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.
I've restrained myself tons over the last year in deference to you.
I don't profess to know lots and tons about the Masons either.
I haven't knowingly engaged in false witness, either.
I realize that hearsay is hazardous.
I'm strongly convinced that there's more going on than meets the eye.
I'm not impressed by the Masonic defense diatribes nor by those rabidly wholesale shrill in hostility toward the Masons.
I do have some experience counseling folks with varying degrees of Masonic background.
And I'll stop there.
I realize that. I was there at the time. Thank you for once again pointing it out to me, though. One can't remind me of things too often...I can be very dense sometimes.
It is not my intent to shatter anyone's world view by entering into these discussions, as I believe someone's faith is a personal matter. You realize, you & I are talking heresy.
Here we go again. Masons vs. Catholics.
Stuff and nonsense.
(mumbles something about talking to a brick wall)
OTOH, the reverse has not been the case. If you want the gloves to come off, so be it and I know far more about YOUR topic, than you know about Freemasonry.
And please don't use weasel words with me! Throwing in "knowingly" and your counseling, doesn't cut it.
Oh, so now accurate, historically factual, and detailed replies, used to refute baldfaced lies and 1/2 truths, are to be labeled "diatribes", are they? I'll remind of this; of THAT you can be sure.
LOL
You can be a catholic, or a baptist, or a presbyterian, or whatever, but what you cannot be is a child of God.
Every year, the ancient relic is rolled by the Senior Warden from the East to the Junior Warden in the West, and back again in commemoration of the Lodge's early years.
Ping to self for later.
Masonry WAS A BIG DEAL and Washington was King of the Hill!!
I was stunned to find out recently that a particular person was a Mason. It was then that I realized is "IN" for everything at the time....Robert Morris via GW!!
I thought my last was a very mild and very submissive bow to you and your preferences and sensibilities. I really don't understand what in it triggered all this:
= = = =
I have NOT ever joined in on the piling on, of you, vis-a-vis some of the things you have posted. And yes, your own term, "benign neglect" is what I gave/give you. I don't even post to those threads.
= = = =
Qx: And I you on this topic. Very rarely do I post anything on it and very, very, very little when I do. Seems like you are dishing out a 150,000 lb response to a 1.5 oz stimulus.
= = = =
OTOH, the reverse has not been the case. If you want the gloves to come off, so be it and I know far more about YOUR topic, than you know about Freemasonry.
= = = =
Qx:
I don't recall saying anything or behaving in any way or using any words which would even imply the remotest desire to treat you with anything but respect and deference even on this topic.
You are welcome to post on any of "my" topics. I've never asked you to lay off. I've never ranted/railed/shrilled at you for any of your opinions that differed from mine--that I can recall. I still consider you a dear and close Friend. I'm pretty mystified by your responses to me on this thread and topic given my extremely mild and inconsequential comments.
= = = = = =
And please don't use weasel words with me! Throwing in "knowingly" and your counseling, doesn't cut it.
= = = =
Qx: Sorry you see them that way. I was merely relating my reality involved--sharing as accurately as I possibly could my perspective and limits of my awareness. It was actually an agreement with you that I had limited awareness. I'm shocked you think it deserves such a harsh slap-down. I don't recall ever even hinting that you were anything remotely close to a weasel.
= = = = = =
Oh, so now accurate, historically factual, and detailed replies, used to refute baldfaced lies and 1/2 truths, are to be labeled "diatribes", are they? I'll remind of this; of THAT you can be sure.
= = = = =
Qx:
I'm not sure what that's going on about at all. Shrill sounding, super strident pontifications on almost any topic come across to me as so much diatribe quite often. Doesn't matter how truthful or not; well founded or not; knowledgeable or not--it's a comment, to me, about the volume and shrillness and perhaps the seeming assumption of virtual or near all knowingness about a topic.
I don't have enough scientific proof level information to emphatically prove much of anything on this topic. I see reasonable points from a lot of; most of the perspectives, if not all of them. So, I'm 99.9% reasonably happy to leave you to it given your vastly greater knowledge and my affections for you and hubby as friends.
You can trounce, pounce on, shred, malign, assault etc. those affections all you feel compelled to do. And they will still be there for and toward both of you as well as for your offspring, to my dying breath regardless of what you do to me privately or publically.
Perhaps it would be good to realize that I didn't wind you up on this topic. And probably I don't deserve to be unwound all over and all on top of because of my weak whiff's of a comment.
= = = =
As to my shredding you on one of your pet interests, in public, I probably won't do it. I shall continue to stay off those threads and allow you to do the damage to yourself; you need no help from me, in that quarter.
Oh, so now I'm "shrill", am I? Funny, I would have taken strident, I would even have accepted imperious; I shan't accept "shrill".
The less said about this, between us, the better.
Sorry to have offended.
Sorry authentic earnest heart felt replies are seen as smarmy etc.
GBWU,
Shoot, I'm shrill at times.
I don't see a lot of difference in many cases between shrill and strident.
I accept your apology.
Much appreciated.
Thanks.
There's quite a difference, though I'll grant you that it is nuanced, between "shrill" and "strident".
Welcome.....as ever. :-)
lol
I'd say about the difference between exquisite and beautiful. Both words quite a similar description, but the former slightly greater than the latter.
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.