kennedy (the assassinated guy) being Masonic are ruses to purposely discredit anti-Masons. Less than a third of U.S. Presidents were Masonic. On the other hand, it's interesting to note that the last three openly Masonic presidents came to power not by way of an election, but by the untimely departure of their predecessor: Ford, Johnson, and Truman were Masons. But again, why speculate about the unknowable when the knowable is devestating: Freemasons have dismantled American Democracy through an "activist" Supreme Court since 1937.
(Incidentally, the judge who established the questionnably constitutional precedent of judicial supremacy, Marshall, was also a freemason. And yes, the concept is questionable: Many have argued that the veto was intended as the mechanism to prevent the passage of unconstitutional legislation. Again, the President who politicized the veto, Jackson, was also Masonic.)
Interesting post. Thanks.
Stuff and nonsense! All men who believe in God are welcome to become Masons.
Catholics are welcome but from what I understand, the Vatican prohibits practicing Roman Catholics from joining any group which has a code of secrecy.
Not long ago I heard the story of a practicing active Roman Catholic priest who was a Mason.
>> Can we discuss the DC street map tomorrow? <<
That was last night. That DC is strongly influenced by Masonry is unquestionnable, incidentally. You only have to go to the National Masonic Monument in Alexandria, Virginia to read the Masons openly take credit for it. As well as explain why they worship Lucifer (no, it's not actually Satanic; the name means "bearer of light") while bowing before a golden bull. The funny part is that most of them go home and preach to their congregations that Catholicism is evil because we bow before statues.
Let's just say that there was a recent movie, filled with Masonic imagery, which treated the group that at least two of them have been linked to very poorly.
So, none of today's justices are Masons? What went wrong, I thought they controlled everything?
Oh, I know first-hand that there do exist Catholics who are free-masons. The question is whether they can be Catholics in good standing. Certain state chapters (terminology?) of Freemasons are fairly freindly towards Catholics. Some are even accused of trying to infiltrate Catholicism. Many are expressly anti-Catholic. But freemasonry, itself, probably emerged from Knights Templar who were prosecuted by the Catholic Church for war crimes during the Crusades; the antipathy is most certainly two-way. As many of the Knights Templar refugees fled to the mountains of Switzerland, it's not hard to imagine that they heavily influenced Calvin and other anti-Catholics.
At least they aren't openly masonic. It's possible that they decided that the legal environment was sufficiently dominated by their liberalism by 1968. It's also possible that they simply are no longer overt. Stevens is certainly radically leftist; he was appointed by a freemason; he has ancestral ties to the right lands. But we don't KNOW he's Masonic. I will say that I doubt that Ginsburg is, since I can't help but notice that none of the Jewish justices in the era of Masonic domination were Masonic. I wouldn't be surprised if Souter is Masonic, but there's vastly insufficient (i.e., no reliable) evidence to support that conclusion.
The Freemason's is just a bunch of guys trying to do good for people. The mysteries were designed to attract people to it. Most of our forefathers were Mason's. Texas was founded by Mason's. Most of the government we have today is based on Masonry. When you take an oath for the government, it is very similar to Masonic oaths.
I can't for the life of me figure why patriotic people hate Masons. You are hating the foundation of who you are.
There are good Masons and crappy ones, just like there are good Catholics and crappy ones. If Catholics excommunicated Democrats like they hate Masons, maybe the country would change. The Jews do the same thing. They vote for Democrats that hate Israel and would sell them out in a minute because they can't believe Republicans would never turn on them.
Being a Mason is more for raising money for charity than stacking the court with some cabal. Anyone that gains the power will attempt to promote people they want and to hell with what you want. You don't have to be Masonic for that.
"Certain state chapters (terminology?) of Freemasons are fairly freindly towards Catholics. Some are even accused of trying to infiltrate Catholicism."
That's a switch from your earlier"Freemasons generally disdain Catholics"
Get facts from somewhere other than Wikipedia and sites like The Forbidden Knowledge which makes the claim that the Freemasons caused the terrorist plane hijackings and destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
here's a little different explanation.....this one includes ISLAM
http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Freemasonry.htm
I wasnt going to quabble about whether Freemasons welcome Catholics or not. IMHO saying that they do is like saying that Calvinist churches welcome Catholics: Come on in, as long as you leave your stuff at the door.
>> I can't for the life of me figure why patriotic people hate Masons. You are hating the foundation of who you are. <<
...But I can't tolerate this! It is true that several of the founding fathers (Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Mason) were freemasons. But they certainly were the minority, albeit a very important minority. Freemasons were important in the formation of America in several key ways, but they are not the foundation of who I am, or what America is.
There is a Masonic lodge right here in Los Angeles county that has a Catholic priest as a member. It is not generally known, but the Church has no real objection as long as you don't go into the higher degrees. The Scotish Rite in particular.
The word "generally" infers that the subsequent condition is not universally true. So saying "certain... are fairly friendly" is in no means contradicting "generally disdain," especially if the friendliness is largely to win influence ("some are even accused of trying to infiltrate Catholicism") or the friendliness is dependent on the Catholic apostosizing.
The Catholic Church excommunicates freemasons because it is the Catholic Church's perception that historically freemasonry is trying to eradicate the Catholic Church.
>> Get facts from somewhere other than Wikipedia and sites like The Forbidden Knowledge which makes the claim that the Freemasons caused the terrorist plane hijackings and destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. <<
I never said anything to support such kooky conspiracy theories, and in fact disdained them. None of my information in any way resembles anything found at sites like "Forbidden Knowledge." If you would like to challenge the accuracy of any of the identifications, please do so, but do not make absurd, inflammatory and patently false accusations against me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.