Understanding Royalty

With all the hoopla surrounding the marriage of Harry and Meagan, I felt it might be of interest to explain a few things that Americans do not realize about British royalty.

First of all, one might like to know why Harry has no last name. He has a title and a number ranking in line to the throne. He was named Henry Charles Albert David, and he is the Prince of Sussex. He is sixth in line to the crown.

The reason Harry does not have a last name is it is understood he is descended from Jesus of Nazareth, making all royal families inherit the understood but unclaimed “last name” of Christ. All royal families have the right to claim royal status because they are the bloodline of Christ.

The bloodline of Christ did not reach Europe directly as a child born of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus bore the holy son known as John, the writer of the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelations of John. Before John was imprisoned on Patmos (as an old man), he had married a woman of dark skin, who was a Jewish believer of Jesus as the Messiah, either Egyptian or Ethiopian. This couple had a daughter, who as an infant floated on a raft from Alexandria to southern France, along with Mary Magdalene (John’s mother), Mary Salome, Mary of Cleopas (Mary Jacobé), Martha, Lazarus, Maximin of Bethany, Sidonius and Joseph of Arimathea. The raft was without a sail and drifted to a place now known as Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer.

This bloodline is that which has been theorized in the books that have been written about the Holy Grail. The daughter of John, referred to as “the Black Madonna,” was raised by these women Apostles of Christ as the carrier of a most holy bloodline. As such, “Sangraal,” “Holy Grail, is actually “Sang Rael,” “Blood Holy” or “Holy Blood.” This becomes the blood of Christ that was symbolized by a cup of wine at the Passover Seder meal (a.k.a. The Last Supper).

This bloodline was married to men who were Apostles of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit. They were saints who gave rise to more female carriers of this holy DNA, who were married to more saintly men, under the careful segregation of communes of saintly Christians. These Apostles would lead by example in the surrounding villages, helping others as needed, while making miracles happen. The people knew these communes were most holy and helpful, so the people protected them and their ways that were Jewish-rooted. The model for knights that would serve true royal kings, all around Europe, was those who were filled with the Holy Spirit.

This long history led to the dynasties that would organize and rule the nations of Europe. To maintain the purest level of the bloodline, the sons and daughters of royal houses were arranged in marriage for that purpose. The revolutions that overthrew royal houses severely limited the gene pool, so that by the Twentieth century the British royal family was the last of its kind.

Throughout all of the centuries, the presence of Christ’s blood did not make a saintly king or queen. It was important for this bloodline to have a proper education, which included deep discussions on spiritual matters and the role and responsibility that a royal child had been born into. It is not too different from the education the Tibetans give to their chosen one, to make sure the reincarnation of a Dali Lama is properly guided. Still, the blood of Christ was intended to get direct spiritual guidance from one who was a true Saint, having the Holy Spirit within him. This teacher of kings and queens was supposed to be the popes, cardinals and bishops of the Church. However, just as there was decay in the bloodline over time, there was also the same collapse of the Church of Rome.

The last true pope lasted only 33 days before he was murdered. (and the cover-up began)

The Church of England was created by Henry VIII, because he did not like the controls the Roman Catholic Church’s pope placed on him. He rebelled against that Church and created his own, in a similar likeness, but not on equal status with the king. That revolution would dilute the bloodline of the English, but it would keep them on life support after other royal houses were eliminated. When the King of England allowed the people to run the country, with a House of Lords designated to defend the crown legislatively, that sacrifice kept their heads attached to their necks. However, the roles and responsibilities of the royal blood began to get lost.

The House of Windsor, which is led by the current Queen of England, Elizabeth, has faced its own struggles with staying pure. The line began with George I and George II, both of who only spoke German, refusing to learn English.  George III was the first of the line to speak English, and he was the monarch that lost the colonies in the new world to independence.  George V was king during the First World War, when his cousins, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicolas II, both saw their reigns ended, with George V losing his royal titles in Germany and Russia. He successor was Edward VIII, whose reign lasted less than a year, as he abdicated the throne to be married to an American divorcee, Wallace Simpson. Because his new wife was divorced and the king is the official head of the Church of England, which did not allow divorce, Edward abdicated because his wife could not hold the title of Queen of England. His successor was his younger brother, George VI, who had a stutter and shunned public speaking, which a king must do. That was especially important as England entered into the Second World War and the king had to steady the people through speeches. Still, under his rule England lost its empire and was reduced to a commonwealth. George VI died at the age of 56, leaving the throne to his eldest daughter, Queen Elizabeth. She has ruled England since 1952, now 66 years, and is now 92.

While the Queen of England appears to be still managing at her elderly age, her eldest son, Prince Charles, is now 69 years old. The decision for the queen not to abdicate and turn the throne over to her eldest son has not been made carelessly. This is because Charles has proved himself unworthy of the throne and Queen Elizabeth is the last pure royal who has not sinned beyond the bounds that royal rule allows. Both Prince Charles and Prince Andrew (age 58), the sons of Elizabeth, are of the pure bloodline of Christ, but both have committed cardinal sins that bar both from heading the Church of England, the least of which is divorce.

Without going into the tainted background of Prince Andrew (known in his younger days, by the press, as “Randy Andy”), Charles has some very dirty laundry that has been kept quiet by the royal house. It is publicly known that he married Diana Spencer (of common blood) and had two sons, William and Harry, who were obviously a dilution of the bloodline of Christ. It is also publicly known that Charles and Diana divorced, with the royal house attempting to claim sole possession of the royal heirs, although the British courts gave Diana, as the mother, full rights to the children. This then led to the mysterious death of Diana, along with her Muslim boyfriend-fiancée Dodi Fayed, which then ended any disputes about parental care of two young princes, in line to the British crown. This adds murder to the list of Charles’ disqualifications for being king. It has not been an official charge, but the queen knows full-well that Charles was involved in ordering that execution.

What is not realized, although there are those that surmise this, is the possibility that Charles never married Diana out of physical attraction to her sexually. Charles was busy lusting for the married woman, Camilla Bowles, and merely chose Diana as a seventeen year old to be his bride, playing on her naiveté. This was because Charles was expected to marry and have children and his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, gave him that advice about choosing a very young and controllable girl to be his wife. In reality, Charles would have to be homosexual (another strike against his being crown worthy) to not be attracted to Diana Spencer sexually; but Charles and Diana never had sex together.

This leads to the question, “Who is the father of William and Harry, if Prince Charles is gay?” That yields a double-edged answer, the first of which leads one back to Randy Andy.

Prince William was born on June 21, 1982. That means he was conceived around October 1981. In February of 1981, Prince Andrew began a casual relationship with a woman by the name of Koo Stark (an American photographer and actress). With Andrew being a lady’s man and with Charles being married to a young lady of beauty, one who was still a virgin, Prince Andrew had a sexual encounter with Diana on the grounds of a royal estate. Diana did not welcome this sexual advance, but she seemed to enjoy the roughness of rape. She became pregnant with a son whose blood was royal, one who looks like his father (not Charles).

William and “Uncle” Andrew

Prince Harry was born on September 15, 1984. That means he was conceived around December 1983 or January 1984. By that time, Diana was completely shunned by Prince Charles and Prince Andrew was actively on duty in the British navy, Diana was limited to contact with her butler and a bodyguard named Barry Mannakee. Mannakee was reassigned in 1986, after news leaked that Diana had fallen love with someone in service to the princess, between 1984 and 1986. It was presumed there was an affair between Diana and Mannakee, which would point to the arrival of Harry as the evidence of her crime of adultery.  Mannakee would die in an automobile accident in 1987 (a convenient death), but Prince Harry favors him (not Charles).

Barry and Harry.

This means that Harry is of common blood, with no royal blood part of his being. This lack helps explain his wild and rebelliousness as a youth, which goes beyond a young prince mourning the death of his mother.

Queen Elizabeth is well aware of the lineage of these two princes, but both have now matured into married men, with both of their wives of common blood. This makes the sons of William at least one-quarter royal DNA, but any offspring that Harry and his American actress wife might have will be purely mongrel blood, of not royal consequence. Of the whole lot, Prince William is the only reasonable choice to head the Church of England, and the queen knows this quite well.

In the symbolism of the dilution of royal blood into common blood, happening at a time in history when the concept of equality has laughed at the prospect of royalty and a bloodline of Christ, the end of the British crown is within sight. Harry knows the intrigue of his supposed father, Prince Charles, and wishes the power that allowed Charles to murder his mother destroyed. This strong desire must be seen as having purposefully led Harry to choose an American actress with a black mother to be his bride. To show his total disdain for the Church of England, he chose the American black head of the U. S. Episcopal Church, who gave the sermon at the royal wedding, in which he twice named the black community organizer and political activist Martin Luther King, Jr., but only once gave mention to a quote of Jesus Christ. It was appropriate that someone not filled with the Holy Spirit speak common words of fantasy as a guiding principle of two commoners wedding in a fantasy affair – a royal pretense.

Love, love, love. Love is all you need. Now I’ll sit down cause we got to get you all married.” No need for the blood of Christ.

When Queen Elizabeth does die, and it is assured that she will not live forever, it is quite possible (if not probable) that she will have set into place the revelation of crimes committed by her son Charles, which goes beyond the murder of his ex-wife. Diana’s butler met with the queen for three hours, when charged with theft of royal belongings – personal letters and a diary written by Diana.  That meeting ended with the queen coming out with the butler (Paul Burrell) and exonerated him, saying, “All charges have been dropped.”  Diana obviously had evidence that would have stripped Charles of all rights to children he did not sire.

Diana and her butler Paul Burrell.

Charles’ ascent to the throne will be short-lived, in more ways than one. The future is a most unstable place, where a great tragedy is about to unfold. The end of a bloodline, in conjunction with the long ago ended spirit line of the papacy, means the Western nations face that uncertainty on the strengths of men and women of common blood, with no true religious commitments to the One God.

So, enjoy the pomp and circumstance of fancy carriages and a beautiful young couple in a ceremony fit for future kings. Few people in America understand why such a lavish affair is warranted. Soon, Prince Andrew’s daughter will wed. She is the offspring of an English commoner – Sarah Ferguson. Princess Eugenie has set her royal wedding spectacular for October 12, 2018. When that news event occurs, perhaps you will understand what royalty is about.

