Friday, May 21, 2010

If you could put America back in ANY YEAR..........


.......what year would it be? And why? I think we'd ALL admit the last year's been a freakin' NIGHTMARE for America, so I got to thinking about better times. What year (or few years) do you think America was at her best, or your favorite years, anyway...politically, economically, culturally, excitement-wise...?
Hit me with your best shot! (and please don't miss watching that AMAZING VIDEO below! thanks!)

68 comments:

Faith said...

1730 or thereabouts. The Great Awakening.

Karen Howes said...

Oh man, this is a tough question.

The eighties? Rubber shoes, breakdancing, the Cure, and Ronald Reagan. :-)

Karen Howes said...

Okay, maybe not the eighties. That was also the age of AIDS.

How about the Jacksonian era-- 1820's.

JINGOIST said...

I think it would be a tie between the Jefferson Presidency circa the LA Purchase, and the Eisenhower presidency when we were strong, proud and unapologetic about being Americans. Although i like Karen's answer too.

beamish said...

2013.

Obama leaves office, and there aren't enough Democrats in Congress to propose even moving the hat rack in the Congressional cloak rooms.

I look for a bright future. :)

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Everything is relative. You could name a specific year or time and people could pick it apart. You know, "The 1964 Act wasn't in effect yet," "Women couldn't vote yet," "We still had slaves," "People died in childbirth," "No social security yet," etc.

Me? I liked 1960 when the whole family would go to Gramdma and Gramdpa's house and watch "Wizard Of Oz" on the black and white TV and then, afterwards, have a bowl of ice cream in the back yard with everyone, sitting in lawn chairs, waiting for dusk. A slight breeze. The leaves rattling.

Sigh.

Memories.

BZ

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

On second thought, I like Beamish's suggestion just as well if not more.

BZ

Chuck said...

I agree that Beamish is on to something.

Personally for me it would be around 1976.

The patriotism and parades for the bicentennial were cool. Everything was Red, White, and Blue that year. Plus I was only 14 years old and still thought everybody actually loved the country.

Disco was here but it was still a good time.

Anonymous said...

1941 - The year I was born.

Everything has gone down hill ever since I rose to consciousness.

~ FT

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Any year prior to 1913 and passage of the Federal Reserve Act for reasons which ought to be quite obvious.

Linda said...

I would say from this day on. We can't change the past, but we sure can influence the present and future!

FrogBurger said...

I'd say 1776 or even before. Want to hang out with LaFayette, my French hero.

Z said...

This is fun to read, thanks!!

Faith...1730..NO ASPIRIN !:-) (I'm practical!) George Whitefield, is it? The Great AwakenER?

Karen..Ronald Reagan, those were the days...

Jingo, I saw "LA Purchase" and, for a sec, thought you meant Los ANgeles..! With the sentiment toward us today, I was stunned..then WOKE UP! :-) LOUISIANA!
'strong, proud and unapologetic'...oh, please, God, bring that back!

Beamish, you just CRACK ME UP!...'moving the hat racks..'...:-)

Linda, WHAT an optimist! I love that in you and wish there was more of that in ME!

FB...good choice..wonderful just to meet him, n'est-ce pas!?

Soapbox, GREAT choice...couldn't agree more.

sue said...

50's.

Brooke said...

Oooh, this is a toughie. Each era has it's high points, to be sure.

I think the 40's for nostalgia, and I'm with Beamish on the future.

Ducky's here said...

I'm going back to the early 60's. The level of cultural openness I was in the middle of is probably not going to be seen again.

In music you had Bill Evans and Lenny Tristano establishing cool jazz, Miles and Coltrane were going modal and Ornette decided you didn't need chord changes at all.
Folk was all over the place and a lot of real traditional players like Roscoe Holcomb and Doc Boggs hit the club scene.
Eliot Carter and John Cage. The Beatles opened up world music and blues players from Muddy Waters to Mississippi John Hurt were being heard. The Bakersfield country sound hit ... and everyone was listening to this variety. Radio opened up and wasn't demographically segregated as it is now.

The first art house opened in Cambridge. Hollywood is concerned about competing with TV and gets bogged down in CinemaScope narrative cinema. Meanwhile here comes Rashomon, The Bicycle Thief, Shoot the Piano Player, Pierrot le Fou, The Virgin Spring, Ballad of a Soldier. It was clear that Hollywood was screwing everyone around. This was the top shelf stuff.

