Other Nelson Rockefeller or John Kennedy is what America really needs to go ahead now!

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:26 PM
The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,
Dear Readers,

On these last days of 2010 I have decided to make a deep reflection about what is waiting for America in the near future, specially concerning the great clamor of the public opinion that, after the elections of November, have arrived slowly but firmly to the consensus that what this country really requires in this moment to overcome the end of this crisis and begin a new era of progress is new leadership.

I have meditated a lot on this really urgent need of guidance and sensate and serious forecasting fo the future in Economy and I have arrived to important conclusions that I want to share with all of you on these days:

We have now a new political scenario on which it is clear that any new policy in the Economy must be the result of the agreement or negotiation in between all the social sectors and the different political forces.

Now more than never before it is needed the arrival of political leaders that show mastering of the great qualities of to create consensus, to make all the people work or flow in the same direction to get effective results in the economy, by projecting a great image of trust.

We need a new genre of leaders than more than mere smart politicians become really statemen, in the complete sense of that expression, able to stimulate again great ideals in all the American people.

I can say that analyzing what it was the History of the country in the last 50 years there are clearly two important figures that could be emulated to create that new leadership, a new open one, inspired in to unite and not to divide us around great causes, inspired in to get confidence in the future and not more fear, inspired in to arrive to great national projects that can create momentum spreaded in the entire economical machinery and for the benefit of all social sectors.

I can say that we need now not to imitate mediatic figures of the Past that were primarly great ideologists and communicators. like it was Ronald Reagan in the Republican side, or Franklin Roosevelt in the Democratic one, or mere burocratic forerunners like LBJ or GB, we need a new humanistic leadership with a great touch of public relationships.

America needs at present another type of great leader with more human skills, less compromised with the power and more with the society in general, less comprimised with political models and more with practical solutions, comming from the science, the technolgy, the humanities, not only of the poltics, able with negotiate with all the sectors to arrive to great decissions.

In resume I can see that America needs another John F Kennedy if we want to think in Democratic values or Another Nelson Rockefeller if we prefer to think in Republican ones. These are the two archaetypical figures that the nation is looking for urgently.

These two both leaders, that were contemporary as great inspirators of their respective political forces, also great philantrophists, with great ethical prestige, although they both coudln't impact the political life of the country as long as other figures of their same generation, I mean in time, however, they were definitevely very important to create the momentum that pushed America ahead of the crisis of identity of the of 1960's, by setting together either the private and the public sectors working shoulder to shoulder for the great national interests.

It is in the hands of the 2 political parties to look in their rows for who can be these new figures or among the ones now are competing for that position to check carefully the profiles of these two great American Leaders of the past to apply their vission of future to our present, to serve as the inspiration models we strongly need to imitate by now.

Happy Holidays,

Happy new 2011

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 12/12/2010 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:03 PM
Both were definitely great leaders. But the idea that either were uncompromised or pure is lunacy.However, the question becomes, can someone be incredibly flawed and in many regards, compromised, but still be a great leader? I would say that depends on what is compromising them. Not trying to criticize your post or ideas, just pointing out that these men were very compromised and flawed.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:04 PM
We had another Kennedy.
But he died in a plane crash!

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:12 PM

just what we need, ANOTHER Illuminatus to run things...

Maybe we could get a Collins, Russle, or (FINALLY) a Freeman into office... at least with a Freeman or Sinclair you'll understand that antichrist has finally arrived and soon it'll all but be a bad dream ...

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:19 PM
just as the book, "The Fourth Turning" points out...
the people are yearning for a 'Prophet' type person to lead & galvanize the new
social-&-geopolitical paradigm.

