Keys Writings 2013, Part 4

This entry is part 4 of 25 in the series 2013

Feb 3, 2013

Good Laugh

If you want a good laugh check this out.

By the way Obama holds his gun it looks like he has not shot much if any.


Feb 4, 2013


Here’s another letter I am sending to my local paper. I am limited to 200 words so I had to be concise.

The arguments to ban assault rifles are based on raw emotion and totally lacks the use of logic and common sense. In 2011 only 323 people were killed with rifles and only a portion of these are the so-called assault rifles. On the other hand, 496 people were killed with hammers and clubs. Anyone who takes a breath and thinks can see that banning semi-automatic rifles makes about as much sense as banning hammers. If you really want to save lives then it makes more sense to ban cars, which kill over 30,000 people a year.

Actually, banning bicycles should make a lot of sense to the gun-banning mindset. In 2010 there were 618 deaths from cyclists who crashed into cars and over 50,000 injuries reported on top of the many thousands not reported. Should we really be teaching our kids to ride such a dangerous instrument?

In 2010 there were 3615 deaths from motorcycle accidents. Motorcyclists are 35 times more likely to die in a crash than a passenger in a car.

There are all kinds of things more logical to ban than semi-automatic weapons, but banning weapons appeals to those who are governed by emotion.


Feb 6, 2013


I’ve recently read an interesting book called “Aftershock.” The authors thinking about the economy is very much in alignment with my own.

They predicted the collapse of 2008 and see bigger one coming in the near future. They cannot pinpoint the date but think it will happen sometime between this year and 2016. After the next collapse they see an unemployment rate of up to 50% and a strong devaluation of the dollar.

He recommends investing in physical gold or stock related to necessities. He also says coal stocks are good because in a collapse demand will remain high.

Here’s a review from Amazon from one called ClubLevel that gives a good overview of the book.

This review is from: Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown (Hardcover) “Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown,” by David Wiedemer, Robert A. Wiedemer, and Cindy S. Spitzer, is written for the layman, and thus is an easy-to-understand viewpoint — though a startling one. It’s important to note the authors’ wrote this book as a means to promote a financial service they provide; caveat emptor.

Following are 3 examples (my numbering and bracketed comments) of explanations of underpinnings of the authors’ economic opinions:

(1) “Income Growth versus Housing Price Growth 2001-2006. Contrary to what some experts say, the earlier rapid growth of housing prices was not driven by rising wage and salary income. In fact, from 2001 to 2006, housing price growth (Housing Price Up 80%) far exceeded income growth (Income Up 2%).” [A graph of this data suggests, “bubble.”]

(2) “Despite massive growth in the U.S. economy between 1928 and 1981, the Dow rose only about 300 percent. But after 1981 it rose an astonishing 1400 percent.” [A graph of this data suggests, “bubble.”]

(3) “Most people, even most “experts,” find it much easier to recognize a bubble (like the Internet bubble of the 1990s) after it pops. It is a lot harder to see a bubble before it bursts, and much harder still to see an entire multiple-bubble economy before it bursts.”

The authors see our current economy as a linked, multiple-bubble economy. The 6 bubbles (co-linked):

1) The real estate bubble (housing): Popped in 2007-2008

2) The stock market bubble (stocks): Popped in 2009 (Currently being bolstered by the dollar bubble)

3) The private debt bubble (credit): Popped in 2008-2009

4) The discretionary spending bubble (consumer spending): Popped in 2008-2009

5) The dollar bubble (inflation is caused by increasing the money supply beyond what is needed to keep up with economic growth. “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning expert on monetary theory). Pops when? “…our best guess (as of the Spring of 2011) is that significant inflation will begin in the 2013-2015 range.”

6) The government debt bubble (government spending): Pops when? “In the short term, massive money printing by the Fed will likely continue to boost the stock market and help temporarily stimulate the economy. However, in the long term (likely in the 2013-2015 range), a heavy price for this temporary stimulus will have to be paid.”

In 2006, the authors described the popping of the first 4 bubbles as the “Bubblequake,” and accurately predicted the timing of their occurence — hence, their credibility today. However, they also expected the final 2 bubbles to pop as well, this occurrence being described as the “Aftershock” — an event that will be felt worldwide, and one that will be a lot more disruptive than the popping of the stock market and housing bubbles. They learned the U.S. government can forestall popping of these bubbles by printing dollars to pay debts, while simultaneously borrowing money — in part — to pay for debt financing. Hence this “second edition” of their first book, which takes a closer look at the dollar bubble and the government debt bubble.