Pop and minimalism hit the art world and people still wrote poetry.

I like to believe that sometimes culture reacts to art although these days I don't believe it but after the Eisenhower complacency it was good to have the world open up.

William F. Buckley and Rand were there and I was too young to know that greed would win and Libertarianism would sacrifice community for the cult of individualism but it was still a very stimulating time and now everything's been branded and marketed and it's gone.

I feel lucky to have been there.

Z said...

let me just be selfish enough to say here that I wish I was 9 and sitting on Grandma's oriental rug in front of the round screen TV watching I LOVE LUCY and playing with Patti Page paperdolls and sipping strawberry ice cream sodas while Greatgrandma crochets in her big chair in the light from her window....Grandma's in the kitchen making some delicious dinner and Grandpa's about to come in from his store and act like he doesn't know I'm there while I hide behind the couch giggling.
Okay, I know that's selfish and no, I will NOT tell you what year that was! :-)

But, for America's sake? Pre taxes.....when more people went to church .....when kids respected their elders and elders deserved it (but even if they didn't)....when schools demanded good handwriting and THINKING and memorizing poetry.....when young men felt embarrassed and sad when a heart murmur kept them from going into the service....when we could almost only BUY AMERICAN..... when a store owner would give a free candy to a little kid eyeing the bowl on the counter.......when other countries kissed America's feet for her help and wouldn't dream of dissing that great country across the oceans!

I know...I'm a dreamer. And OH, I could write so much more...maybe I'll come back and do that......

Z said...

Sue...the 50's...when I was little, I had a felt skirt Mom made with felt poodles on it...:-) Nice times for many reasons...

Brooke...every time did have good points, didn't it...What would be your choice of HIGH POINTS today? I'm curious.

Ducky, smack on about poetry, I'm with you. I'm afraid I'd say the 60's, however, the Beatles, etc., brought us into that "I'm Okay, You're Okay" nauseating silliness that created a country of wimps.....Drug use, free sex........people championing all of that; Sorry. I think the Sixties were the start of the downhill slide.
Still, I enjoyed reading your comment and most of the things you mention weren't what I'm pointing out to be sure. You make me want to put those movies on my Netflix list, I have to admit! And I LOVE The Blues.

Ducky's here said...

... of course, listening to the latest pearls from Rand "He's Psycho" Paul, the Baggers seem to want us back in the days of segregated lunch counters.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah, z, I agree it all got lost in "if it feels good do it". But there was an opening that only lasted a few years when the world of ideas seemed so open.

Z said...

Ducky...That's who I thought you meant by RANDOIDS yesterday....I see now you meant AYN RAnd, sorry.
Rand spoke stupidly, didn't he. I absolutely agree with his point of getting government out of telling businesses what they can do, but he doesn't speak (or seemingly THINK) at all well and Rachel Maddow had a blast thinking "HA! I'm going to have a BIG NAME NOW for making this Republican HERO look RACIST" (did you see her EYES? they were about to pop out of her head! and how she kept trying to interrupt so he couldn't weasel out when he'd realized what he'd said! Quite a moment in TV history) Poor Rachel, some sites are showing the video without or only quickly mentioning HER!! :-)

He's no racist or segregationist, he's just a lightweight with too little experience to have described what he meant...SAY IT "I don't agree with government telling any business what they can do......but to take my point to the ridiculous length of suggesting I agree with discrimination is, frankly, Ms Maddow, INSANE and you know it"

Z said...

Ducky, you say "Yeah, z, I agree it all got lost in "if it feels good do it"."
thanks for that...I think it did a lot of harm.

Brooke said...

High points today?

Clearly, we are in a bit of a downswing with politics preventing industrial growth,and perhaps families are not as connected as previously, but technology is ever growing. We live in a time that still has disease, but life spans are ever increasing and information is at one's fingertips at the click of a mouse.

Always there is work to do, but we do overall live in a good time.

Z said...

Brooke...I like your thinking and wish I were more like you..
Technology is astonishing and we get a lot from that on all fronts, but I long for the days of a written thank you note (tho I still DO get them and have to write SIXTEEN this weekend some time!!!!) ,

Misfit410 said...

most likely the 40's to 50's when commie bastards like Ducky were called exactly what they were and blacklisted by great men like Joseph McCarthy who took standing up to such trash over being liked or popular.