Advertisements

The Imaginations of a Heroin Addict

Here is the deeper interpretation about one of the worst song in the 20th century. It was written and recorded by the late Liverpudlian rock star, John Lennon. Maybe you will recognize the lyrics.

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

There is nothing of a revelatory nature in those imaginations. It has no roots in anything taught by a Hindu guru who loved the money of Western rock and roll stars. These were the imaginations of the Sadducees of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Some think they disappeared after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, but the reality is they evolved into the money changers of the world (Genevan bankers, Zionists, and Illuminati Freemasons), so the philosophy here is just John singing about his love of money.  I imagine another line to this verse, making it a sextain or sestina, would be: “Imagine there’s no Jesus, I’m bigger than that guy.”

Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

“Living for today” can be seen as the paycheck to paycheck way so many Americans live, with a few credit cards maxed out, hoping for the end of the world so no one will ever have to pay the debts incurred. After watching Donald “Adulterer” Trump screw Americans under the age of 40 yesterday (3/23/2018), there might not be a country left soon, so it isn’t hard to imagine that.  China and Russia have bought half of our land (hard stolen from wars against the natives), which means we Americans will have a hard time determining what order to sing multiple national anthems before going to work in the slave mines. I imagine Americans might be forced to enjoy singing “I’m back in the U.S.S.R., you don’t know how lucky you are, boy.”  Of course, “Nothing to kill or die for” was a prediction that the gun control acts to come will take away that Constitutional right of Americans. And, as we all know, Communists nations (the aforementioned China and Russia) have “no religion too,” so prepare to start praying to the government for loaves of bread and toilet paper.  John loved that imagination.

Imagine all the people living life in peace, you  [cue the dog howling soundbite]

Here’s an oxymoron: “living life in peace.” “Peace” means eternal rest, which comes from death. For rock stars of the sixties, that typically meant drug overdoses were the best thing one could be “living” for. Ole Johnnie was a heroin addict for five years (that we know of, maybe more). He survived, but it must have made him completely deaf, because he went back to Yoko Ono. Her voice can drive those who have ears that can hear into drug addiction.

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Here is the famous “dreamer” line, the marcher’s tune for illegal immigrants in America and the Socialist politicians that depend on their votes.  Unfortunately, John wasn’t aware of the poor at all.  The “dreamers” reference means drugged up English rock star trying to avoid the high taxation of England.  He was singing about his pals who were trying to immigrate to the United States of America. He wasn’t the only one. Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, and Elton John were just some of the old gang from England that John wailed, “I hope some day you’ll join us.”  Then they would be illegals not paying any taxes and a “world [without borders] will be as one,” their financial utopia.  I doubt John cared that the European Union would form as part of the One World Government plot, but he guessed right there.

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine a Beatle without billions of cash in the bank … nah, I can’t do it. Neither could John. That why he wrote, “I wonder if you can.” There was no question mark … because it was a rhetorical statement … tongue in cheek, British rock star humor. After all, he was always the fat-witty Beatle. When he mused, “No need for greed and hunger,” he did little to promote the Live Aid in 1984.  Of course he was dead personally and professionally long before then … but that’s still no excuse.  Still, can you remember a time when he was seen standing on a street corner in Harlem, handing out free hundred dollar bills? I can’t.  Maybe buying heroin, but not giving it away – the greedy bastard.  Always feeding his hunger for smack.  And “a brotherhood of man”? Was he leaving women out again … after he sang (squawked) with Yoko about “Woman is the nigger of the world”?  He had a “brotherhood of man” that was the addicts he hug out with in California – Harry Nielsen, Kieth Moon, and Phil Specter.  Now that is quite a brotherhood – all rich, white, rock & roll addicts.

Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you  [elongated Howl … ooooowww]

Here again is the Communist marching tune. Unfortunately, the fall of Communism (Russian variety) happened after John found happiness through a warm gun (“bang, bang, shoot, shoot”), so he never got to see the truth of how the commonly owned everything of the U.S.S.R. rapidly became the personal possessions of the 1% elite of Russia – their new oligarchs.  Those thieves were set free to steal the wealth of a vast nation and leave the poor, ignorant masses without a clue their world has changed.  “Excuse us while we share the people’s world among ourselves.”  It is that stolen money that allows Russia’s mega-billionaires to help themselves to American land. The Russians are happily “sharing all the world” and getting richer off it.

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Chorus explanation.  The dreams of a heroin addict, who is certainly not the only one.  Nothing special here.  Move along.  Move along.

“March for Our Lives” sounds like what the Japanese told the British captives in Bataan

I know that some mentally unstable young person having access to weapons that are typically referred to as “guns,” more specifically “assault weapons” and “AR-15s,” leads to horrible, terrible, shockingly unnecessary events, where children in schools have been slaughtered is bad. Let me make that BAD, in all-caps. I’ll even go as far as to say it is BAD, BAD, BAD.

That said, if an AR-15 was cocked, loaded and laying on a tree stump in the woods and no one was around, would it shoot and wound or kill anyone? If the answer were, “Yes,” then no one would ever be able to buy guns, because the guns themselves would be shooting and wounding and killing everyone around gun manufacturers, gun stores and gun shows. Just the pure carnage of guns gone wild would kill the sellers of guns, so only idiots would go anywhere to buy a gun. If an idiot did that, then the idiot would suffer the same fate of anyone coming near such uncontrollable gun lunacy.

Of course, the answer to the philosophical question is, “No.” The reason is guns do not wound or kill people of any kind: It takes a crazed gunman to use a weapon to destroy lives; and if one who is crazed is left without the availability of guns to buy, then that would mean crazed killers would turn to knives, swords, bows and arrows, hammers, air compressor nail guns, baseball bats, rocks, sticks, and even bare hands to get the craziness out of their systems.  All of the above would be used to wound and kill.

After the recent school shooting in Florida, I heard someone suggest arming teachers in schools, so the students and other employees at schools would have, in essence, a first defender against some crazed gunman, to defend the children until police could arrive. I also heard the argument that arming teachers would be dangerous, as teachers are not skilled with guns. People argued that putting guns in schools would do more harm than good.

The people that argue against arming teachers as a line of defense at a school are the same fools that are now marching around cities in America, promoting the punishment of guns by laws that would ban them. It is the latest media event to be broadcast into the homes of America, suggesting: “Look at how much people are against gun violence in America, especially the rampant killing of America’s school children with assault weapons, like AR-15s.”

Before I state my feelings and thoughts about such propaganda, let me first address the suggestion that teachers be armed in schools.

  • First, a “teacher” would have to be either a man or woman with military experience, where the person given a gun would not immediately pee oneself, thinking the gun will shoot him or her while not looking.
  • Second, the “teacher” would have to volunteer to be armed during school hours.
  • Third, there would have to be a minimum of three such teachers who would be armed, as many as six, so the arming would only take place when the chosen “teacher” was not teaching students. They would act as armed security during their normal hours of not teaching.
  • Fourth, there would only be one weapon that would be used to arm a “teacher,” which would be worn around the waist with a belt and holster. That weapon of choice would be kept in the front office of the school, where each designated “teacher” would go to relieve the armed “teacher” before him or her.
  • Fifth, the “teacher” would observe visitors entering the main entrance of the school, with real classroom teachers, those having classrooms near all other entrance points at the school, assigned to make sure all door are closed and locked, so unauthorized entrance would be deterred.
  • Sixth, communication devices would be assigned to the armed “teacher,” linking he or she to the front office, should an emergency call take the “teacher” away from the front office post. Any such emergency call would initiate a call to local police authorities.

The cost of such a program would be the cost of a firearm, belt and holster, ammunition, a communication device, and a secure gun safe. The greatest savings would come from utilizing the personnel already employed by the schools. Should a school find itself without enough qualified “teachers” to be armed, then the PTA could request parents with qualifications and free time to volunteer in this capacity. Substitute teachers could also be given consideration. The point is the presence of an armed guard ANYWHERE has the effect of deterring criminal acts.

Such a protective plan must also be realized as not being foolproof. In the same regard, someone can be killed by a driverless car while crossing the street. One could be killed by a meteor strike. There can never be a total protection from bad things happening. All security measures have their limits, just as all school districts have financial budget limitations.

Now, about the protest marches that seemingly want to address children being killed by assault weapons and guns.  I have witnessed a woman that has a highly influential position at one particular organized religion (of the Christian variety) – she wears a high, pointed hat above her high priestly robe and carries around a crooked staff – advertising on Facebook about how happy she is to go on one of these marches.

  • First of all, I believe there is no greater protector of humanity than God.
  • Second, it disgusts me when leaders of religions (especially those professing to be closer to God than the sheep in the pews) begin twisting moral values into new words spoken by God and Jesus Christ, where the wants, desires, and ways of holy men and women are god-sent to promote the social values of those leaders.

That, in my mind, is misleading.  Certainly, some folk think their brains have been surely filled with philosophies that God would strongly support.  They feel so strongly about their personal beliefs, they walk outside the realm of their religion to stand publicly in the political arena.  This is misleading because it is pretentious to seemingly proclaim it has been their faith in God that has sent them out into the world as protesters, recommending humanity’s ignorant masses be forced to comply with God’s wishes.  It becomes a classic example of “I am a priest because I am holier than thou, and I associate with a political party that is holier than any other party that would preach a sermon against what I believe.”  It implies Jesus Christ was against guns.

The problem with that last issue is Christian clergy marching for gun control is just as evil as are imams calling for fatwas. Having some leftist do-gooder casting blame on all right-wing conservatives is about as far away from knowing Jesus Christ as can be. Not once did Jesus promote the elimination or control of Roman weapons, even though Herod the Great had some unknown number of children under the age of two slaughtered, simply because some wise men came asking where they could find the King of the Jews.  One would think Jesus would have gone to protest in Jerusalem saying he was Marching for His Life – Ban Crucifixion Now!!!

Jesus did not do that.  Instead, he told his disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23)

When someone wearing religious garb stands in public promoting a fear of guns, they are not promoting faith in God. Jesus said, “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

Why would someone with a high ranking in an organized church be standing, arm-in-arm with other politically motivated protest organizers, promoting the control of firearms, if not for the purpose (at least on the surface) of saving lives?

If you are going to do that, toss away the clerical collar and put on your satanic robes and funny hats with long, curly horns. Trying to save lives means you want others to lose their souls.  You are proposing that the people give up guns (now) and kneel before government, when God commanded, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.”  If everyone would kneel before God, it does not matter what instruments of destruction are within arm’s reach.