The +5,000 yr present-world-order has gone into terminal Entropy


As for the Rockefellers'... they are the ones that initiated the WTC concept
not as a benevolent ideal...but as a symbol of the hegemony / gravitas of the NWO

(the twin towers symbolizing the 2 legs ,feet & toes of the 4th great empire...
according to many opponents)
edit on 13-12-2010 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

ADD: this one paragraph about bringing a new charismatic person or lifeview into the forefront,


To bring about a peaceful and humane alternative would require courage, cunning, organization, and discipline. It would take more than group meditations, mass yoga exercises, or "prayers for peace," however well intentioned. It would depend on a deeper degree of commitment than progressive movements like MoveOn, CodePink, 350.com, and so on can mobilize. The same level of analytical objectivity that the current ruling elite uses to maintain their power and privilege would have to be brought to bear on defining, developing, and mass-distributing the alternative. This requires not just good intentions, but conscious use of the techniques devised by corporations to increase market share

i would recommend the OP scan this article...others too

edit on 13-12-2010 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:25 PM
I thought you had your Great Leader in Obama: How's that Hopey changie thing workin' for ya? I agree that John Kennedy was a charismatic leaderr for the short time he was with us, but Nelson Rockefeller? What did he do that showed leadership? Governor of New York, okay. I think his most famopus statement was, "I never wanted to be Vice Prresident of anything!" I even question Kennedy because although he was charismatic, he didn't actually do much. He faced down the Russians over the missiles, but that's about it. No one ever mentions that we took missiles out of Turkey the same time.

But my actual objections go beyond quibbling over who was a good leader. "Leader," whether it is Big Brother, Hitler, or Obama, can be very scary dudes. Why is it we feel compelled to be led? Hitler led Germany from trying economic times into a disaster it took the better part of a century to recover from. I think looking for leadership is foregoing responsibility to take care of our own selves. Ideally, we don't need leaders as we do public servants who take their job seriously, then depart the scene. George Washington could have become King, but he knew better. Now that's leadership.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by johnny2127

Hi Johnny,

One of the aspects that made great the contribution of JFK or NR was that both were leaders in time of great trouble, time of drastic changes in America, they of course were forced in several occasions to try to go ahead in the middle of a lot of confrontations among social sectors and economical interests, but their principal virtue was precisely that they didn't lose the north in their respective careers:

To show that democracy can work and work very well not only in the political aspects but in the social and economical ones bringing progress to more people than any totalitarian adventure, either from the extreme right or left, that it is possibly to create balance and harmony among private entrepreunal initiative and the social role of a goverment.

Of course, either JFK or NR were not, lets say awarded ,with perhaps the place they might be reached if
they would lived in an another less complicate moment, their careers were extremly brilliant, but really brief,
both died still being relatively young and still being in part in process of development and confronting a lot of resistence even inside their respective poltical parties from the more retrograde sectors.

JFK was of course not reelected due to his brutal assassination in perhaps his best political moment, and Rockefeller ended his political life in a huge confrontation with President Ford. However the momentum they both developed was so important that it is easy to say that LBJ never would have been elected in a landslide election without the good shade of Kennedy, without making law his original proposals, and that Ford surely never had lost the possibility to don't appear in the History as the only President never elected if he wouldnt have changed Rockefeller as his formula mate in the lection of 1976.

Their fates were in some sense marked by the confrontation by one side with the Political status quo and by the other with the radical forces that were fighting to fire the continent and the world with new totalitarian revolutions.

Kennedy couldn't see converted into reality his ideals of civil rights, his ideals of changes in migration politices to stimulate a more diverse society, or to get the really challanging objective to win the space career or to spread the benefits of a better level of life to more Americans and even to more inhabitants of neighbor friend countries, but he left the seeds that laterly made possibly for ulterior administrations to get some of those goals in the best of the cases.

Rockefeller was a really interesting man, his career was in part linked with Politics, either as Governor or as a VicePresident, but of course also always in connection with the great industrial capital, after all he was member of one of the most prominent families that made reality the American dream.

Curiously both Kennedy and Rockefeller were labeled as rich guys that entered into politics with the help of their respective powerful families but they were strongly compromised with the great social causes of the 1960's along their entire careers, trying to make reachable for more people the American style of life and that it works in favor of all the social interests, either for the ones better accomodated or for the ones in more need.