Z said...

misfit, I wrote an email today stating that I thought McCarthy was the worst thing to ever happen to America...not because of what he was doing (children of those accused have come forth saying their parents were communists and writing films, etc., with that indoctrination in mind...you should see a film I saw recently where there were Depression folks starting a kind of Coop and one of the guys says WHAT KIND OF GOV"T SHOULD WE ESTABLISH HERE ON THIS LAND? and a guy shouts DEMOCRACY? and the leader says "NO, THAT'S WHAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE"..a film, circa 1935...there's a lot of that that went on..
ANYWAY: If McCarthy had handled it better (less bad personality that the left could hang him for, less alcoholism, bad manners, etc.), maybe we wouldn't have that constant mantra from the left about McCARTHYISM every time we try to stop really negative impacts on our country.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking maybe 1970 since I give credit to Ayn Rand for opening my eyes to the reality of the existing world having more in common with socialism than liberty or capitalism — that's the year I picked up Atlas Shrugged off a friend's coffee table. I suppose that would make me a "Randoid". I'll happily take that label and make the distinction between her understanding of leftist ideas and the fraud of William F. Buckley pretending he was for capitalism and against socialist slavery.

He wasn't and he wasn't on the same side of reality as Ayn Rand. Read the reviews of "Atlas Shrugged" by Whittaker Chambers — the first published in December 1957 and the latter printed in 2007 just before Buckley croaked. He printed it to "celebrate" 50 years of printing his bull shit.

Waylon

Misfit410 said...

He was not the nicest guy Z, but the truth is he went after spies, the cold war happened because these spies stole our nuclear secrets.

He is vindicated with Venona decrypts going public.. Republicans should be taking the blame for allowing reporters like Murrow who themselves we admitted communists from driving the tale where they wanted it to be,our side started agreeing that he was on some evil witch hunt, when we should have been sticking to the truth that these people he prosecuted were actually spies.

Anonymous said...

Another "Randoid" that I salute is Ron Paul — just for having the courage to call a spade a spade — "David Rockefeller is a traitor".

Here's why:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42246

Waylon

Anonymous said...

It's difficult not to personalize this, so I'll say, 1957. The year Mr. Pris and I got married. The future was ahead and was ours to make the best of.

Up to then I had reaped the benefits of a happy childhood, and parents were the unencumbered authority for their children. We enjoyed a value system that was founded in morality, and a profound sense of individual responsibility, which have served to guide me all my life.

After that he and I were a team, had children, made our way, and met our goals.

For me, the 50's were a great time to be an American. Freedom and promise would be my watchwords for that time.

Pris

BB-Idaho said...

I'm pushing 70 years and I
liked every single one, from 1941 on. Less I get in trouble with the Mrs. though, I guess 1965 when
we married was the best.
Perhaps I'm niave, but I like today.

BB-Idaho said...

Oops! I'm so naive that I can't even spell it. :)

Ducky's here said...

He is vindicated with Venona decrypts going public.

----------

Except none of the people he slandered were on the Verona files.

He did nothing but start a hysteria. SOP for today's right.

Baggers better find a way to distance themselves from that Rand Paul nutlog.

Steve Harkonnen said...

1969.

I'd go and have a whopper at Burger King. They tasted better back then.

I would play with my Johnny Lightning track set, GI-Joe with astronaut Gemini capsule, watch Space Ghost over a bowl of King Vitamin cereal and mom would be making ball park franks with mustard and relish for lunch.

Anonymous said...

It's nothing personal, but I feel the EXACT OPPOSITE of Ducky in EVERY regard.

The enjoyment of classical music is probably all he and I have in common, although I enjoy listening to Jazz, and have enjoyed Bill Evans, even though I'm more a George Shearing, Stepan Grappelli, Cleo Laine, John Dankworth type, myself.

It takes all kinds of people to make a world, so diametrical opposition is probably a healthy normal thing -- unless one takes the position that everyone must ALWAYS agree and be UNIFIED. That's a Rx for misery, because it CAN'T happen.

"Variety is the spice of life."

"Consistency is the refuge of small minds."

So, VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!

~ FreeThinke

JINGOIST said...