The ultimate reason there are crazed gunmen going into schools and shooting innocent children, wounding and killing them needlessly, is the same reason crazed gunmen in the sixties shot President John Kennedy, his brother Bobby Kennedy, and clerical protest leader Martin Luther King.  Those deaths were perpetrated to gain popular support for the war in Vietnam (Kennedy out Johnson in), keeping a shadow government propping up its puppet leaders (eliminate a potential president that would expose the evil in government), and breaking all connections Americans had with their God and Jesus Christ (let the government destroy the family values of poor black folk through freebie government programs). Then, as now, the C.I.A. and other agencies of American government (F.D.A. is one of many) are deeply involved (secretly) with the indoctrination of children, through mind altering experiments.

Our government is practiced in the evil arts of making as many people as crazy as possible. The government wants children to kill children with guns, so the masses will get behind the public wanting to have the right to bear arms limited or eliminated.  An unarmed populace is just as defenseless as a school full of children, when there is no one on the premises to protect them against crazed gunmen.

As most Americans will not believe this view of mine, a minority of Americas will believe it wholeheartedly.  Still, whether or not it is believed is of no consequence. No law ever written by man has ever stopped anyone from breaking the laws.  Just as guns do not wound and murder innocent people, laws do nothing to protect innocent people.  The only laws of significance are those written on the hearts of those who fear the consequences of breaking a Law of God.

The American view of government worship can actually be seen as racist, in the regard that Americans see themselves as an elite race of human beings that are better than others in the world. To grasp this assessment, imagine how much good would be seen in priests and politicians marching in some African nation, calling for the control of guns because some “rebel faction” has guns and is taking over areas of a nation, killing, wounding, and raping students. Taking away guns would do nothing to protect the people there, because the people there are too poor to afford to buy guns for protection in the first place. They depend on the government military to protect them.  However, the government military numbers fewer than the “rebels.”

Add to that the aspect that individuals making up most African militaries are also so poor they would be lured to look the other way, so “rebels” can do their evil deeds.  Should priests be advocating forced limitations placed on the citizens of Africa being armed for self-protection?  If not, then their advocacy in America is racist.

This is a regular state of business in the “third world” – the “nigger world” (pardon my French) compared to the elite of America and Western Europe – but here in America, where everyone has free access to credit cards and free government handouts, we can be so elite as to turn up our noses at the thought of ordinary people owning guns.

The French, as well as practically all of Europe and the people in Brussels and Geneva running the European Union, have strict limitations on ownership of firearms. France, as well as many Western European nations, has let refugees and illegal aliens settle there. With many coming from North Africa, a high influx of Muslim people has entered into nations where the laws have been largely based on the morals and principals of Christianity. The Muslims are under the influence of their religious masters, where Islam (the leaders thereof) has taught millions of Muslims to hate Westerners and to see Christians as evil people.

Instead of news about school children being murdered by crazed gunmen, France has been where Islamic terrorist have been killed by police, after innocent civilians have been murdered. Not only do these terrorist use guns illegally obtained, they drive rental trucks down promenades, killing people who do not get out of the way. They detonate bombs, many of which are made from legally obtained base materials, which kill people they have targeted (like newspapers that publish satirical cartoons). Lately, one Islamic terrorist gunman who killed several in a spree of murder, was said to have possessed hand grenades.  Are those not illegal to be owned by citizens of France?  Yes they are.

The point is clear.  No government control of firearms can ever protect the people from the surprise attacks of people under the influence of evil.

I firmly believe there is a Holy War coming. When it will happen is anyone’s guess; but it is planned and already has elements of that plan in place.  Gun control will do nothing but embolden the enemies of America.  There are African-American groups across America that call themselves Muslim, which have grown to large numbers over the past six or seven decades, who seek to destroy the government that they believe enslaves all people not Caucasian.  Contrary to MLK’s nonviolent revolution, the believe (like stated by Malcolm X) no revolution comes without violence.  A violent revolution demands one possess guns.  An easier violent revolution comes when those you wound and murder have nothing to defend themselves with.

The legal changes proposed, which are designed towards the disarming of populations, will do nothing to change those who have already disarmed themselves, for whatever reasons – moral, political, or spiritual. These intended changes will have the effect of legal mistreatment being mandated against those who do not wish to disarm, when they have never shown any signs of mental instability or a desire to wound or murder other human beings. Once a nation has forbidden its population to bear arms, the protection of a whole nation then depends on the strength and preparedness of that nation’s military – usually a small percentage of the total population able to bear arms.  In America, the president is the Commander in Chief of the military, which demands the president be sane and competent, not like a mad dictator with all the arsenal of his military at his disposal, to run amok wherever he may choose.

There is divine prophecy that states nations of unarmed people will be overrun by those who seek to destroy them.  There will be surprise invasions in nations where the people believe fully in the government (laws) protecting everyone, of all races, creeds, national origin, and religious conviction.  Their trust is put in civility, not God.  Their enemies (secretly in hiding and waiting to attack) know full well how being with arms, against those without arms, the strong can take from the weak.  What the rich have can then be theirs, easily taken by wounding and killing the defenseless, with absolutely no qualms about how the rich might feel about such loss.

Perhaps, some clergy and politicians will protest in marches then?  Would it not be better to protest now for all being freely armed, because the government cannot (maybe even will not) lift a finger to prevent evil?

Will it be then like it is today, when the person who plots the demise of innocents stands arm-in-arm with some moron Christian cleric, both singing “We shall overcome”?   The moron thinks those song lyrics says good will overcome evil. Unfortunately, the smiling subtrevert (subversive element here secretly) will be thinking, “We shall overcome you who Allah hates.”

John 1:1-18 – Deeper View

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.'”) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

——————————————————————————–

Now that Advent has passed and the Christ child has been born into true Christians, the Church liturgy enters into the Twelve Days of Christmas, which covers one Sunday this year. The twelfth day of Christmas is Friday, January 5, 2018, with the Epiphany recognized on Saturday, January 6, 2018. This reading repeats part of the Advent 3 reading (that where “John” is mentioned – verses 6-8), while adding in the parts that were omitted, before and after that duplicated part. It will be read aloud in a church by a priest on Sunday, December 31, 2017, as the first (and only) Sunday of Christmas. This reading is important because John places focus on “the Word” (capitalized) and “the Word became flesh,” which was Jesus Christ.

It may be confusing to read “the Word” and come away with a concrete grasp of the meaning. Certainly, we are reading “words” to see that, so Jesus can be the reason for the Holy Bible – a collection of many books with lots of words. However, there has to be more to John’s use of “Logos,” because divine Scripture comes from the Godhead, through a prophet, and has multiple meanings.

There are 331 variations of the word logos in the New Testament, with another 276 other forms from that root word. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) shows 38 different translations of the 331 uses, with “word” the most frequent in the singular number (179 times). Still, “statement” is the translation eighteen times, with “speech” and “message” the translations ten times each. When that multiplicity of meaning is understood, it is not beyond the scope of reason to translate verse 1 as saying, “In beginning was the Statement, and the Speech was with the [One] God, and God was the Message.” Such a translation might be easier for some to grasp than the one we all know and love; and that would not be a mistranslation.

The Greek word (capitalized) “Houtos” has been translated as “He,” which leads the reader to assume “the Word” is a male entity; but the word is more commonly used (in the masculine singular) to denote “This,” which is relative to that stated prior. The word “Logos” is a masculine noun, such that a masculine pronoun would be used to denote it. This means “This” is the condition of verse 1, where “Logos” is “This” that was the focus of verse 1. Thus, verse 2 states, “Thisthe Plan – was in beginning with the [One] God,” repeating that statement, while implying yet another translation of “Logos.”

Verse 3 uses the masculine pronoun “autou” (the masculine genitive of autos), where, “him” has to be understood as God. When “Panta” (variation of “Pas”) is translates as “All things,” with “hen” the assumption of “one [thing],” then verse 3 says all Creation, in the material plane, came “through God,” as the physical manifestation of God’s Idea of Reason (other translations of “Logos”). Nothing came into being by accident or haphazardly by chance. So, if one leans towards the randomness of a Big Bang theory, that theory is dismissed by John. Everything has come according to God’s Master Plan.

Verse 4 is split into two segments: “In him life was” and [following a comma] “and the life was the light the [One] of men.” The repeated word “zōē” says “life,” which has to be understood as the “breath of God,” which is more than the physical oxygen taken in from the atmosphere (air), but the spiritual presence of “life” within, which causes a body of flesh to draw upon that through breathing. This means the “light” (“phōs”) is that “radiance” that is the soul “of men.” The “light” of the soul is the extension of God into human beings; and it is this “light” that lets mankind sense a higher purpose in “life.” Through the soul, God’s Thought (another translation of “Logos”) is heard.

In verse 5, where John wrote, “And the light in the darkness shines,” this is like the Creation story, where it was written, “Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.” (Genesis 1:3-5) In all of this, especially when Genesis says, “God separated the light from the darkness,” and “darkness [God] called night,” the symbolism of “light” and “darkness” is “life” and “death.” This means the “darkness” (“skotia”) is matter that is void of “life,” but when the “light” of a soul enters into dead matter (“light in the darkness shines”), then spiritual “life” is extended to the material realm.

When verse 5 ends by John writing, “and the darkness it not overcame,” where the implication is that “darkness” cannot put out the “light” of “life,” the opposite is also true. Just as “light” can illuminate through the “darkness” and expose that which does not naturally emit “light,” the “darkness” does not cease to be, because of “light.” In the Creation story, both “light” and “darkness” are physical realities of the material realm; but the “light” of “life” is absent of physical features that can be measured. This means the power of verse 5 is the “spiritual light” that is the soul, connected to God, “appears” (variation of “phainei” – “shines”) without being seen. As long as “life” exists, the “darkness” of death cannot overcome it.

While all of the first five verses of John’s Gospel can be read as the “light” of Christ, and thus applicable to Jesus Christ, the real focus is on God and His Master Plan that existed “in the beginning.” Jesus Christ was part of that plan, but everything (including Jesus) came through Him, as without Him not one can be.” Think of a candle with its wick unlit. Its only purpose is to become a “light” in the “darkness.” That becomes reality through thought in the darkness – inspiration leading will.