It is a pitty among what was not reached of the proposals of these two leaders, that were in many occasions coincident in goals and projects, for instance, their vision of what might be the economical development for Latin America to prevent the instability of the whole continent and to made of it a democratic one.

The incapacity of the LBJ and Nixon Administrations to continue with the Alliance for Progress, that was a crucial program of the Kennedy Administration, and that for about a decade received a lot of private support by the Rockefeller foundation, was sadly determinant to maintain the social conoditions that contributed a lot to the instability of the Latin American continent.

It is not a coincidence or bad luck the arrival of fascist dictatorships on the 1970's and 1980's in almost all south America, it was the consequence of a drastic change of vission in the external USA agenda, and laterly that same unsolved crisis boosted the arrival of even Marxist regimes in our hemisphere, something really grave, as it happened in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, or huge inner conflicts like that the civil war of Salvador and the Columbian Violence.

thanks for your comment,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 12/13/2010 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by schuyler

Well shuyler,

What it is easy to read on these days if we are gifted to interpret the will of the American people, from the results of the last Election, is that we need in this country to rebuild the Poltical Center.

To have again in America a Center in Politics is perhaps our only hope or otherwise we are condemned for many more years to continue experiencing the results of the lack of economcial momentum due to the great divisions that currently exist in between us.

The people is really tired of all the years of the G.W. Bush Administration in which the terrible inner confrontation among a virulent Left that wants to centralize more the control of the economy and a radical Right that wants to move even to more anarchic fields of an exagerated freedom of the private sector that in many aspects drove us to the great recession.

We need a Political Center right now, a new area of the politics in which members of both parties can work together to rebuild the Market social economy that made America great at the end of the 1950's, when we were not trying to import capitals or to increase our external debt but to be creditors of other economies and exporting a tremendous amount of services and goods to the rest of the world.

That is what Polticians like John F Kennedy or Nelson Rockefeller represented in the Past, a Political Center in the middle of the spectrum of forces that have characterized our modern History, people compromised more with the Nation and less with old ideologies that have shown to be unable to give the magical recipe everybody is expecting to revive our economical power.

Of course by the Year 1960 America was not ruled by a trully politician but by one of the most greatest statemen ever worked in the white house, Dwight Eisenhower, but his case is completly different, he was an ideal man of Center in Politics but precisely since he arrived to the Power without being really a poltician but a war hero, he was a great leader able to join the public opinion years before to be President.

Politicians like JFK and NR tried to emulate the impartial way in which Eisenhower managed the country, either in the social, economical and external political aspects and in some way to project it as a standard for the future, unfortunately they were stoped by other kind of poltical specimens more interested into move us to the extreme left or the radical right.

Thanks for your comments,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 12/13/2010 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

Dear Heyyo_Yoyo

This is a nice occasion to say that what made me to think that the thoughts of Nelson Rockefeller and John Kennedy were in some sense premonitory of what must be and what must not be a good political environment and customes emerges from their own philosophy of what really should make this country unique, their ideals, their vissions of what principles must ride us toward the Future if we want to conserve the place America has had in the past.

I am convinced that either JFK or NR they were in some sense Prophets of the Poltics with respect to America, Somebody can accuse them to be mere Idealistics, but after check what kind of America we have by now as a consequence to be following for to much time other ways of how to do poltics , we can see the tremendous prophetic value of their own estimations of the future, it is quite readable in many of their famous quotes.

Let me post some of them here:

John Kennedy:
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Nelson Rockefeller:
America is not just a power, it is a promise. It is not enough for our country to be extraordinary in might; it must be exemplary in meaning.

John Kennedy:
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

Nelson Rockefeller:
The chief problem of low-income farmers is poverty.

John Kennedy
Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.

Nelson Rockefeller
It is essential that we enable young people to see themselves as participants in one of the most exciting eras in history, and to have a sense of purpose in relation to it.

John Kennedy
I look forward to a great future for America - a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.