Z that was a fantastic post at 9:12. You wrote
"..when young men felt embarrassed and sad when a heart murmur kept them from going into the service....when we could almost only BUY AMERICAN."

That got me thinking. I have/had a LOT of uncles. Two of them couldn't fight for America--one for a defective heart, the other because of 20-200 vision. That REALLY bothered them. It was always a sore spot. The others all made a career out of the Army and one in the Navy and fought in a total of 4 different wars.
It's funny that you mentioned that.

About buying American--I've always bought GM vehicles, but now I'll buy only Ford. Other than that we TRY to buy American, but it's truly hard to find sometimes.

Z said...

Waylon, you sure know your American stuff..WHY? Seriously, you are the man when it comes to American conservative history! Bravo! I'll look at the Rockefeller link later....but I have to admit I'm not a big Rand Paul fan...Funny, I mistook RANDOID for THAT Rand the other day :-) BIIIIG DIFFERENCE!

Misfit, I agree, but ol' Joe gave the media ammunition to use till the end of America because they still bring him up any time anything looks the slightest bit prejudice, you know, or the minute a censorship thing arises? I guess I can't explain it, but I've had this feeling that he really did us in almost single handedly in this way...The leftists took HIM and ran with HIS PERSONALITY like broad brushing all Conservatives who wanted to stand tall against communism, etc......... Making US look bad by association, as IF we were associated in any way....

Pris, very nice memories.

BB...very sweet :-) Good choice!

JINGO..Dad had rheumatic heart fever three times, very seriously to where he was in bed for a full year in one of the attacks...he was from Troy, NY and the winters about did him in so they came to California...
He attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and his friends went off to war but, because of his heart, he couldn't go...he said it was humiliating because he looked healthy...he really wanted to go fight for this country.
I'm glad you liked my comment...it can make me teary thinking of such better times, you know?

FrogBurger said...

Did you watch this GREAT video done by the AZ governor for the stupid idiots who haven't read the AZ law and criticize it? I love AZ! Our turn to ridicule the left and all the Duckies.

Z said...

that's terrific, FB...I swear I think they HAVE read it but are afraid to admit it because then they'd have to admit how the law's more lenient than Fed Law!

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
I'm going to say that I don't want to go back. I'm comfortable here. I also am willing to assume the challenge to our country that exists today and I'm willing to do something about it. Every person live in the now and either deals with it or bails and hopes for a better time.

Confront what's happening or we are not worth the challenge to change it. The founders didn't shrink from their challenge, will we?

Anonymous said...

"it can make me teary thinking of such better times, you know?"

I know what you mean Z.

Pris

Anonymous said...

"Every person live in the now and either deals with it or bails and hopes for a better time."

L&O, I understand what you're saying, and of course you're right as far as it goes, but, for our children and young people, if we don't tell those family stories, and histories, they won't have the full appreciation of what was done in the past to contribute to their country.

Not doing that insures that history will repeat itself, or thinking that what came before them is not important.

Every family needs a storyteller. Wisdom passed down is a treasure.

It doesn't mean we live in the past, it just means we haven't forgot, or there is a teaching moment, or maybe feeling a little melancholy, which we should allow ourselves from time to time.

Pris

Anonymous said...

Waylon, you sure know your American stuff..WHY?

_____________________________________

The simple answer is that I think the founding ideas of the country are unique in the world. Not only in the time at which the country was born but across the history of the planet. Those ideas and the country have been targeted by enemies out to destroy the concepts of individual rights, liberty, capitalism and a constitutionally limited government.

I don't claim to know your about your country than than you or other Americans do. But sometimes I think those who aren't Americans may appreciate the meaning of the country more since it is viewed form another perspective. Beside most of what I have learned about America has been since my birth as a "Randoid" in 1970 — I didn't stop learning although Ayn Rand was the writer who got me recognizing the bigger picture of what was happening in the world.

Waylon

Anonymous said...

Here is a question that perhaps only blog reader Ducky, would know the answer to without looking it up...

What do the individuals this list of people have in common?

George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
Jeb Bush
Bill Clinton
William F. Buckley
Joseph P. Kennedy
Senator Edward Kennedy
Heinrich Himmler
William Donovan
Henry Kissinger
Frank Capra
Frank Sinatra

Hint:They have all sworn this oath to become members in this group to which they belong. The above list is only a partial list of exalted members ...