Verse 6 has the capitalized word “Egeneto” beginning it, which is the imperfect tense of the verb “ginomai,” meaning “to come,” which is relative to the past but still on-going. This means “Came” is a better translation than “There was” because “Came” does not imply no longer being present, as does “was.” Thus, verse 6 says, “Came man (one known as “Adam”) having been sent alongside of God.” The Greek word “para” means “alongside of,” such that it is the root of the word “parallel.” Thus, “Came man” as “an Apostle” (“having been sent” is rooted in “apostelló”), who is one knowing God, through His “light.”

After a comma, John then wrote, “onoma autō Iōannēs,” which literally states, “name his John,” but when the name “Iōannēs” is known to translate (from the Greek application unto Hebrew) as “Yahweh Is Gracious,” it says, “name his God Is Gracious.” That says the “name” is that of the one who “Came,” as a lineage to “mankind,” that was “alongside of God.” That bloodline is proof that “God Is Gracious.” As such, in that lineage, there will be named one or more named “John,” in honor of that graciousness.

Because lineage is relative to the “names” of one’s forefathers (see the lineage of Jesus in Luke and Matthew for proof), the relationship of John the baptizer and Jesus is through the “name” of Mary’s and Elizabeth’s father (Aaron), who raised righteous daughters. In this same vein of thought, John (the author of this Gospel) is also of the “name his [the “man” who “Came alongside of God], because he honors “God Is Gracious” by proper name. Because John was an Apostle and prophet, he was of that righteous lineage sent by God. That states, indirectly and directly, that John the Beloved was a blood relative of Jesus.

The word “onama” not only means “name,” but also “authority” and “cause.” This means there is less importance in the “name” of “a man” who “Came,” although the name Jesus is readily recognized by hundreds of millions of people (if not billions). Still, the greatest impact comes from knowing the “authority” that is applied to “a man,” such that “a man” is known by the “reputation, fame, and character” synonymous with the “name.”

Verse 7 then repeats (in a different manner) the statement “Came a man,” by stating “He came,” which follows the name “John.” The repetition is not coincidence, as “John came” because of the one who “Came” before him. By seeing this duplication of Jesus in John, one is able to grasp that him coming “as a witness” means more than simply being able to say, “I saw him.” The Greek word “martyrian” not only means “a witness” but also as “evidence,” to bear the same “reputation.” One does not do that by saying, “I was born of the bloodline of holiness,” as that has repeatedly been shown in Scripture to failures of righteousness. John could only come to be evidence of Jesus Christ by carrying on that reputation of Spirituality.

That “reputation” is then (following a comma) the act of “testimony,” that is the “Word” of the LORD, spoken by the Son, from the Father. The condition “that he might testify” as a “witness” is “concerning” (from “peri”) his spreading the truth of the “light.” That truth cannot be recited from memory and explained as if reading a book of instructions. They are spoken from the source, as Jesus spoke the Word, so other “might believe through him” – Christ John. This also includes John the Baptist, as when he said, “There goes the lamb of God,” the first disciples of Jesus “believed” and “through him” (John the Baptist) became Apostles of Jesus Christ.

Following a period mark, verse 8 states “Not was he the light.” This reference to “the light” returns the reader to the explanation that “the life was the light of man,” which was God. God’s “light” leads all who are part of His Holy lineage. Thus, Jesus admitted frequently that he spoke for the Father, who was “the light.” Since all Apostles after Christ have become replications of Jesus, as Christ, the Holy Spirit brings the Christ Mind, which is “the light” of God the Father. Therefore, John “was not the light,” any more than Jesus was “not the light,” because “the light” is God.

Following a comma, John repeated that “John” (as an Apostle) “came that he might witness (give evidence, testify, or give a good report) [in words] regarding the light” of God. This restates the purpose of an Apostle-Saint, each reborn as Jesus, all who speak the truth of the Father so that “light” can guide others to God and Christ. That is then stated in verse 9, as, “Was the light the [One] true, that which enlightens every man, coming into the world.”

It is important to see the end segments of verse 9 as saying “the [One] light (“that”)” is not limited to one “man.” It “enlightens every man,” or is “revealed to all men” that has met the qualification set by God, which is what denotes an Apostle and Saint. The comma that separates the segment that says, “coming into the world,” is not telling of a physical birth process that brings enlightenment, but each “man enlightened” is a newly reborn Jesus “coming into the world.”

The power of verse 10 is the power of Christianity and its universal spread. Once God sent His Son Jesus, the Messiah, into “the world,” his coming and going (Ascension) began that spread. It was more than hearsay that convinced others to believe in that “man” who “Came.” Still, the translation above that says, “the world came into being through him” is better translated as, “the world through him was born.” While Jesus “Was in the world,” Jesus then “emerged, came back, was reborn” (the essence of “egeneto” – “he came”). The final segment says, “and the world him not knew” (or “the world did not know the man Jesus – in the flesh”), yet the world believed.

Verse 11 then begins with the statement, “He came to what was his own” (literally, “To the own he came”), which says only those who had proven themselves worthy received the Holy Spirit and the Mind of Christ. The translation above that says, “and his own people did not accept him,” refers to the Jews who rejected Jesus the “man,” who did not receive the Holy Spirit. This not only means the Jews who had Jesus killed but to Judas Iscariot and others who proved themselves unworthy of “receiving” God and Christ within.

Verses 12 and 13 are shown above as stating, “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.” This is a series of segments about the Apostles and Saints who did “receive him,” which means they were reborn as Jesus. They “received him” through marriage to God, filled with the Holy Spirit. Thus, the reason they “believed” was because they had become “in his name” – Jesus reborn. The aspect of being the “children of God” is due to this rebirth of the Son of God within all Apostles and Saints, so all became the children of the same Father. To be “born,” but “not of blood (relationship) or of the will of the flesh (one’s brain devoted to self needs) or of the will of man (which is to live for death and reincarnation) means this was not a normal birth, but one of Spiritual birth. Because it involved the Holy Spirit, this birth was due to God.

Verse 14 seems to make a transition that focuses on the life of Jesus. Because John repeats the word “Logos” here, as “And the Word became flesh” is the only other use of that word since verse 1. Because John wrote “Logos,” rather than naming Jesus, its use cannot be limited to only that identity. It still means the “Plan” of God was to place His “Message” in a human “body” (“flesh”). Without the limit of only Jesus, this segment’s statement returns to the beginning of holy men sent to earth, such that Jesus became the final reincarnation of one soul into human form. This segment beginning with the capitalized conjunction “And” (“Kai”) says incidence of the “Word becoming flesh” was preceded by others before.

When the second segment states, “and he lived among us,” the plural pronoun implies life of God’s Messenger in his lifetime. This presence then became noticeable, as segment three states, “and we beheld the divinity (or glory) of him,” which is the documented miracles the followers of Jesus witnessed. Those “divine” oral words and manifestations of miracles was proof that Jesus was like the “only Son of God,” who was “alongside of the Father,” as God extended to earth. Jesus proved to be “full of messages from God” and those were the “truth.”

At this point, verse 15 repeats the name John, which states, “John testifies concerning him.” The above translation shows this as an aside, placing the verse in parentheses, but to states this information is unnecessary to the flow of the text is wrong. Because the author does not name himself in his book, the reference here is to John the Baptist, which acts as a direct example of Jesus coming as God’s Messenger of truth. The use of the Greek word “peri,” meaning “concerning, about, conditions, and around,” says that “John testified” of the measure that will prove the follower to John will be greater than he. It is not a specific announcement of Jesus as the Messiah that was “witnessed.”

In that regard, John reported that “John” was “saying” in his words of testimony, “This” is what to look for as far as “who John spoke.” First, the public attention gained by John as a baptizer would mark the timing to which another would “come after,” The one who would come will be “of higher rank” than John, in the eyes of God. Finally, on a Spiritual level of divinity, this one to follow will be “most important” to Judaism and the world. This was the testimony of John the Baptist.

Verses 16 through 18 are not directly attributable to John the Baptist, as John the author returns to using the plural pronoun “we” (“hēmeis”), which included him as one who could testify to the “fullness” or “completion” of the Baptist’s “conditions.” The use of “plērōmatos” compliments the statement of John’s “condition” of the Messiah, who would be “full of grace (or divinity) and truth,” with “full” representative of the Greek word “plērēs.” That proof was the presence of “grace upon divinity we all received” from Jesus Christ.

John testified for himself and others, who were Jews. As a religious group to whom Jesus came in the flesh, they all knew “the law through Moses was given” to lead the children of Israel. However, “the divinity” of that law, “and the truth” the words of that law held were not grasped until “through Jesus Christ” that depth of meaning “came.” The timing of that understanding was not during the life of Jesus in the flesh, but after he had died, risen and ascended, then returned through the Holy Spirit.

Verse 18 is divided into four segments, with the first one stating that “No one has ever seen God.” That matches what God told Moses, where one has to be a soul to be in the presence of God, so Spiritual “sight” allows that view. As a follow-up to that statement, John then repeated the word “monogenēs,” which means “only-begotten” or “unique.” He used the same word in verse 14, where the implication was Jesus had the “divinity as unique (or only-begotten) alongside the Father.” Here, the only way for one to know the Father is to be “God’s only-begotten,” which comes from God’s presence in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit only comes when “the [One] being in the bosom,” where the Greek word “kolpon” implies the heart, but also physical union, synonymous with “intimacy.” This is being married to “the Father,” such that the laws of God are written in one’s heart, giving birth to the Christ Mind. It is from the Christ Mind that “he [God] has made himself known” to an Apostle.

Check my work

Mark 13:24-37

Jesus said, “In those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.”