The Angel of Lightness
edit on 12/13/2010 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 07:23 PM
Umm, I can't believe you are still promoting people like Nelson Rockefeller and John Kennedy as leaders. Nelson Rockefeller?????? Really???? Both he and Kennedy, for that matter, came from very wealthy families that many people would call completely corrupt. Rockefeller never made it to a serious 'power post' at all. The cold war was warm, but it had been for awhile and continued to be long after these two men were in the public spotlight.

Now if you had said Roosevelt or Lincoln, who were leaders during times when the country faced serious obstacles, I could see your point. But if you choose these guys, I have to say, "Thanks, but no thanks." Guys like that are not ones I want in any kind of power right now. And be careful what you wish for. Charismatic leaders are dangerous to your freedom. I want the kind of President who knows the difference between the President and the Presidency and takes a principled approach to it. I also do not think that the answer is nowhere in the middle. That's the problem in the first place.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:41 PM
Well, it seems that on these days, at least for people with such a negative attitude as you, corrupt is synonymous of successful and natural leader isn't it?

That is a quite bold generalization my friend, on a similar base the XX century produced various of the most horrendous and bizarre totalitarian ideologies: Communism, Fascism, Francism, Nazism, Maoism, Chavism, Castrism, etc, etc,

The common denomination of all these extremisms is to condemn the people that have had success in one or other way saying that there is no absolute merit on that, that they could do that by tricking or committing crimes. Of course, for the one that want to destroy freedom. that needs to create opression to make his will, it is quite necessary to deny the value of any talent, any gift of the human spirit.

You have exposed in a magisterial way the ethics of the ones that believe with blind faith in the most negative side of the human condition, in the ones that cannot accept that the History was built not only by villains or tyrants but also by men of vision and conviction in what every virtue can reach in life.

If the fault of the Rockefellers and Kennedys is to be successful in a country in which others prefer to consume their lives in envy and hatred, well we are lucky they have decided to do so, that they become great performers of the American dream and not mere coward critics of it.

Of course there have been politicians in our History that were not priviledged people, that came from very below the average social level in our nation, but do they really be better leaders than JFK or NR in to understand what is Centrism?

Do they really worked more seriously compromised as they did to give better opportunities of progress to more Americans without destroying the entreprise liberty that has characterized the American progress for nearby two centuries? Check the case of for instance Richard Nixon, he was a really proletarian American , and what kind of stateman was he?

That is the risk of to make generalizations and to condemn or glorify a person just only because it belongs to this or other social condition.


The Angel of Lightness.

edit on 12/14/2010 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by The angel of light

The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,
Dear Readers,

First at all l wish for all of you a Happy new year 2013!

Let me return to this old thread to recall that I predicted on it, since very long time ago, more than two years ago, that America would experience important changes in the way politics was being performed in the high spheres of the power, and that we were going to see a gradual return of a political Center that had practically disappeared in the 1970's.

At that time I mentioned that what the country needed urgently to try to move ahead in the series of crisis that the global economy has brought the world is to reconstruct a so needed Center in Politics that can work as a bridge in between the two extremes of the ultra conservator right and the radical left.

I pointed that there was going to be revival of the interesting points of view of politicians like John F Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller that worked a lot trying to drive America into a middle of the road choice, that assures the necessary consensus to move forward the country along this world economic recessions.

Well today the begining of this year with the so difficult agreement that finally has been reached in the congress to fix the so called fiscal Cliff, we are seeing the accomplishment of my prediction.

Please read:


Thanks for your attention,

Your friend,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/2/2013 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 11:10 AM
a reply to: The angel of light

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

This week finally important political events are pointing clearly into the accomplishment of the prediction released in this thread years ago: the revival of the Political Center in the United States.

I am am referring of course to the formidable nice performance in the third Republican debate and in the Polls of acandidate that is clearly representing that line of thinking we are talking about here: Ben Carson who was overtaken the leadership, accourding with all the polls, in the competition for the nomination in that party.