"I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or State, named Protestant or Liberals, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates, or officers."

"I do further declare that the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same."

"I do further declare that I will help assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland, or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise."

"I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they intrust me and not divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstances whatever but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me by you my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order."

"I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatsoever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ."

"That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever is communicated to me."

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesuits.htm#Knights

Waylon

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I should have added David Rockefeller and Nelson Rockefeller to the above list since it would be tied together in a neater package with that addition ... and they both are on the list.

Waylon

Z said...

Waylon, I thought you were getting at the Trilateral Commission.....

That's an awful long list of Protestants swearing off Protestants, isn't it?

"The John Birch Society believes that the Trilateral Commission is dedicated to the formation of one world government" So is the Bilderberg group.

I think the Birchers were right.

Anonymous said...

Z, that list is more what could be considered ex-Protestants since the oath is sworn to become an exalted member of a militant wing of Catholicism — the Order of the Knights of Malta. It's interesting to note some of the biggest of big wigs have converted to Catholicism. Of course to receive a high recognition like the Order of Malta requires an individual to have contributed greatly to their long term objectives.

This is a link to the list. Check the link at the bottom of the list to read the quotation of the oath sworn.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/kmlst1.htm

Waylon

Z said...

Phyllis Schlaffley certainly isn't Catholic, neither and are either of the Pres Bushes, though Jed, I believe, converted to Catholicism...

The whole thing is odd...and I had looked at the oath, that's why I mentioned Protestants...this oath seems against them and only for HIS HOLINESS in the way of THE POPE, not the Christ of the Bible, that's for sure!

NELSON MANDELA? #($&(#& any list HE's on, I'm glad I'm NOT ON...I get so tired of the hallowed state most have elevated him to when he's a pure communist who's set poor Africa, especially S Africa, on such a downward spiral.

Anonymous said...

You could be right, Z. I just quoted the names from the list. Personally, I hadn't heard about George W. or his Pappy either. But logically it would make sense to me that they would belong to that group. Buckley, IMO, there is no doubt that he was and does belong on the list — and I can believe that he would swear that oath.

Fortunately, there is a link to the keeper of the lists to add or dispute names that appear or don't appear.

Waylon

Anonymous said...

Waylon, I think this is a symbolic gesture, more than anything. A rite that is expected, to belong to this group, and that's it.

Btw, the list says Ronald E Reagan, not, Ronald W. Reagan, what's up with that? Kind've sloppy list keeping if you ask me.


Pris

Z said...

Waylon, not to sound too obtuse, but tell me what YOUR TAKE is on all of that. I saw the oath, I saw the list, but it's so unbelievable to consider! And yes, it does seem like some bigwigs have turned to the Catholic church.
But, you know, it's the BUSINESS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH they seem drawn to more than any spirituality...at least it seems to be to me.....it's hard to explain.

You must be aware of the Bilderberg Group, I don't think they were Catholic in any sense of the word, but there's some big cabal of puppets holding the strings...perhaps the Catholic church IS somehow interested in ONE WORLD ORDER. I know that the Bible does tell us that the world will become one in that way just before the end times (at least I think that's when, if I remember correctly)..I'm not too up on that as our church doesn't stress it at ALL....but neither does the Catholic church, from what a friend said just yesterday..very little END TIMES talk...

I'm checking with a friend via email to get more info here, maybe she'll come help me (us) out!

Anonymous said...

Z, I did more checking on this as well. I've found that one can become an honored member of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta on an honorary basis ("An Order of Merit") if you are American. Not so in Britain or Europe where you must be Catholic. Also found that Schlafly was born into the religion and also George W. was sympathetic to the religion and considering joining. He may have just received the "honor" on merit, I guess.

Pris, there is more than one source that lists Ronald Reagan as being a member.

The oath that I read is one that was read into the Congressional record back in the early part of the last century. How can anyone be a leader of a country that swears an oath like that which places the orders of the religion above the laws of his country?

Waylon

It can't hurt to learn as much about the religion as the Pope-oid, Ducky, knows, can it?

Waylon

Z said...

I was informed by my friend via email that PHyllis S IS a Catholic..I had no idea. I know she's strongly pro life, anyway.

You know, we don't really know if they DID swear an oath, as my friend reminds me......not really. Maybe this is some weird honorary thing and that's that?...a symbolic thing?

