"Obamacare" and a warning from the past

[michaelvpardo]

"Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving free men. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some men, possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring upon us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his design.
Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet that opportunity being passed, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would sit down boldly to the task of pulling down. Here, then, is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such a one as could not have existed heretofore."
Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 27, 1837

Though Lincoln's philosophy was rooted as much in freemasonry as in the scripture, he was a brilliant man. He spoke in this address about the dangers he saw in the nation's tendency to lawlessness, and in the above passage, could've been indirectly speaking of himself, but was issuing a warning of the potential dangers to come. We now have a president, whose single crowning achievement is on the verge of utter collapse. I've never thought of President Obama as a genius, but it required a certain amount of political genius for a man with no real experience in national leadership to convince the greater part of the population of his own potential value in the highest office of the land. The question is whether or not we have a lame duck president or a wounded lion.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I'm sorry. Even Obama should not be lectured by the single worst president in U.S. history who seized extra-constitutional power, suspended habeas corpus, arrested dissenters, and plunged his country into civil war causing the deaths of 600,000 Americans. I'm glad you brought up Herr Abraham Lincoln Uber Alles because here I was thinking of how horrible a president Obama is and now I'm soberly reminded to be grateful because we've had far, far worse.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I'm sorry. Even Obama should not be lectured by the single worst president in U.S. history who seized extra-constitutional power, suspended habeas corpus, arrested dissenters, and plunged his country into civil war causing the deaths of 600,000 Americans. I'm glad you brought up Herr Abraham Lincoln Uber Alles because here I was thinking of how horrible a president Obama is and now I'm soberly reminded to be grateful because we've had far, far worse.

Lincoln's actions may have promulgated the war, but the nation was on the way to civil war long before Lincoln was ever elected. A civil war was even predicted by at least one of the founding fathers of the nation as civil strife was understood to eventually be the result of the comprimise over legal slavery within a nation founded on the premises of the right to freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Dodo_David]

I'm sorry. Even Obama should not be lectured by the single worst president in U.S. history who seized extra-constitutional power, suspended habeas corpus, arrested dissenters, and plunged his country into civil war causing the deaths of 600,000 Americans. I'm glad you brought up Herr Abraham Lincoln Uber Alles because here I was thinking of how horrible a president Obama is and now I'm soberly reminded to be grateful because we've had far, far worse.

Apparently, your belief about the cause of the U.S. Civil War differs from that of Civil War historians.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Michael V Pardo.

Incorrect. 11 states peacefully seceded. If they were left alone, there would have been no war. The war didn't start until Her Lincoln Uber Alles marshaled 75,000 troops and deliberately invaded those states.

 

[iticus]

Michael V Pardo.

Incorrect. 11 states peacefully seceded. If they were left alone, there would have been no war. The war didn't start until Her Lincoln Uber Alles marshaled 75,000 troops and deliberately invaded those states.

Actually, Lincoln offered the states that seceded the option of a Constitutional amendment that would have protected the slavery if only they would come back into the Republic. They declined.

What this all comes down to is power and control, not the righteous indignation of slavery.

"Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving free men. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some men, possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring upon us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his design.
Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet that opportunity being passed, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would sit down boldly to the task of pulling down. Here, then, is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such a one as could not have existed heretofore."
Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 27, 1837

Though Lincoln's philosophy was rooted as much in freemasonry as in the scripture, he was a brilliant man. He spoke in this address about the dangers he saw in the nation's tendency to lawlessness, and in the above passage, could've been indirectly speaking of himself, but was issuing a warning of the potential dangers to come. We now have a president, whose single crowning achievement is on the verge of utter collapse. I've never thought of President Obama as a genius, but it required a certain amount of political genius for a man with no real experience in national leadership to convince the greater part of the population of his own potential value in the highest office of the land. The question is whether or not we have a lame duck president or a wounded lion.

Talking about following a beaten path, Germany was the first nation on earth to mandate health insurance.