——————————————————————————–

24.But in those the days , If you recall from the first Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, when he wrote, “for you are all children of light and children of the day , we are not of the night or of darkness” (1 Thessalonians 5:5), this statement of Mark places focus on that inner light of Christ.

after the persecution those , The “tribulation” (“thlipsin”) must be seen as the “persecution” that the first true Christians faced, at the hands of the Jewish synagogues and the Roman Empire. Obviously, this prophecy began soon (with the execution of Jesus) and continued for two thousand years (an Age).

the sun will be darkened , The “sun” is the light of Christ, which shines through the Apostles and Saints that spread true Christianity. This light will then be obscured, such that the truth will become confused, opening the door of doubt.

and the moon not will give the light of it ; In these two segments in Greek, the words “helios” and “selene” are used to denote “sun” and “moon.” In Greek mythology, Helios and Selene were the names of the brother and sister that were the children of the Titan god Hyperion (ruler of light, wisdom and watchfulness” and his wife-sister Theia (name meaning divine; goddess, implying bright). It should be grasped how the moon reflects the light of the sun, in varying degrees – from absence (new moon) to total (full moon). Therefore, when “the moon will not give the light [of the sun reflected],” the meaning is that of new moon phase. A new moon is when the Sun and the Moon are conjunct, although this usually means the moon is unseen, because of the glare of the sun. However, when the “sun will be darkened , AND the moon not will give the light,” this is a statement of a total eclipse, where the moon perfectly aligns with the sun and the sun’s rays are completely blocked from earth (in a narrow umbra of total eclipse, with a wider penumbra of darkness).

25.and the stars will be out of of the heaven falling , The stars are the constellations that surround the earth, but are only visible in the night sky, when the sun’s rays are absent (and there is no cloud cover, where clouds are symbols of obscurity). The key word of this segment is “falling” (“piptontes”), which is said to have metaphorical meanings: “to be cast down from a state of prosperity” and “to fall from a state of uprightness.” When this meaning is applied to the stars of the zodiac, the circle of stars that the sun and the moon appear before (along with the other visible planets in the solar system), it says that the use of astrology – as a divine art of prophecy – will have fallen. Still, in that same context, those who promote and continue to use the stars of astrology to forecast and predict, they will have lost of light of truth and are not led as prophets of God. Thus, astrology as a divine art will have fallen into a state of disgrace. We live in such times now, as the art of divinity is discredited as having never been a tool presented to mankind as a tool for finding support for truth.

and the powers (or inherent abilities) that in the heavens will be shaken . Whenever one comes across the word “that” (in this case a second “hai” [“the”] is translated as “that”) it is referring the reader back to the prior verse, such that “the power” or “the inherent abilities” of astrology (“the power” of prediction as prophecy) is also a reference to “that.” The future tense word “saleuthēsontai” means the use of astrology “will be cast down” and “will be driven away” for God intended use – as a tool to guide man by [seasons, times, etc.].

26.and then (or at that time) will they perceive (or will they look upon; will they experience; will they see) the Son the [One] of man coming in clouds , The use of the word “then” (“tote”), like “that” in the prior segment, is referencing when “the heavens will be shaken,” or “at that time” when astrology will “fall” in the eyes of mankind. Then the perception of Jesus Christ “of man coming” will not be concretely understood, but it will gain nebulous understanding. This statement, as a perfect example, will cause people to think Jesus Christ will come down from “clouds,” like a Greek god. This statement does not say that, as it says, “will they see” Christ “coming in clouds.” Seeing is not believing. The inverse way of reading this is as when “will they experience the Son.” “At that time will they experience the Son the [One]” of God, having been sent “of man” to be “the [One] of man” in a union. This “coming,” however, cannot be seen or touched, as it is Spiritual, as though “the [One] of man coming in clouds.”

with marvelous deeds (or abilities; power) much (or great) and the unspoken manifestation of God (or glory) ; Transferring thought from the presence of “the Son” having returned “of man,” in humans of God’s choosing, that nebulousness “in clouds” is now stated to be “with” or “among” or “after with” (from “meta”) those “of man,” who are Apostles or Saints. This makes “in clouds” represent the Holy Spirit, which brings with it the “marvelous deeds” or “abilities,” which are the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In addition to those abilities (from “kai”), the Apostle or Saint will not be blessed for self-importance, but they will project an aura of holiness (depicted in art by halo) around them, as the “unspoken manifestation of God,” the “glory” of God’s Holy Spirit.

27.and then he will send the messengers from God (or angels) , The use of “then” here, as an additional step (following “and”), says that after “the power and glory” has come “of man,” through “the Son,” then God “will send messengers” to the world. While an Apostle or Saint is human in form, it has sacrificed its personal desires to fully serve God. Their primary role is to act as righteous slaves, where their actions speak for the LORD and their deeds touch others so they seek the same presence of God upon them. It is the “clouds” of the Holy Spirit that make them appear as “angels” to those whose lives they enter.

and will gather together the chosen (or elect) of him , Once the return of Christ has reproduced “the Son” on earth, “of man” in multiple numbers, then the next step (“and”) “will be to gather them together,” where the root Greek word is “episunagó,” meaning “to assemble.” This denotes the called out assembly that relates to a Church, where the Greek word “ekklésia” means, “an assembly, congregation, church.” This gathering is only those Apostles or Saints, those who have been “chosen of him,” which fully means they have “chosen” to be of service “to him,” all in “the same” manner as “him” [Jesus, the Son of the Father] (from the Greek word “autou”).

from out of (or out from within) the four winds , The key word to understand here is the number “four.” The symbolism of “four” is “foundation” or “base.” This means “four” represents the “foundation” of the “gathered together chosen,” which is the truest meaning of a Church. “From within” that “assembly” “outward” will the “breath” of God’s Holy Spirit be spread. The Greek word translated as “winds” is “anemōn,” can also mean “breaths” or “breathings.” When “four winds” is recognized as a separate entity, this becomes symbolic of the “four corners of the earth,” which then is a statement of how far the “breath” of God will be spread.

away from end of earth to end of heaven” . In this segment, the word “end” (“akrou”) is repeated, giving it importance. The word means an “extremity” or the “highest point,” but can also mean “the end.” This has absolutely nothing to do with the End Times (which are an “extreme” time), as those are commonly understood. Instead, this statement places focus on the extent of the “breaths” of God being sent “out from within” the “assembly,” as the purpose being to lead one “away from end of earth,” which is mortal death and reincarnation. This is then meant to guide one to and “end of heaven,” which is eternal life.

28.Separation now the fig tree , In some English translation Biblical sites, this verse is shown to begin a new element of focus, as “The Lesson from the Fig Tree” (NASB for one). To jump to a new heading is ridiculous. This verse begins a new line of thought, but it is based on the breath of guidance “away from” mortal death, which the Greek word “Apo” means. This means the “fig tree” offers insight into the repetition of life (a tree of reproduction and lineage), where the seasons come and go, just like do the lives of mortals. The “fig tree” is also represents a commonly recognized fruit tree of ancient Israel, which was known to be producers of early figs (usually in June) and late figs (August). These fruit trees were both cultivated and found growing wild across the land. Such fruit symbolically states the purpose of that tree.

come to realize the comparison (or parable) ; The Greek word “parabolēn” does translate as “a parable,” but it is more meaningful in this segment as an equally valid translation as “a comparison,” as a “juxtaposition,” where the “fig tree” can be side-by-side compared with the repetition of human reincarnation. The Greek word “mathete” means “to learn” (or “come to realize”), which is Jesus the Rabbi speaking to his disciples (and likewise to us today). While this lesson is stating the botany of a tree in comparison to the biology of a human being – and thus can be termed a “parable” – it is easier “to learn” through real experience, rather than the fantasy of a story of kings and slaves that no one had ever personally known.

when already the branch of it tender has become, Again, we have a timing element in the word “hotan,” which means “when.” That timing is then relative to the fig tree being “already” or “now after all this waiting,” from the word “ēdē.” The first two word of Greek could translate as implying, “at the time when the condition is met, after some length of waiting.” This seems to then point to a limb of a tree, but in comparison to a human being the Greek word “klados” means “descendant” as well as “branch.” Thus, the focus of a fig tree “branch” is no different than a “branch” on a family “tree.” Still, the words that are translated as “tender has become, “the Greek word “hapalos” implies “a shoot of a tree.” Thus, Jesus was pointing out when the death of winter has ceased and new growth was at its most “tender,” having just come upon a “branch” as buds.

and it puts forth the leaves, As an additional stage of new development (“and”), the “tender” buds “sprout” as the fresh, green “leaves” of spring. Just as fall symbolizes dying, spring symbolizes rebirth. This means the beginning of another drive to flourish and reproduce.

you know that near the summer is . In the example of a “fig tree” with “leaves,” this sign (recall the original statements about the collapse of astrology, which has constellations that are the signs of the times?) is that early figs (if this type of fig tree) will come from the leaves, in June, which is the eve of summer (the summer solstice is between June 20-22). The majority of figs are produced in August, which is the height of summer. Thus, simply by seeing leaves newly on the branches of the fig trees, one knows “summer is near.” In the comparison to human beings, spring time is that time of transition from youth to reproductive. For fruit to grow, there has to be a cross pollination of the trees (by winds or bees), which is that time of young adulthood. The summer of life is a human being’s years of productivity and reproduction.

29.In this manner also you , This statement is self-explanatory, as Jesus pointed to his disciples (and us today) and told them they are “branches” of him, which were just budding new leaves, but soon they would produce the fruits of summer. Summer is also the time when the days are longer and the light of the sun is strongest. Just as trees spring to life when the days are longer and more sunlight makes photosynthesis keep trees thriving, the light of Christ is the motivation for “living branches” to productively reproduce others “with him the Son.”

when you experience (or see) these things coming to pass (or happening), Again, the timing word “when” is used to denote “at that time when conditions are met.” Because Jesus used the pronoun “you,” he was addressing his disciples and not “fig trees.” This means the conditions that will be met has nothing to do with “branches sprouting leaf buds.” When Jesus said “these things happening,” those things were the comparison of new life coming into them. Just as a “fig tree” feels the sap flowing upward within it trunk and branches, as a sign that the season of growth has arrived, so too will the disciples of Jesus feel and up swelling within them. That personal “experience,” “discernment,” and “awareness” (from the Greek word “idēte” – a form of “horaó”) lets them know when new growth is about to spring forth in them. The “things coming to pass” will be personal to each individual, as changes within them. The “sight” “to see” will be inspired by the Holy Spirit and not limited to the light spectrum detectable by human eyes.

know that near it is , This aspect of “personal experience” is then stated in the Greek word “ginōskete,” which is “knowledge” of first-hand acquaintance. It becomes the certainty of understanding that is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when one feels a new phase of life about to happen, it will be this newfound insight that says change is “near” or “close” (from “engys”). More importantly, however, the word translated as “it is” (“estin”) is a form of saying “I am is near,” which means “it is” God. Thus, one will “know” of “these things happening” because one has come “close” to God. That “nearness” is one’s marriage to God, via the Holy Spirit.

on the basis of (or at) an opportunity (or doors) . This statement says that “near” God means the conditions have been “met.” The “doors” of “opportunity” has been opened (from the Greek word “thyrais”). Just as a “fig tree” needs light and warmth to stimulate it to new growth, one become “near” to God by having done everything required beforehand, during one’s engagement period prior to the marriage, when God enters one’s heart forever. God always makes those “doors” of “opportunity” available, but it is up to the human being to say, “Yes” to those proposals.