I mean, if they DID swear to that for so many years in Congress, it sure hasn't been heeded any way that I can tell..you? How can something like THAT go into the Congressional Record and it's never been discussed in public?
How would Joseph Lieberman take to that, for example!?

Anonymous said...

Waylon, I wasn't suggesting that Reagan isn't on the list, I was saying they have his name wrong. His middle name is Wilson.

Of course it can't hurt. It's interesting to be sure. However, given the diverse personalities on that list, and the seeming tradition to belong, I don't take it too seriously. If one is an honorary member, he likely doesn't take the oath.

The oath all Presidents take to uphold the Constitution is much more important to me, and in fact could conflict with the aforementioned oath.

Pris

Anonymous said...

Conrad Black, the former newspaper magnate who started the National Post in 1998 and then sold it still writes a weekly column in that paper. He has discussed his becoming a Catholic. He says he was a tepid Protestant agnostic and found a new home in his new religion. That on its own didn't strike me as being astounding until I began seeing a large number of influential people had done the same thing. The I began to wonder what the hell was going on.

Black has written about two good and close friends of his — William F. Buckley and Henry Kissinger — who supported him as he was being charged in the American justice system with financial misdeeds in some public companies he owned and operated. Long story short: He's doing time in Florida now. Of course he was/is(?) a Bilderberg member and also a member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR. I'm not sure what that all means. Either he was charged and justice was done regardless of powerful friends in high places, or that those powerful friends in high places have let him twist in the wind — and he may have to watch his back. GWB did not pardon him as he requested when Bush left office and, of course, in the meantime WFB has bit the dust.

He's a great writer. At one time I agreed with him but now I find myself questioning some of his thinking. He always writes supporting the right — yet he wrote a big book on FDR explaining how FDR "saved capitalism" and that to me doesn't add up or fit reality.

No doubt there are many questions that need answers. But I've come to the conclusion one should never just accept on face value the true intent of those wielding power and influence.

Waylon

Faith said...

But I've come to the conclusion one should never just accept on face value the true intent of those wielding power and influence.

I can agree with that, but neither should we just accept what these conspiracy thinkers say against them either, and it doesn't look like there's any real evidence that any of them really took that oath, just that their names are associated with it as if they did. You need much better evidence for such an accusation.

Anonymous said...

Waylon, I have seen a list of Trilateral Comm. members and neither George W. nor Reagan were on that list. Bush senior is though.

In fact, I remember Reagan mentioning that about Bush senior in their campaign opposing each other for the nomination.

Yes, I agree, it's important to try to be informed on the very powerful. They are the behind the scenes movers and shakers in the world. I say try, because it flies under the radar, and is like a puzzle to be put together piece by piece. Difficult at best.

Pris

Anonymous said...

OY Waylon, break out the tin foil hat

Anonymous said...

I can agree with that, but neither should we just accept what these conspiracy thinkers say against them either, and it doesn't look like there's any real evidence that any of them really took that oath, just that their names are associated with it as if they did. You need much better evidence for such an accusation.

___________________________________

Faith one can certainly give the benefit of the doubt to those whose names appear on the list but are you saying that those who would make such a list and associate it with the specific oath which was read into the Congressional record are "conspiracy theorists" while those whose names are there are just "good folks" and we should just move along? How is it possible for those "good folks" to just accept an award of merit into an organization without knowing at sometime what that organization stands for and truly does? Those that point it out are conspiracy theorists while those who "belong to the group" are to be considered well-meaning and good folks — you see nothing wrong with THAT picture?

To me, a big part of our problems begin when instead of pursuing the truth, too many people are too willing to just accept at face value what the nicest sounding politician or influence peddler says without question. I realize that pursuing the truth can be uncomfortable and perhaps some may not be able "to handle the truth" but shining lights into dark corners is better than cowering in fear in the dark, IMO.

I say find the truth, pursue it even over walls or through walls, even if those walls belong to the Vatican or the Church — it SHALL be done!

Interesting to note the date of that oath read into the Congressional record — February 1913. That would make it at the beginning of the Woodrow Wilson Presidency and even before the creation of the Federal Reserve and the introduction of European central banking in America and before the big push of Wilsonian progressivism.

Waylon

Anonymous said...