They were also socialists who promoted the madness of a Keynesian economy that the US embraces today, so much so that Keynes during that time said that Hitler had proved his theories correct even before he had officially made them. Keynes was so enamored with the German state, that he said that the totalitarian state was the ideal state for his economic theory to succeed. Naturally, this was all before them going on the war and genocide tangent that destroyed their reputations.

So much for much for disdaining a beaten path.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Actually, Lincoln offered the states that seceded the option of a Constitutional amendment that would have protected the slavery if only they would come back into the Republic. They declined.

What this all comes down to is power and control, not the righteous indignation of slavery.

That's not correct either. There's a lot of die hard myths about the War of Northern Aggression, the most prevalent of which is that the war was fought over slavery. It wasn't. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what Herr Lincoln Uber Alles offered because it was the right of any state voluntarily joining the union to leave the union just as freely. That was made clear and Virginia made a declaration to that effect before ratifying the Constitution. There is simply no justification for Herr Lincoln to use force to repatriate states that were legally seceding from the union. None.

 

[iticus]

That's not correct either. There's a lot of die hard myths about the War of Northern Aggression, the most prevalent of which is that the war was fought over slavery. It wasn't. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what Herr Lincoln Uber Alles offered because it was the right of any state voluntarily joining the union to leave the union just as freely. That was made clear and Virginia made a declaration to that effect before ratifying the Constitution. There is simply no justification for Herr Lincoln to use force to repatriate states that were legally seceding from the union. None.

http://confederateheritage.org/Lincoln-Endorses-Permanent-Slavery-Amendment.html

As can be seen, the issue was all about control, not slavery.

I realize that many may view me as unpatriotic, as I question those who have been glorified by the country they live in. However, the Lord has shown me that the country in which I was born is not my home. They do not represent him. All will pass away, but in the meantime, they have the option of siding with him or against him. God never takes the side of man unless it is righteous, thus it can be pulled away in the twinkling of an eye.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

http://confederateheritage.org/Lincoln-Endorses-Permanent-Slavery-Amendment.html

As can be seen, the issue was all about control, not slavery.

I realize that many may view me as unpatriotic, as I question those who have been glorified by the country they live in. However, the Lord has shown me that the country in which I was born is not my home. They do not represent him. All will pass away, but in the meantime, they have the option of siding with him or against him. God never takes the side of man unless it is righteous, thus it can be pulled away in the twinkling of an eye.

No, it's not even an issue of control and you're demonstrating yet again how the overwhelming majority of people don't understand that war. Civil Wars are about control, 2 factions contending for control of the government. It's why this wasn't a civil war because 11 states were seceding and had no desire to take over the United States. No matter how much you dance around the fact, the war was an act of pure aggression on the part of Lincoln against states peacefully seceding as voluntarily as they joined the union. It's indefensible.

 

[michaelvpardo]

No, it's not even an issue of control and you're demonstrating yet again how the overwhelming majority of people don't understand that war. Civil Wars are about control, 2 factions contending for control of the government. It's why this wasn't a civil war because 11 states were seceding and had no desire to take over the United States. No matter how much you dance around the fact, the war was an act of pure aggression on the part of Lincoln against states peacefully seceding as voluntarily as they joined the union. It's indefensible.

I'm no historian, I was just raptured by the idealistic speeches that Lincoln had made on various occasions, revealing a vision that I at one time had believed to be Christian. This was before I had some understanding of free masonry, and the real motive forces behind the American Revolution, the Monroe Doctrine, and the current PAX Americana (that's a joke son.) I'm pretty much convinced that it's always been about the money. Slavery for profit, land grabs for profit, control of the illicit drug trade, social engineering here and abroad to promote the "American way of life," etc.
"Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you King." (Bob Dylan)
My real concern is not with what was, but with what is (and it certainly isn't good.) The free masons say that gold represents God, and the qualities of the metal have made it a universal symbol in that sense, but what were they really trusting in when they came up with the motto "In God we trust?"
When you search for causes of major conflicts, you really should ask, "who profits by it?"

