Today I received, in amongst my voluminous daily load of donations-seeking missives, a mailing from an outfit called ‘Jews For Jesus’. (I’m not precisely sure how I got on their mailing list. As I have on a whole bunch of other Christian-oriented mailing lists. Another story anyway.) I was very touched by the fellow’s letter. These are, obviously, very sincere people indeed; trying to ‘bring the gospel’ to mostly secular Jews in israel, and elsewhere. I would hate to have to be the person who lets them know that they have been had. By one of their own.
Let me go back to the beginning, for me. And I will be brief in this story telling, to get back to the present moment as soon as I feel it feasible. But it’s important, that I give at least some of my bona fides, in order that you can better appreciate where I am coming from, in this bit of truth telling. And, I have told bits of this story before, in the pages of this journal, of one’s man journey in passing through this 3D life. But Truth bears repeating.
A funny thing happened to me on my way to medical school. I had a spiritual experience one star-blazing night, that caused me to drop out of university, in my Junior year, and go searching for capital-t Truth. My quest led me, first, to ‘the biggest public library in the Western world’ - my assumption - in New York City (all the way across the continent from my then, and now again, home in Southern California), where I haunted the place for a year, reading everything that I could get my hands on from their stacks on religions in particular and ‘spirituality’ in general; the latter category of which, for me, included ESP, and UFOs, and Spiritism, and ancient history/the origins of civilization, and the like. That is where I first came across the information that the Christian religion was, most probably, a fraud, a concoction.1 But why? I could accept the general answer to the question: the perennial need for the human to understand the Why of life, and his life. (Hey - ask me, dropping out of school and going all the way over there to New York City to try to find some such answers.) But why that specific ‘take’ on the religious-theme matter?? I continued my truth-seeking - on all these themes, and more - over these intervening years. (I am now the ripe old-young age of 81.) And I have now - all these years later - found the answer to that particular question, which came up for me, first, in the NYC Main Public Library in 1955-56.
It has come from a book that I have not read yet, only watched a couple of Youtube videos about. But it makes total sense. It is titled ‘Caesar’s Messiah,’ subtitled ‘The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus,’ by a man by the name of Joseph Atwill. Long story short: He noticed striking similarities in the lives of both Paul of the New Testament and Josephus, a Jewish historian of the era, who was more specifically the historian for the Flavians, a Roman emperor dynasty of the day; which intriguing clue led him to uncover direct parallels between the NT story of Jesus’ public ministry and the military campaign, some 40 years ‘later’, of Titus, son of Vespasian, when the son - after such ‘features’ as fishing men from the Sea of Galilee - sacked Jerusalem and the Temple therein.
This is how it went. (Sort of.)
Vespasian, Flavian extraordinaire, disgusted with having to expend so much energy in putting down the rebellious Jews in his empire, went to his historian and said:
‘Joe, you’re a Jew. You know how they think. That damn rabble-rousing lot just hasn’t learned yet, like you have, how to go along to get along. Now, they’ve got this idea of a Messiah; right?’
’That’s correct, your Highness.’
‘Well, I want you to play on that idea, and make my son, Titus, their Messiah.’
‘What?! But - your Highness - ‘
‘No ‘buts,’ Joe, if you know what’s good for you, and I know that you do.’
‘’Yes, your Highness.’
‘And I know that you can do it. Just make up some cock-and-bull story, that makes my son be foretold as their Messiah, come to get them to stop raising such mayhem all the time, and become good little citizens of my empire. And that’s an order.’
‘…Yes, your Highness.’
And so it was done. Josephus sat down, and chewed on the tip of his feather pen for a bit (or whatever they used at the time), and then concocted a cock-and-bull story to outdo all cock-and-bull stories on such matters. Every theme that there ever was from every religion there ever was, extant at the time in that area - and going back all the way to the religion of the Egyptians, about the trinity of Osiris and Isis and Horus, their son.2 Josephus threw everything in, including the kitchen sink. Ending up with a story that perfectly paralleled Titus’s ‘later’ military campaign. Imagine that.
Imagine - that.
Right. Just like it’s a coincidence that autism and the like trails in the wake of vaccines. Just like…well. You get the idea.
Of how we have been conned. For a long, long time. About many things.
And it’s time to put an end to it.
All. Of it.
No more crap. Only
And that means as well about the Usurper in the Oval Office. Who needs to go. Now. Before he causes any more damage than he already has, to the federal constitutional Republic of the U.S.A.. In attempting to tailor it, for his masters, into being a mere piece of their totalitarian New World Order.
Over my dead body.
And look out. I don’t stay dead.
For, I am Everyman. And I resurrect constantly.
But a word to my brothers and sisters:
Nobody is going to save us from ourselves - that is to say, from the consequences of our actions - but us.
So, stop looking outside of yourself, for your Savior.
You have a job to do.
And you had better be about it.
Because Time Waits For No Man, to get his head around the facts of life.
We are being called on. Our generation. To rise to a particular occasion.
Astrotheologically speaking, as well.