Pris, I haven't read a membership list of those groups recently. Whether the names are on the lists or not is less important than the actions of the individuals being discussed.

You mention the Reagan/Bush years and before they were one ticket, weren't they running against each other in a race to be nominated as the Presidential candidate? From what I've read Reagan didn't even want Bush as his running mate, but he was convinced otherwise after meeting with his superiors.


Then there was the attempt to assassinate Reagan within a short time of his election ... probably another "conspiracy theory", I'm guessing.

Waylon

Anonymous said...

How can something like THAT go into the Congressional Record and it's never been discussed in public?
_____________________________________

Z, I do think there have been good and honest people in Congress who have tried to shine a light into the darkness such as reading into the record of that oath. Apparently it was done in an attempt to shed more light on the assassination of President Lincoln and who and what was behind that.

Look what has happened over the years with people like McCarthy who has been successfully vilified for pointing out the enemies within the country. Look what happens today to those in government questioning the actions of the Obama administration — they're vilified by his henchmen in the media.

Waylon

Z said...

Waylon, you said "I say find the truth, pursue it even over walls or through walls, even if those walls belong to the Vatican or the Church — it SHALL be done!"

The Obama admin are starting a purge toward GREEN CHURCHES, bringing along liberal pastors to put the environment first, and it's leading to SOCIAL JUSTICE churches, their viewpoint about which is nowhere in the Bible. I remember Clinton and Carter admitted to wanting to make churches "kinder" a few years ago...well, it appears to be getting some quiet support and Pastors are being beguiled with SOCIAL JUSTICE terms, and also Christian terms that the left's redefining and shaming the pastors into buying. Very fascinating stuff.
Don't forget, as I saw a much wiser person than I saw last night "No wonder the left wants to get rid of the 10 Commandments..No 8 is THOU SHALT NOT STEAL...our gov't IS stealing from US..."
I wish you'd seen Glenn Beck's show repeat yesterday, it was pretty stunning, but good for some people to wake up and try to prevent the left's plans for American churches from happening (which has everything to do with a combination of CHURCH AND STATE which, of course, our forefathers fought......hoping to keep gov't away from church)

I saw a book about George Washington touted..it was about 400,000 on the best seller list until Glenn Beck raved about it..now2 it's NO 2 overnight.
Here are the EDITORIAL reviews, not the objective ones:

"An enlightening, engaging, and long overdue correction of the falsehood that Washington lacked faith. --Rodney Stark, Baylor University

. . . . Dr. Lillback burries the myth that Washington was an unbeliever - at most a "deist" - under an avalanche of facts . . . . --Robert P. George, Princeton University

Secular historians ignore George Washington's ward Nelly Custis, who wrote that doubting his Christian faith was as absurd as doubting his patriotism. But they cannot ignore this mountain of evidence suggesting Washington's religion was not Deism, but just the sort of low-church Anglicanism one would expect in an 18th century Virginia gentleman. His "sacred fire" lit America's path toward civil and religious liberty. --Walter A. McDougall, Pulitzer Prize Winning Author
Product Description
What sets "George Washington's Sacred Fire" apart from all previous works on this man for the ages, is the exhaustive fifteen years of Dr. Peter Lillback's research, revealing a unique icon driven by the highest of ideals. Only do George Washington's own writings, journals, letters, manuscripts, and those of his closest family and confidants reveal the truth of this awe-inspiring role model for all generations."

Elbro, you were right in quoting from Nelly Custis..........the proof is unable to be squelched...this author knows the truth from WASHINGTON'S OWN WRITINGS.

Z said...

As for the McCarthy era...as I've said before, he just might have opened the doors for the far left to convince America Republicans are nothing but what McCarthy was like...(tho he was right in doing what he'd done in most cases, admitted by the children of those he pegged as having written subtly communist themes for undiscerning American movie goers, etc., he had a difficult personality which the media used to bring him down, and he did a good job of screwing himself, too, and we all suffer for it today)......

Anonymous said...

Green churches could be sanctioned by the administration and their puppet masters who pull their strings. It has become a new religion and even tries to mimic older religions. Its leaders like Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachov tote the "Ark Of Hope" around with them.

Check this out:

http://www.policestateplanning.com/the_ark_of_hope.htm

Speaking of Glenn Beck I usually watch him two or three times a week. I must have missed his program discussing this although I did read an excellent column on the subject after the show at CFP by Judi McLeod.