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

That's right to consider the source and that's why I'm firmly against Obama being lectured by Abraham Lincoln. There were a lot of wise quotes from Lincoln, but the man was a politician, first playing to the pro slavery crowd and then to the anti slavery crowd, according to the political winds. Obama deserves to be lectured, but by somebody who didn't singlehandedly break the back of states' rights and constitutional republicanism and forever establish the dominance of the national government by force, not by law.

By the way, I like that Bob Dylan quote.

 

[michaelvpardo]

That's right to consider the source and that's why I'm firmly against Obama being lectured by Abraham Lincoln. There were a lot of wise quotes from Lincoln, but the man was a politician, first playing to the pro slavery crowd and then to the anti slavery crowd, according to the political winds. Obama deserves to be lectured, but by somebody who didn't singlehandedly break the back of states' rights and constitutional republicanism and forever establish the dominance of the national government by force, not by law.

By the way, I like that Bob Dylan quote.

I wouldn't say "forever." The great experiment of masonry in the "New World" is soon to come to an unfortunate end (for them.) The only kingdom that will last "forever" is that of our Savior, and that will come in it's glory at about the same time that the system of this world (the "new world order") comes to an end. I believe that I will see the day of it's judgment and I won't weep for its fall.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I wouldn't say "forever." The great experiment of masonry in the "New World" is soon to come to an unfortunate end (for them.) The only kingdom that will last "forever" is that of our Savior, and that will come in it's glory at about the same time that the system of this world (the "new world order") comes to an end. I believe that I will see the day of it's judgment and I won't weep for its fall.

Agreed. I'm glad that you understand the threat of the masonic order. As you might know, the Catholic Church expressly forbids us to be members of it. It really goes to show how subtle the deception of Satan can be.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Agreed. I'm glad that you understand the threat of the masonic order. As you might know, the Catholic Church expressly forbids us to be members of it. It really goes to show how subtle the deception of Satan can be.

This was not always the case. Prior to Pope Clement (?) there were even clergy members who became operative Masons with the desire of gaining the technical expertise in architecture to supervise the building of their own church buildings. Pope Clement was responsible for the excommunication of the entire order of the Knights Templars, some of which escaped the inquisitors and executioners and were given haven in Scotland, Portugal, and perhaps a few other places, where they became associated with the Free Masons and other orders with questionable practices. Free Masonry (or its predecessor) had influence in the Roman Catholic church, both through associations and memberships at least as early as the 10th century and possibly as early as the reign of Constantine in Rome (there were operative Masons in Rome and traveling through its empire, but not under the identity of Free Masonry. Some modern Free Masons claim a relationship to them through their spiritual practices, but I doubt these were well documented, and the Modern Speculative Masons make free use of ancient symbolism without really knowing that the meanings they ascribe to them are genuinely the same as those of the earlier cults they see as predecessors.) Their ritual mythology places the origins of their order with the builders of the first Jerusalem temple, but some see symbolic beliefs going back to Pharaoh Ikhnaton of Egypt. The force behind the cult has been around as long as man, so whether or not the cult has a real lineage into antiquity, it's spiritual father is the father of all lies and his plans and methods have never really changed.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

This was not always the case. Prior to Pope Clement (?) there were even clergy members who became operative Masons with the desire of gaining the technical expertise in architecture to supervise the building of their own church buildings. Pope Clement was responsible for the excommunication of the entire order of the Knights Templars, some of which escaped the inquisitors and executioners and were given haven in Scotland, Portugal, and perhaps a few other places, where they became associated with the Free Masons and other orders with questionable practices. Free Masonry (or its predecessor) had influence in the Roman Catholic church, both through associations and memberships at least as early as the 10th century and possibly as early as the reign of Constantine in Rome (there were operative Masons in Rome and traveling through its empire, but not under the identity of Free Masonry. Some modern Free Masons claim a relationship to them through their spiritual practices, but I doubt these were well documented, and the Modern Speculative Masons make free use of ancient symbolism without really knowing that the meanings they ascribe to them are genuinely the same as those of the earlier cults they see as predecessors.) Their ritual mythology places the origins of their order with the builders of the first Jerusalem temple, but some see symbolic beliefs going back to Pharaoh Ikhnaton of Egypt. The force behind the cult has been around as long as man, so whether or not the cult has a real lineage into antiquity, it's spiritual father is the father of all lies and his plans and methods have never really changed.