Using similar recipe than the one once successfully used by John F Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller , Dr Ben Carson is changing dramatically the picture of t his election for good:

With non ideological postures, with pragmatical propostions, no antagonisms or confronttions against nobody, with great personal charisma to make possible the miracle of to attract people of the most diverse backgrounds, projecting an image of action over rhetoric, calling for unity and progress for all the social sectors balancing private and public initiatives, underlining the importance of to let the benefits of research in science and technology to open for us the doors of a new more generous future.

The surgeon Ben Carson has moved with incredible momentum showing that he can offer perfecty the new kind of Leadership that America needs right now to fix the internal divisions and put everybody to work alltogether to acheive common goals.


It is refreshing to see that a non professional politician is demonstrating right now that what the people that is so tired of the lack of competentce of the political class wants right now is a leader that moves in between the two extremes that have divided so much the nation and convoke a great new American National social Deal.


Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 10/30/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:30 PM
a reply to: The angel of light

No offense, but Ben Carson some some pretty bad BS and doesn't rate well with Politifact.

I realize that you want Carson or another conservative stooge to win, but that's not how the game is played. More to the point, rigged. The next stooge will be a liberal female, there is a agenda that needs finishing and she's the stooge to do it.

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 07:42 PM
a reply to: WCmutant

Really? well my only question is what is your liberal female Star for the office?

Carly Fiorina is clearly supporting an agenda of to involve even more the federal administration in defense expenses, she has openly declared if she become elected to give priority to the militaries in the great national decissions. She is clearly the candidate needed by the military industrial establishment.

HIllary Clinton perhaps is going to continue her clearly mistaken policy of to believe that liberalism is to support anybody in the world that decides to make revolutions against other governments, including reliable and loyal fomer allies like Hosni Mubbarak, as she certainly did with respect to all those crazy turmoils in North Africa, that costed the life of one America Ambassador, when she was State Secretary.

This weekend we have seen the so high price we are paying for such irresponsible endorsement of radical revolutions without even thinking before who is in behind them, ISIS has a lot ot thanks to her.

I don't like the idea to put the national economy in risk for uncontrolled public expenses in War, but if you give to choose in between the approach of Carly Fiorina or the one of Hillary Clinton with respect to the situation in North Africa and middle east, and more specifically concerning ISIS, after these attacks of Paris, is clearly that Fiorina would be elected to day President if she confronts Hillary.

I know HIllary laughed this week when a supporter told her that if he could he would strangled Fiorina for her role as CEO in Hewlett Pakard, but what do you think President Mubbarak of Egypt would want to do with Hillary if he could have the opportunity? and what do you think Ambassador Christopher Stevens would do with her if he were alive today?

At least Carson is a man that thinks before to take decissions, he has the maturity also to look for solutions that are not politically so much costly as the ones these two ladies are offering to the country.

We don't need a President that thinks America can be another Soviet Union as Bernie Sanders seems to dream, but we also must be care to reject the mad project of to transform this country in the Fourth Reich as Trump is proposing. Today attacks in Paris represent a terrible red flag for all in America, we need to fix all our internal divisions, since the enemy overseas is extremely powerful and we don't know by sure for how long our alllies will be able to handle the situation before they collapse. HIspanic People are historically among the sectors that have highest rates of enrollemnt in the arm forces when war arrives.

The migratory law that at present exist with the system of quotas must be changed completely, in consideration of the National security.
We can't contiue favoring the arrival of people from countries that don't have nothing in common with the values of the American people, like the ones of the islamic world or Asia, and insist to discriminate the ones that want to migrate from nations that share our same religious and democratic values as are the Latin Americans.

I am not here to deffend a candidate, I was only who predicted years ago that what the America people wants now is a President for all, not one that boost more division and confrontation in between social sectors.

With Hillary in power we will see by sure four more years of extreme tense and uneffective relation in between the white house and a congress dominated in the two chambers by the Republicans. A genuine figure of leadership can't be who has proven to be unable to even perform the role of to handle the external relations of the country.


The Angel of Lightness
edit on 11/14/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in