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.
"basically all the founders of the United States."
Yet, when it serves your rhetorical purposes, it's just a fraternity, right?
It sorta seems like Freemasons disappear after the American Revolution, except for folks like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, and then re-emerges in the mid-20th century to ruin the Constitution formed, admittedly, with the strong influence of the 18th-century Masons (presuming, of course, that the KKK and other ignoble organizations are not, in fact, Masonic).
Your claims that "basically all the founders of the United States" were Masons is about as loopy as claiming to have constructed the Great Pyramids.
If I see reason to, I will. Thanks for the heads-up.
We all read your post and now, NOW, you are denying that you wrote what you wrote. Unlike you, the rest of us can read with full comprehension. Backpedaling and lying, when called on what you said, is not helping you one bit.
Unless you ask the Mod to delete your posts and this thread, everyone can see for themselves that you are digging yourself into one gigantic hole, from which it is now impossible to extricate yourself from. ;^)
Jefferson would not have been permitted to be a Freemason because he was not of good character, nor willing to accept the Holy Bible as the guide to his life.
(If looking for an actual Deist, Jefferson would be your man. He even re-wrote the New Testament, stripped of theology.)
But speaking of founding fathers that were masons, my favorite would be Paul Revere.
There's a great entry by the Secretary of the Boston Lodge re: the Boston Tea Party that states (paraphrase):
"The brethern, led by WM Revere, quite upset regarding the UnJust Taxation, have adjourned to the Harbor for a brief festivity. Libations to be consumed at WM Revere's home at 4:00 PM sharp. A motion was carried for the lodge to be left open for enjoyment."
And while you're at it, stop posting stupid vanities; you are wasting valuable bandwidth!
>> Jefferson would not have been permitted to be a Freemason because he was not of good character, nor willing to accept the Holy Bible as the guide to his life. <<
As opposed to BEN FRANKLIN???
I will be duly surprised.
Maybe you missed watching it. If you didn't see it, then you wouldn't know. Thomas doesn't make a big public show of his religion.
Thanks.
I think it's the tip of the iceberg.
Have had more than one Mason assert to me the routine-ness of Masonic judges letting Masonic defendents off entirely or easy.
The movie I referenced was The Da Vinci Code! DUH! I was denying using it as a source!!!
Read what I wrote again:
>> I got absolutely none of my information from any website about The Da Vinci Code. Referencing a movie is not at all the same thing as getting my information from it. <<
Can you back this statement up?
Your illiteracy is not my fault.
I wasn't there in the courts.
The Masons most pointedly telling me those tales are now dead. But they were emphatic about the truth of such. So, I'm not sure what else I could say.
Shall we start with authorship (Thomas Jefferson), or just list them alphabetically (John Adams)?
I have served on many juries in the past, and not once did I hear the judge ask the defendant if he was a Mason. But then, I guess it was all done with a secret handshake of some sort.
My understanding it was rings and signs, alright.
What do I know.
Actually, Thomas was brought up Catholic; at his (judicial) confirmation, they kept showing his parents' Catholic Charismatic prayer group. He even went to Catholic school. As a young man, he explored many different philosophies and faiths, and gradually returned to the Catholic Church by way of the Episcopal Church.
I must be honest with you, I highly doubt you story. At least I would think it fair to say that if true, there are probably as many Catholic judges who upon learning the defendant is Catholic went a little leaner with their judgement.
My response to you was about some basic anti-Protestant teachings still held by the Roman Catholic Church. I see you have completely ignored the second point I made in that post. Take another look at it, because it explains the reason the Roman Catholic Church began its teachings against the Masons. The power to excommmunicate was used as leverage to get masons, the church builder's to share the secrets of building.
This was told to me by a (fundamentalist Protestant) former Mason. Perhaps it was a policy of his lodge.
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.