I'm glad the Catholic Church recognized the encroaching threat the Masons posed and took action to stop it. You can't even give us credit for that?

 

[michaelvpardo]

I'm glad the Catholic Church recognized the encroaching threat the Masons posed and took action to stop it. You can't even give us credit for that?

Credit, debit, what does it matter? I'm glad that the Roman Catholic Church took action against free masonry as well, but who's free of corrupting influence in this world? Under the Old covenant of law, the Levitical priests had to perform sacrifices almost continuously and it was dirty, bloody work, defiling by definition, yet the priests remained ceremonially clean. They had as a part of the temple's utilitarian objects, a large laver kept full of water with which to repeatedly wash their hands. We have a New Covenant version of the same function in the form of the scriptures themselves. Our continuing service in the world (but not of the world) has a tendency to cover us with the corruption of this world to a limited extent. This corrupting influence isn't in our spirits but in our minds, so we are to continually go back to the scripture to "wash in the water of the word," to keep our faith strong and in the assurance of God's love for us through the promises of His New and better covenant. We need to renew our minds on a continuing basis, not for the purposes of salvation, but for our sanctification, for our usefulness to God as a kingdom of priests.
That which infects us overtly is obvious temptation, appeals to the flesh, base carnality, covetousness, the pride of life. The more subtle attack upon our minds comes in the form of piousness and self righteousness, promoted by the adversary himself through the doctrines of works righteousness common to false religion and that subtle suggestion that God's grace is insufficient and that we need to add something to what Christ has already done for us.
One thing that I've noticed over the course of the years is that those individuals most inclined to point out our failings and sin to us, are those guilty of the very things of which they accuse another. Jesus warned the Pharisees about this, telling them to first remove the beam from their own eye so that they may then remove the splinter from their brother's eye. Was He really expecting them to do that? His Spirit gave inspiration to the prophets and what did Isaiah say?
9. Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say, `Here I am.' "If you take away the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, 10. If you extend your soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul, then your light shall dawn in the darkness, and your darkness shall be as the noonday. 11. The Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your soul in drought, and strengthen your bones; you shall be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail. Isaiah 58:9-11

What has this to do with the topic? Pretty much nothing. My concern (if you want to call it that) is with what our President will do during his last years in office if his crowning achievement crumbles before his eyes. It seems as though he's already taken the first steps to dramatically change the way the Senate operates with regard to filibustering, since the initial post. What more damage can we expect?

 

[day]

What President Obama needs to do these last three years is acquire management skills and stay on top of things in his branch of the government. Lately whenever anything serious has come up (NSA, unready website, Bengazi, etc) he seems to be unaware of it. In business, if you are that unaware of what your people are doing, you do not have a job for long. That is one of the best benefits of term limits and elections every 4 years. Unfortunately, poor management can take a few years to fully show up, but by the 5-6 year it is not easy to hide.

Obama did not change the way the Senate operates, the Senate did that themselves. However, your comment does raise the subject of the Executive branch taking way too much power at the expense of the Legislative. Even the Judicial branch has tested the waters on creating laws apart from the Legislature. Congress needs to get its act together and re-establish the balance our government is supposed to have between the three branches. Of course that means it would have to be functional. We can pray it does.

 

[tom55]

Slavery was part of the cause for the civil war but it was not the central issue for all southerners. Most southerner's did not own slaves. States rights and perceived unconstitutional taxes were part of the reason for secession also. Many abolitionist in the north pushed for the war to end slavery. Slavery was not initially the reason Lincoln sent troops into the south. He did come to believe that God wanted him to emancipate the slaves. All this can be learned by reading historical letters and other documents that can be found online.

Lincoln did some unconstitutional things like FDR did during WW2, but he also brought the states back together so we may have a more perfect union and a United States. He did not want the southerners punished after the war either. We all have are flaws for we are only human. We have the luxury of looking back and deciding what could have done better or different.