"The Ark of Hope is described as a “magnificent large sycamore chest, which was conceived as a visual message of peace, sustainability and concern for the Earth.”"

Let's not lose sight of the simple fact that the lines connect back from Maurice Strong through the United Nations to David Rockefeller who was the financier behind the U.N and donated the land and "discovered" Strong when strong went to NYC because he was infatuated with the idea of a United Nations.

Waylon

Z said...

I wanted to add these two quotes from the Washington book review:

From reviews about the Washington book "he makes a very good argument for Washington's Anglican orthodoxy, a far better argument than those who argue for his Deism."

"There are only a handful of quotations that pin Washington as a Christian, but they're not as easily dismissed as some would like. Washington would have had to have been a systematic liar to recite creeds in church, state oaths of the godparent, etc. Also, he'd have to have been deeply cynical to command divine services for his men, promote spreading Christianity to the Indians, and advise personal friends to behave in a Christian fashion while believing it was just something to keep the rabble in line. Lillback also points out a handful of much more convincing witnesses for Washington's prayer than Parson Weems' Quaker. Additionally, the testimony of Nelly Custis and of Martha Washington is very difficult for anyone to explain away."

As for the ARK OF HOPE, that's a take-off on the Ark of the Covenant, it even looks like it, which is Biblical ...this is pretty funny, actually...Especially because I've been attending lecture/conversations every week on God and Truth, etc etc....very interesting study with profs in biochem from Berkeley and Brown U's who say they know hundreds of big time U profs who'll say that Darwin's theories don't work anymore but they hit a wall so they say that life came from some odd VERY far off planet we've never heard of but that they've somehow named :-)!!... easier to believe that than give five minutes of attention to A CREATOR (gasp!)... The lecturer USES A BOX...inside the box is matter/life as we know it today..and a Carl Sagan, Darwin, etc., would say it's all about that box, all about what's IN that box, when a person of faith or even a scientist finding no theories stand up to creationism but "WTF? what happened here?!" will say "Look outside the box to GOD...who's overlooking EVERYTHING in that box"

I wish you could see the series, Waylon.
So, this box reminded me of that..so secular, so cold and meaninggless...and yet they use HOPE in the title of their little, close-minded, big-brother control dependent box.

Ducky's here said...

z, even youmust understand that our minds are incapable of understanding the nature of the first principle.

You have to follow some real gymnastics to state that the writings of a primitive tribe are a literal understanding of God.

Your understanding of Darwin is also pretty limited.

Anonymous said...

"You mention the Reagan/Bush years and before they were one ticket, weren't they running against each other in a race to be nominated as the Presidential candidate? From what I've read Reagan didn't even want Bush as his running mate, but he was convinced otherwise after meeting with his superiors."

Yes Waylon, they ran against each other for the nomination, which I mentioned in my previous comment above.

You're right. Reagan didn't want Bush as his running mate. In fact the Republican beltway crowd wasn't crazy about Reagan in the first place. He wasn't considered part of the "club". He was an outsider.

The convention was all abuzz about who'd be his running mate. I think the Party coerced Reagan into choosing Bush, probably because he needed their engaged support for the general campaign. I think the Party elites wanted Bush because he was a moderate. Plus, he was already part of the beltway crowd.

As usual, we knew better than the Party elites. What else is new?

Pris

Z said...

Ducky, I have no IDEA to what you're alluding to...But, no, my understanding of Darwin isn't very limited and your understanding of the video series I'm seeing is extremely limited. When you start getting information outside your box of beliefs, it'll help you communicate better here...
And I don't mean that as sarcasm....

Pris...Reagan's selection of Bush Sr was a huge mistake....I see it as a bigger mistake NOW than I did THEN......."As usual, we knew better than the Party elites. What else is new?" And, today, we know FAR better..But, our party might suffer as Conservatives grow in knowledge about this country and what's happening because the elite isn't interested in the things we're interested in and so, worse than a third party candidate, it's MUCH bigger, it's REAL infighting between people like Palin, McCain, Paul, Steele, etc. They'd better get their acts together and start representing the PEOPLE (and I don't mean just Conservatives, because independents are REALLY coming on board, too, now)...or the leftists will COMPLETELY ruin this country..and quickly.