1 German researchers in particular had come across the historical evidence that the Jesus figure was a composite of every sun god and son of god in the book, extant in those days in the Mediterranean area; Mithra, and Attis, and Tammuz, and Adonis - the list went on; with most of the very same elements to the Jesus story: born of a virgin, special things happening to him at the specific ages of 12 and 30, walking on water, raising the dead, crucified on a cross (a common astrotheological motif at the time), lying dead in a tomb for three days (at the vernal equinox; while the Sun started its ‘turn’ for the year), and resurrecting, to huzzahs to the Savior (the return of life to the vegetation) from the crowd of ancient believers, whatever their particular cultural hero and angle, Greco-Phrygian or Greco-Syrian or whatever all.
2 See, e.g.: ‘Christ In Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection,’ by D.M. Murdock.
(N.B. Another researcher, a Brit named Ralph Ellis, has written a number of books making a very telling case for there actually having been a Jesus-like figure at the time, who was a king in the northern Syria area, and figured in the defense of the Temple at the time of its sacking by Titus; and got crucified for his troubles, but taken down, to pay a degree of homage to Titus, and sent off to exile, in far-away Britain, to cause no more troubles to the Roman emperors. And who became the template for King Arthur. All fascinating stuff. But the mythology of the New Testament story still stands.
See, e.g.:. his ‘Jesus, King of Edessa.’)
2) from washingtontimes.com: ‘ Chicago court will reportedly hear case on Cruz presidential eligibility’ - Victor Morton - February 18
"Indeed the very first Congress … wrote the very first laws on citizenship. And they explicitly defined the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad as a natural born citizen.”
These are weasel words, Mr. Cruz. You are conveniently ignoring the historical fact that 'natural born' citizenship descends FROM THE FATHER. You are not eligible, for that reason. Neither is Rubio. And neither is Obama. And the American people had better wake up to that fundamental fact, and quickly. Before the Usurper does any more damage to the Republic than he already has (showing starkly the wisdom of the constitutional Framers in this particular regard). And before We the People do any more damage to it, for not recognizing this fundamental fact. What it has been our responsibility to do, this being a self-governing nation, of sovereign citizens. Not subjects of our Dear Leaders.
"Skitz00 Wrong ! Natural Born Citizen has been defined !"
I'm glad to hear that. I'm all ears, what is that official definition of "natural born citizen"?
TheSmokinGun Skitz00 • 2 hours ago
Here's the official definition, which is a "Citizen" according to "Natural law", that is where the "natural" comes from in natural-born Citizen:
Vattel’s Law of Nations §212. Citizens and natives:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Rational_Db8 TheSmokinGun • an hour ago
The 1790 Naturalization act definition of natural born when it comes to those born abroad takes precedence over Vattel's, common law, Blackstone's Commentaries, etc. Vattel's is only ONE source, it's not the be all and the end all.
- kibitzer3 Rational_Db8 • 3 minutes ago (February 18)
1) The 1790 Naturalization Act was REPEALED by the 1795 Nat. Act for this very reason - the replacement Act took out the words 'natural born' because it was used in a misleading manner. And this was done at the express initiative of Madison and Washington. But no, an Act of Congress does NOT take precedence over the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.
2) Actually, TheSmokinGun, one needs to read beyond the Law of Nations 212. In the next few paragraphs, de Vattel also included in the definition of a 'natural born' citizen that of a child born overseas OF A CITIZEN FATHER. Because the citizenship of the child follows that of the father. THAT is what makes it 'natural'. (The mother was considered One with the father. It's called the doctrine of coverture.)
It makes NO difference that the THIRD Congress repealed and replaced it. None. Nor is there ANY evidence that they didn't continue to include 'natural born' "because it was used in a misleading manor." NONE. Nor did I EVER even remotely suggest that an Act takes precedence over the Constitution. I said the Supreme Court gives such documents precedence over legal texts such as Vattel's Law of Nations, Blackstone's Commentaries, common law of the time, etc.
kibitzer3 Rational_Db8 • a few seconds ago (February 19)
To clarify: When I say "the Constitution," I mean the definition of the term that the constitutional Framers were CLEARLY going by when they put the term in their contract as an eligibility requirement for that particular office - and that particular federal office ONLY, because of its special nature, particularly as to the occupant also becoming the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces. (See John Jay's July 25, 1787 letter to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the proceedings, on this very issue.) They wanted no one in that position with any DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. The occupant needing to have SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S.
And it is very clear they were going by de Vattel's treatise, because a) it was taught in the universities of the day, and b) Benjamin Franklin, their revered elder mentor, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate to those self-same proceedings, was known to have had 3 copies of the de Vattel treatise, and if any of the delegates were not entirely sure what they were being asked to consider, all they would have had to do was ask Ben. Plus: Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to the proceedings himself, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent 'natural born' citizen category. Which means, AT ITS VERY MINIMUM, a person born of a citizen father; from whom citizenship descended.
If people want to change "the Constitution", they can do it by amendment - the only legal way. No more of this shyster-lawyer stuff. We have gotten too deep into the dark stuff by doing so.