30.Truly I say to you , This is a common assurance by Jesus, as one married to God, that an Apostle can only “speak” the “truth” of God. His words to his disciples assure them that everything he teaches them is tried and true. Likewise, we today can be assured the truth is being told.

that no not will have passed away (or will have become vain) the generation this , When the topic of comparison has been a “fig tree,” where “tender young leaf shoots” are representative of the growth that is to come, the use of the Greek word “genea” means a “generation” of “family,” “of man,” “with him the Son,” where “generation” says: “All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor.” The root of that word is from Latin (“generō”), which means “to father, procreate, and beget.” The double negative (“ou – “no-not not-lest”) then speaks of “nothing” being lost from the line generated by the Father. When “a generation” is estimated to be a twenty-year period of related children, this becomes too limiting to the lineage of God, as it stretches righteously from Adam to Jesus, with all who have, are, and will come to pass come from the same Generator: God. This is therefore a statement of eternal life that is promised (“Truly I say to you”) to all who spring forth on the “tree” of holiness, which Jesus Christ has revived (“from the stump of Jesse”).

until (or as far as, to the point) that these things all shall have taken place. In this statement that follows “this generation” of which Jesus spoke, the limitation is stated that “these things all shall have taken place.” One cannot be reborn as Jesus Christ without doing that which is required to have everlasting life and join the tree of righteousness that makes one “a fresh, tender leaf sprout” on the “branch” that is God’s “tree” of life (as opposed to being born of death as a mortal). In this statement, one should be aware that Jesus spoke to twelve disciples on the Mount of Olives. That number included Judas Iscariot, who becomes the example of how death would take him before the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, transforming them into Apostles. Judas Iscariot did not get “as far as” the “point” (from the Greek word “mechris”) when “these things all shall have taken place.” That lesson is the foremost for all future “generations” of the churches, and all who claim to be Christians. Judas made the claim as a follower, but then he sold his soul for material reward.

31.The heaven and the earth will pass away (or will become vain), This has nothing to do with suggesting the end of the earth or the end of heaven – either outer space/skies (physical heavens) or the spiritual place called Heaven. The two words translated as “The” and “the” (Ho and ) both can indicate the “condition” to be met for one or the other, as “Condition heaven and condition earth.” This is then stating the “circumstances” that will dictate how one’s soul “will pass away; will come to pass; or will happen” (from the Greek word “pareleusontai”). It says that each individual will choose which path “will become vain,” where “vain” is defined as: “Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless.” One will either call “heaven” “fruitless,” and choose “earth,” or vice versa.

them on the other hand divine utterances (or words) of me no not will pass away (or will become vain). In this segment, the Greek text does not translate anything for the word “hoi,” which is the plural form of the article “the,” often translated with “polloi,” as “the many.” I have translated it as “them,” which becomes an indicator of “the [ones],” and “them” becomes the focus of those who choose “heaven,” because “on the other hand” indicates the ones who did not choose “earth” as their way to “pass away.” We can be safe in this assumption because Jesus added it will be “them” who believed the “divine utterances” (reading “logoi” from its Biblical definition, indicating holy “words”) “of [Jesus].” This becomes the promise of truth that those who heed the “words of him” (Jesus) “will not pass away” or find the way of the LORD as “vain.”

32.Circumstances (or Concerning) on the other hand the day that, In the Epistle reading of Proper 28 (1 Thessalonians 5:1-11) the first verse stated, “Concerning moreover the times and the seasons.” That verse begins with the same word beginning this verse in Mark’s chapter 13 – “Peri.” In my interpretation of Paul’s letter, I wrote this:

“The word “peri” means, “about, concerning,” and “around,” which “denotes place, cause or subject.” Its implied usage infers, “consideration where ‘all the bases are covered.’” As such, the important focus by the capitalization of this states, “Circumstances now” or “Conditions on top of.””

That part of Paul’s letter dealt with the “circumstances” and “conditions met,” as whether or not one would truly be deemed Christian. Following the statement in the segment prior here, about “on the other hand divine,” here we find “on the other hand” the “conditions met” that will determine “the day” of “that” choice – eternal life (“heaven”) or eternal reincarnation (“earth”). The implication in this segment is those who chose “the earth,” with “the day” being “that” of death.

or the hour (or time) , In this segment the focus is on “time,” where “hour” can be read as a specific “time,” but is commonly recognized as a statement that focuses on “time” running out, having reached the final “hour.” This is then the most critical “hour” when human life is about to come to an end and the soul will lose its host body.

no one knows ; When Jesus used the word “oudeis,” which translates as “no one, not one, none, nothing, and others,” this word categorically excludes anyone. This exclusion can allow one to see “no man” or “no one” as those who said “no” to “heaven,” instead choosing “earth” as their target of worship and devotion. Because those who choose “heaven” receive the “knowledge” of the Holy Spirit, as the Christ Mind from God, the physical process of bodily death is not a traumatic event for ‘yes ones’. However, to those whose physical life has taken on considerable importance, they would love to know when death is near, so they could repent and choose “heaven.” They will not possess that luxury of knowledge.

not even the messengers of God (or angels) in heaven, Following that understanding, this segment can be read two ways, with both being the truth. First, it simply says that the same lack of knowing when death will occur will be “not even” allowed to those who are Apostles – the “messengers of God” – who chose “heaven.” Still, its most powerful meaning says that the “conditions” set for those who choose “earth” will not be placed on those who chose to serve God. They will be notified by “angels” when death is near, and they will escort those souls to the crossover into eternal life in “heaven.” This says those “angels” will be notified by God when that service will be needed.

nor the Son, This segment than restates support for the “no one knows” segment, as those who chose “no” to “heaven,” such that those chose not to allows “the Son” to be reborn within them. Without “the Son,” they will “not know.” Still, the presence of “the Son” in Apostles and Saints means lives directed towards saving other souls, where death is not feared by them. To dwell on such an “hour” or “time” is pointless. Also, keep in mind that Jesus knew when his death would occur, as well as that of Lazarus.

if not the Father. This segment basically says that those whose choice is not to serve the Father (be married to God), then they will not know, due to choosing “earth.” The word “ei” clearly translates as “if,” where that conjunction implies an alternative choice (if this, then that).

33.Take heed (or perceive; discern), This is a warning to all who have decided “if not the Father,” choosing to serve self on “earth.” The Greek word “Blepete” says to be “Careful.” It says to “Keep watch,” as their choice means they “will not know” when death will come.

be awake (or watch) ; The Greek word “agrypneite” then gives reason for “Taking heed” to what Jesus has said. A command to “be awake” means to not fall asleep. As has been discussed in prior letters of Paul and Jesus upon hearing news of Lazarus’ illness, sleep is metaphor for death. Thus, the warning to “Take heed” and be “Careful” is directed towards staying “alert” and “watchful.”

not you know indeed when the time (or occasion; opportunity) is. This is the message of several parables (Parable of the Rich Fool; Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids; and Parable of the Faithful Servant), where not knowing when death will come makes staying awake so important. However, if one has already been married to God and is led by the Christ Mind, one is always “alert.”

34.Like a man away on a journey, This verse begins similarly as the Parable of the Talents, where verse 14 states “anthrōpos apodēmōn,” as “a man going on a journey.” Similar words are written here (“anthrōpos apodēmos”). As interpreted in the Proper 28 Gospel article, the master was not the one going on a journey, but his slaves were going on a journey for the master. Here, that is clearer. However, in this context, the man is akin to a soul on a journey away from heaven, gone to enjoy a trip to the material world. In relation to not knowing the time, this becomes a parallel to knowing one needs to return home, but has lost the tickets to travel there and has forgotten the date and hour of the trip back home.

having left the dwelling (or house; property) of him, Here again, the use of the word “autou,” meaning “of him,” the intent is to state “a man” having left the “dwelling” of the Father. Because this follows a segment that speaks of “a man,” it is easy to be confused and think “a man” left his own home. That is a purely physical reading. Because Jesus is speaking of Spiritual matters, it is “a man’s” soul that left the Spiritual “dwelling” of heaven, where the Father resides.

having placed (or having given) the servants (or slaves) of him the authority (or influence), Like in the Parable of the Talents, the false assumption was that the master had left “servants” in charge, while the master went on “a journey.” The same mistake can be made here, by thinking “a man” had “slaves” who were given “authority” in his absence. The true meaning is that God is the owner of the “dwelling” from which “a man” left, which makes that “man” the “servant” of God, the Father. It is this “influence” of God over the soul that calls this “man” back home, reminding the soul of “a man’s” servitude.

to each one the work (or task) of him , As a servant of God, an Apostle or Saint has the responsibility of speaking as God will have them speak. The task is to seek others who want to know God intimately.

and the doorkeeper (or gatekeeper; porter) he commanded (or he instructed; he gave orders) he should be watchful (or he should be vigilant; he should be awake; he should be alert). Since Jesus was “the Son” sent “of man” to perform a “task” for the Father, sent from his Father’s “house,” he was teaching his disciples that he was “the doorkeeper” to “heaven.” He had claimed this earlier, when he said he was the “gate” to the sheepfold. Thus, Jesus was warning his disciples; but all who would become reborn as “the Son,” with the Mind of Christ, married to God, they too would keep that “portal” to “heaven” open, through the Gospel, as “messengers of God” (their “task” and “work”). As such the Greek word “thyrōrō” says Apostles will “keep the door” to “heaven” available to those who seek entrance into God’s kingdom.

35.Watch (or Be alert; Be awake) therefore This repeats the warning to “Stay awake” and be “Alert,” but adds the word “oun,” which means “therefore,” but: “By extension, here’s how the dots connect.” (HELPS Word Studies). The “dots” to connect then follow the two dashes, which act as a colon mark.

not you know indeed , Reason to stay awake and keep alert number one: You do not know when death will make you go to sleep, before you are prepared to cheat death.

when the master of the house (or dwelling; property) comes: The master is God, who comes to call a soul away from its material body. This is a known coming, whenever a soul is born into a physical form. This is the definition of death, where all forms of matter are born to die (change states); but the timing of that death is not fixed, so it cannot be known in advance.

or at evening, This is the first of four “night watches” in the Hebrew day. The first “watch” is from 6:00 PM until 9:00 PM (possibly only 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM), which is called the “evening” watch. The evening, depending on the time of the year, is when light from the sun may make “watching” easier, seeing things coming from further off. Still, with all the activity of settling in, it is easier to stay awake during this time of “night.”

or at midnight (or night), This is the second of four “night watches,” which lasts from 9:00 PM to “midnight” (possibly from 8:00 PM until midnight). This is year-round a time of darkness, with the height of summer lending some small amount of twilight at the beginning of this watch. Still, as this “watch” wears on, the eyes get heavier.

or when the rooster crows, This is the third of four “night watches,” which begins at midnight and ends at 3:00 AM (possibly between midnight and 4:00 AM). This is the depth of “night” and when sleep wants to take hold, as there is no light other than that of the moon’s reflections of sunlight. This is often called “the graveyard shift.”

or morning; This is the fourth of four “night watches,” where the wait is for the break of “day,” at 6:00 AM. This “watch” begins at 3:00 AM and leads to the official beginning of “day.” There is morning glow that begins to wear away the abject darkness.

36.not (or lest) having come suddenly (or unexpectedly) , This segment, following the pause of a semi-colon, says the connecting of the dots of “Vigilance” were necessary through all of the divisions of night, when darkness is symbolic of death. Thus, if one does “not” keep all the watches of nigh, then the moment sleep takes over death comes “suddenly,” “unexpectedly.” Death is always known to be coming, but the “hour” of night never known.

he should discover (or he should find) you sleeping . Again, the third-person masculine pronoun “he” is attached to the conditional form of “heurē,” as “he should find, because “he” is the Father of all souls. The word “sleeping” (“katheudontas”) is metaphor for “death.” This means the soul will “find” God at its moment of release from the physical body. This is when judgment will come, relative to the soul deserving eternal life in “heaven,” of deserving to be reborn of death in a body of matter. That discovery will be a matter of record in the heavenly book of records.

37.Which (or What) on the other hand (or moreover) to you I say , Here, Jesus is pointing out how it will be his voice, inside the head of Apostles and Saints, who will guide one to “the other hand” of Salvation. Instead of God finding a released soul from an unexpected death, when the soul had not served the LORD in physical form, Jesus will have his disciples prepared.

to all I say, It will thus be through all subsequent Apostles and Saints (who wrote the Gospels and Epistles and who spread the Word of Christianity) that Jesus will “say to all” in the future – this and every lesson he taught that has been recorded in Scripture.

Watch (or Be alert; Be awake) ! Jesus tells all Apostles and Saints how to be “Awake,” which is the permanent state of everlasting Life, as opposed to the sleep of death and the repeating of past failures on earth.

The embarrassment of being white

Are you white and suffer the embarrassment of being called a racist, simply because you are white?

Do you send off for DNA analysis, hoping you will find out that you have some percentage of minority heritage, making it viable to begin acting as a non-white?

Do you shudder at the thought of going to work and being treated as a pariah, every time there is another violent racial outburst reported in the news?

Cheer up because there is now a way to confidently step out in public, without those embarrassing feelings of being a loser – one who can’t stop feeling an affinity to people like you; but dang it, the people you like keep on making your life miserable.

Now, instead of wearing a paper bag  to work, one that falls apart on rainy days, you can wear a new uniform proudly … and nobody will know it is you! The outfit is a way of expressing your religious faith, and is now protected by Shira Law in the USA.

You too can now be Constitutionally protected by wearing the “NEW YOU OUTFIT””

If anyone accuses you of being a member of the KKK, you then have the right to hire a lawyer employed by the ACLU and sue for having been publicly defamed! You see, this uniform is that ritually worn by members of the Semana Santa in Spain.

If the boss comes up to you and says, “You’re fired,” then you can turn the tables on him-her AND all accusers by rightfully screaming out, “RACIST!!!” You can make others shrink in embarrassment, rather than you.

You see, the Semana Santa in Spain wear clothing that has absolutely nothing to do with the KKK! It is totally associated with the the Nazareno tradition of the Roman Catholic Church! This costume has been used for many centuries; and the costume itself does not carry any message!  It is only a costume worn during Holy Week!

Good Friday

Apart from having a Christian connotation and white color symbolizing the white race, the costume makes a ghost-like figure and provides disguise for the specificity of who wears the costume, while still proudly saying, “Yes I am white, but above all I am Christian! That is all you need to know about me.”

This is traditional garb for Easter Week, symbolizing the Risen Lord!  You will be making the statement that Christ has risen in you!

So be proud, while covering up all those fears and insecurities of having been born to a race that is now in vogue to condemn!

(For more information: http://www.valenciavalencia.com/culture-guide/semana-santa/ku-klux-klan-semana-santa-spain.htm)

The Party of Lincoln

Seemed like a Trump baby was speaking to the RNC Convention crowd in Cleveland last night, making a big to-do about “the party of Lincoln” and freeing the slaves, et al, blah, blah, blah.

Besides the fact that the party of Lincoln ended after a southerner blew his brain out (at close range), one should realize how THAT Republican Party was the party of Northern Carpetbaggers, which lasted for a hundred years. A model for a Trump presidency would be Ulysses S. Grant.  He was the drunk general who was friends with the little redhead named Tecumseh Sherman, who would cut, slash and burn a path from Chattanooga, through Atlanta, and to the sea at Savannah, leaving poor southerners to starve, with poor negro slaves without any protection by his army.  THAT Republican Party would make Saddam Hussein proud, as it was murderous and uncompromising.  THAT Republican Party is more in-line with the present day Democratic Party, thus the “tongue-in-cheek” usage in a “Republican Convention,” by the son of a NYC avowed Republican.

The Republican Party of Lincoln stood for killing as many southern Americans as need be.  Lincoln had the agenda to have a strong Federal government, which could never be challenged, seeing it the Federal government’s responsibility to force the states to be united.  They had the right to secede, as John Adams had written; but Lincoln chose to wage a four-year Civil War as the only option.  He refused to grant thirteen southern states their “right” to withdraw from that union, when they found the Federal government had gotten too big for its britches.  The issue of slavery then became the mantra of THAT Republican Party, which still thrives today in the modern equivalent Democratic Party.  Neither cared about those “slaves,” just as neither cared about the lives of southern whites, who were themselves “slaves” to a plantation system.  Racism was born as a form of punishment for southern whites being born southern and white.

The Republican Party of Lincoln freed voters to elect puppet Republicans, who began decades of misery for all southerners.  Without true southerners able to vote their conscience, the Fourteenth Amendment was railroad ratified in the 38 or so states that made up the union then.  Now, 100 years later, that “Constitutional right” has become the modern Democratic Party’s cry for anchor babies, born to illegal aliens, to have the right to vote as automatic citizens.

The Southern Democratic Party (Dixie Democrats) has become the modern Republican Party, simply because there has been a polar shift from what used to denote “red and blue states.” They used to call southern politicians of power “Blue Dog Democrats.” Now, people exactly like them call themselves Republicans. They should not claim to be Lincoln lovers, because Lincoln brought misery upon the southern people (as well as the northern troops and conscripted immigrants), just as Barack Obama has and Hillary Clinton has and will. This change must be realized.

Any true southerner – any true Christian – MUST ask themselves this one question:

If my state were no longer part of the UNITED states, and it were free to elect a governor, president, prime minister, king, or supreme leader, whatever my state’s people decided it wanted to run its government, would you want one making decisions about your southern life and lifestyle to be some New York City friend of the mafia, who is always suing the people he has screwed, and always seems to find sweetheart deals that no other legitimate businessman can find?

Donald Trump is a Lincoln Republican, better stated as a NYC Carpetbagger.  He is only out for his own advancement in life, and those whose enterprises he helps launder money for.  Donald Trump is full of lies (just like Hillary and Bill and Heinz-Kerry and Reed, Schumer, Pelosi, et al) and is too dangerous a person to ever trust. The day before he announced he was running for president, he got a call from Bill Clinton – someone Trump said he has “lots of friends,” because he has given money to lots of politicians.  Imagine what was said in that conversation:

Bill: Donald, I need a favor.

Donald: What can I do for you Bill?

Bill:  It is more for Hillary.  You know her negatives are so high, she doesn’t stand a rat’s chance in hell of winning, even against some loser like Ted Cruz.  We want you to run as a Republican.

Donald: Well Bill, that would cost you.

Bill: Donald, the Democratic National Party and my foundation is ready to send voters your way, so you make an impact in the primaries.  You might lose the caucuses, but big whoop.

Donald: If I run, I want to win the nomination, not come in second or worse.

Bill: Donald, all you have to do is act like a mockery of the Republicans, and play on their ignorance.  Say some wild and crazy stuff, about loving guns, about illegal aliens, about Hillary even.  The masses will flock to you.  But, we will make sure you get lots of media attention and primary voters.

Donald: I’ll do it Bill.  But, if I lose, you and Hillary will owe me big time.

Bill:  You got it, Donald.  After all, what are friends for?

Donald Trump is a DNC strategy

Donald Trump has toyed with the idea of running for president ever since 1992, when Bill Clinton first became president.  He instead became a supporter of Ross Perot and the Reform Party of the United States.  There was no need for Ross Perot to run for president, as far as the public being upset with where the country was headed under Daddy Bush.  The only reason Ross Perot ran in 1992 and again in 1996 was to take enough votes away from the Republican candidate, so a filthy person like Bill Clinton could get elected.

Because Ross Perot got a whopping 18.9% of the vote in 1992, Billy Boy – “Cigar Man” – Clinton won with only 43% of the votes cast.  To have a president elected with less than 50% plus one means the country ceases to be a democracy.

In 1996, when the Billster was a little worried about being re-elected, the DNC had Ross Perot run again, with Donald Trump offering himself as an alternative to Perot.  The more popular the third party candidate, the more likely he is to win over the poor, white, Bible-toting, gun-loving Americans who despise the way the DNC has catered to the black vote.  Even though Lover Boy Clinton won the endorsement of Jesse “Rhym-a-matic” Jackson (whose son learned how to steal from government from his dad) and was called the first Black President, he still needed the insurance of a Perot campaign.  That worked beautifully again, although Perot slipped to only 8.4%, just enough to allow Minority Bill to win re-election with 49.2% of the votes cast.

Still a country under a minority president, not a majority.

Even though Donald Trump tried to run for the Reform Party of the United States nomination in 2000, he dropped out, leaving Pat Buchanan to win that slot.  Buchanan won less than 1% of the popular vote (Ralph Nadar won third place honors with 2.7%).  There was less threat perceived coming from the former cocaine user, AWOL Air National Guardsman, baseball club owner and gub’ner of Texas – Baby Bush.  The V.P. of Clinton was expected to win without having to pay someone like Trump to fake a presidential campaign.  Ally Gore actually won the popular vote contest, but lost to the Bush Baby where it mattered.  Still, neither Dem nor Repub won 50% of the total votes cast (Gore: 48.4%, Bush: 47.9%).  For the first time in American History the Supreme Court elected the president (Bush) in a 5-4 decision that allowed Florida to fix the election.

Trump Clinton

Donald Trump was nowhere to be found wanting to run for president in 2004, 2008, or 2012.  Now, with the Hilda-Beest running and such a negative opinion solidly against her, Bill Clinton calls on his old pal Donald Trump to run another one of those fake campaigns that gets a president elected with less than 50% of the votes cast.  Heck, maybe Hillary can slide in at 40% and break Monica Bill’s record?

The evidence is clear:  There is no serious opposition to Hillary Clinton being the nominee for the Democratic Party.  When Donald Trump says, “I am bringing in millions of new voters to the Republican Party, people who have never voted in their lives,” that means, “Democrats who have never voted Republican are voting for Mafia Don in the primaries so the wicked witch of Arkansas can easily beat real Republicans and win the nomination … only to have them go back to never voting Republican in a general election.”

Donald Trump is an actor (a bad one, but he has been paid by television companies).  His schtick is acting like how Democrats see all Republicans as ignorant, white, gun-loving and Bible quoting men, those who are fed up with eight years of Barack Obama.  He does not need to have a real plan to win, he just needs to act like a buffoon and have that buffoonery become associated with ALL Republicans.  What Independent would choose to vote for a buffoon and feel it was okay to act that way?

If the investigations of Hillary Clinton’s treasonous acts as Secretary of State do cause her to be disqualified as an American with the right to vote ever again (much less be able to carry a weapon), the having Donald Trump actually win the Republican Party’s nomination, then the Democratic Party would have two candidates running against each other (one a Communist!).  If the Republican Party then ran a third party candidate or kicked Trump into that role, the result would be Donald Trump winning the presidency with less than 50% of the votes cast and the Republican candidate winning less than 40%.

A Donald Trump presidency would then be the fulfillment of the 1960 fix, where Joseph Kennedy sold his son John as the Mafia’s best friend in the political food chain.  While that did cause the dead to rise up and vote in Chicago, electing JFK as president, the Mafia had to blow his head off because Joe never told Bobby about the fix being in.  Having Mafia Don as president … well just imagine his cabinet.  The Don has alread mentioned fellow casino owner, Steve Winn, as “One of the brightest businessmen I know.”

All of this is quite obvious.

Don’t bite down on the impeach pit

Christmas lights

The next presidential election is November 8, 2016.  As of this minute, there are 332 days until then.  A lot can happen in 332 days.

There is a saying: “History repeats.”  That means things happen and similar things happen again.  There is another saying that believes if you do not learn from history (i.e.: remember the mistakes), then you are doomed to repeat history.  The key to both axioms is “history.”

While there are some who love history and make good grades in school, taking history classes, most people are bored with all the dates, names, and things that happened in the past (usually long ago).  Well, it is time for a history lesson, so try to take some notes.

In 1972, Richard Milhous Nixon won reelection for a second term as president of the United States of America.  He won in a landslide, getting 60.7% of the vote and 520 of 537 electoral votes (520 – 17).

By August 9, 1974, less than two years after being inaugurated on January 20, 1973, Richard Nixon resigned as president.  He was the first and only American president to resign in office.

As far as historic things happening, it is best to write that down: “the first and only president to resign in office.”

Add below that and underline: History repeats!!!

Now the reason Richard Nixon resigned was a complex thing called Watergate, and it would bore you to tears to read about that here; so just know that a dirty little secret became exposed and in the process of Nixon trying to keep that secret hidden, he made so many people mad that they threatened to impeach him.  That threat made him resign.

Up till that time only one U.S. president had ever faced the impeachment process; but Bill Clinton became number two.  History repeats.

Now the thing about Nixon’s resignation was he still faced the threat of a trial for lying to important people and also possible criminal actions; but while Nixon was flying away to his Californian exile, his Vice President made a public speech, in which he granted Nixon a pardon for all his past actions.  That V.P. was Gerald Ford.

Now stay with me here all you youngsters, because Gerald Ford is important to understand.  He was a long-time Senator, but he had only been Vice President since December 6, 1973.  That was only 246 days serving under Richard Nixon.  Remember, a lot can happen in 332 days.

Richard Nixon’s running mate in both the 1968 and 1972 elections was Spiro Theodore Agnew.  When Nixon was elected both times, so was Agnew.  However, on October 10, 1973, Spiro Agnew resigned from office, due to admitting to the crime of tax evasion.

He had served as Nixon’s second-term Vice President for 283 days.  After Agnew’s resignation, amid the build-up of the Watergate scandal, Tricky Dick had no V.P. for 56 days.  Yep, a lot can happen in 332 days.

After Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford automatically became the president, but then he had no Vice President.  Between August 9, 1974 and December 19, 1974 (131 days) the country had no one backing up the president.  It was on December 19, 1974 that Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was approved by Congress to be the 41st Vice President of the United States.  However, that is where you have to realize that for the first time in American history neither the President or the Vice President had been elected by the general population to their offices.  No one had cast a vote for a Ford-Rockefeller ticket, prior to them becoming the leaders of this nation.

Write that down: “the first time in American history neither the President of Vice President had been elected.”

Now write down and underline: History repeats!!!

You need to be prepared for anything to happen at this point in American history.  Barack Obama could resign in office, leaving pal Joe Biden to become President.  At this point, who needs a reason to resign?  Things ARE that bad, whether or not we know it publicly.  Danger is all about us.

If Obama resigns, expect hidden plots and plans to go into action.  Joe Biden might nominate Bernie Sanders for Vice President.  Maybe Biden picks Hillary, before any criminal stuff comes out about her email server and national security breeches.  Who knows?  I doubt either would be approved by Congress in time for the November election; but if a Republican wins in 2016, then a happy Congress might say, “Go ahead Bernie.  Have fun.”

Rather than go into the Iranian Hostage history now (look it up), they did not release the hostages until the minute Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, January 20, 1981.  I expect Iran to make some history repeating actions if a Republican is elected, only prior to the inauguration date.  Look up the history of Pearl Harbor and think: “Surprise attack.”  Remember history repeats.

If Hillary Clinton wins in November 2016 <shudder>, she might be impeached over the Benghazi cover-up (a Watergate-like history repeat).  That same issue could lead to Barack Obama having impeachment threaten against him, setting up a Nixon-like resignation.  Who can say for sure at this point.  Hindsight is always 20/20, but foresight can at least see the fuzzy shapes of what is coming.

The point is not to impeach anyone in office now and set up a repeat of a President and Vice President that were placed in power by Congress.

There is something important about to happen.  Everyone senses it coming, but no one can put their finger on what it is.  Just don’t be doomed to repeat that history.  Be prepared, not surprised.

 

Comparing Trump to Hitler

light bulb over chair

In an article by the Daily News yesterday (12/8/2015), reporter Shaun King stated, “Major media outlets have taken to comparing the billionaire blowhard to Adolf Hitler, another narcissist who managed to make millions of people feel increasingly unsafe.”  The front page pictured a gesturing Trump in a “sieg heil“-like position.

hitler trump

The problem with another Hitler comparison (they always come up when someone is seen as tyrannical and mad) is it comes on the heels of Donald Trumps calling for all Muslims to be kept from entering the United States.  Hitler was NEVER publicly anti-Muslim.  He was well known to be antisemitic, which was a characteristic of his philosophy that most Arabs agreed with.  World War I had Kaiser-led Germany allied with Islamic Turkey-Syria-Palestine-Mesopotamia [a.k.a. The Ottoman Empire], with Lawrence of Arabia being a story of a Brit organizing some Bedouin tribesmen in Arabia (now Saudi Arabia) into making attacks on German supply trains, outposts and held cities.  Arab sentiment sided with the Nazis, due to their program against Jews, especially in Palestine, where the British were allowing more and more illegal immigrants (Jews) into Muslim land.  Because France and Britain controlled the Middle East prior to WWII, with the Soviet Union also bordering there, the Germans utilized pro-Nazi sentiment to limit the Middle East’s involvement against Eastern Europe strongholds.  A Hitler-like comparison might better fit Angela Merkel better, as she has welcomed Syrian refugees into Germany.

The bad press given to Hitler (much rightfully so) is one-sided, such that you rarely hear someone compared to Josef Stalin.  Stalin was just like Hitler, only worse.  Stalin was “another narcissist who managed to make millions of people feel increasingly unsafe,” well beyond the rule of Hitler.  Russian Prime Minster (for life) Vladimir Putin is Stalin-like, especially in the sense that he has used strong-arm tactics against Muslims in Chechnya. The whole Ukraine-Crimea-Georgia-Chechnya-Ossetia military actions, led by Putin, are worst than saying, “Don’t let any Muslims in those areas.”  It is like Stalin saying, “Russians are the majority there, so kill the Muslims who resist their rightful political support of the Motherland.”  Calling that Hitler-like would make Stalin roll over in his grave.

Still, calling Donald Trump Hitler-like, when Trump has no country that he rules yet, much less an Empire that stretches beyond the “Trump” brand, is giving him much more credit than he deserves.  That is unless those major media outlets know something the world does not yet know.  With the History Channel currently broadcasting new episodes of “Hunting Hitler,” maybe the last episode will have led to Donald Trump being the illegitimate son of ole Adolph – via artificial insemination into an unknowing surrogate, who was illegally snuck across the Texas border, gave birth in New Jersey and sold her baby to a NYC property tycoon.