By 2015, given the popping of the six bubbles, life in the U.S. (and around the world) will go on (albeit bleakly); the U.S. will have a poor credit rating, and will not be able to borrow money as it is doing on a massive scale today (Countries such as China and Japan will choose to stop lending at some point in the future; at that time, the U.S. will have to figure out how to pay its debts (Tax Revenue: $2 Trillion per Year; Current Debt: $15 Trillion). The answer may be to continue to print dollars without supporting revenue (the Fed’s Quantitative Easing or QE initiatives), which theoretically could make the country debt-free, though with resulting inflation, high unemployment and low-performing markets.

What to do about this bursting bubble scenario on a personal level? If one agrees with this premise, then the authors of the book hope you will try their newsletter (1st two issues are free), and visit their website for further financial advice (simply search for their website using the search terms, “Aftershock website” and “Wiedemer”).

Finally: Author Adam Haslett has an interesting perspective as to how we as citizens will all come to terms with our new economic reality in the following Salon article (simply search for this article using the search phrases, “Adam Haslett” and “This Is Our New Normal”)

Here is the link:


Feb 8, 2013

Change Through Crisis

I came across an intriguing quote. Here it is:

“People only accept change in necessity and see necessity only in crisis.” Jean Monnet

This points out a profound truth in human nature but to see it we must go beyond the black and white. The black and white interpreter may argue and say, “I’d be happy to accept the change of being a big lottery winner.”

Obviously, the author was not talking about this kind of change. He’s talking about those changes that take effort that calls us to take the path less traveled by.

This particularly applies to the dire situations that our nation finds itself in. Our government is presently borrowing 47 cents of each dollar that we spend. This can only go on for a finite time period or we will suffer disaster. But are we making any changes to create a safer direction? No. None at all. The amount we borrow continues to go up despite some nebulous claims of cutting back.

Unfortunately, a large number of people like the idea of Uncle Sam playing Santa Claus and do not want any changes that affects them. They are like the shopaholic who loves to shop and uses the credit card over and over just because he or she wants more stuff. The addict only makes a change when there is a crisis.

Addiction, particularly applies to drugs. The person enjoys the high and often does not consider quitting until he has a crisis. Maybe he almost kills himself or someone else. Maybe he loses the love of his life. Necessity drives change and crisis creates the necessity.

The money spent on social programs is a sacred cow for those on the receiving end but we must take a look at them. The most important program to keep intact is Social Security because so many depend on this just to survive. Even so, we could raise the retirement age of those who are not under it yet by a couple years and that would ease the burden somewhat.

Medicare and Medicaid is a financial nightmare for us. In 1958 we paid $8 a day (about $80 in today’s money) for a hospital room after my accident. A couple weeks ago we took Artie’s mom to the emergency room for about three hours and they billed Medicare $5,500. Something is wrong here. Before Medicare was created our medical costs were reasonable so you didn’t even need insurance, but not any more.

The do-gooders in the government created our medical nightmare and now they are in charge of fixing it. With Obamacare, instead of fixing it they made it worse.

On top of the outlandish fees charged by Medicare there is tremendous fraud. Last I heard it was $60 million a year and going up.

Unfortunately we cannot even talk about raising the age for Medicare because through Obamacare Medicare is basically extended to all citizens after it is fully implemented.

There are lots of other places we could cut but we refuse to even look at them because some voters will scream and protest.

Things will be different when the next crisis comes. Cuts will be forced upon us just as they were during the Great Depression. There was so little money during some of this period that some schools closed their doors and many teachers were laid off. Some kids didn’t have a school to go to.

Our government could have been responsible with our money but they have been crazy people instead and are bringing us to a point of crisis. When that crisis appears then reality will stare us in the face and many things will be automatically cut, either because of lack of money or worthless money.

It is sad indeed that even the dumbest of people know that they cannot live of borrowed money forever and must tighten their belts when there is not enough money to pay their bills.

The smartest of those in Congress and the executive are not as bright as the worst among us with our personal finances. Does entering elected office create brain damage? I wonder.


Feb 9, 2013

Questioning God

Alex asked if God gives out tests to people. I have written quite a bit on this subject in the past. Here is a compilation of some of my comments.

Questioning God, Part 1

Sterling writes:

Jesus offering himself as a willing sacrifice is one thing. Abraham sacrificing his son is entirely another. Jesus was the victim of a Jewish culture who rejected his (mostly) peaceful teachings. Abraham was victimizing his son. Those are diametrically opposite acts.

Bottom line: Never should an act that is supposedly “commanded” by God, go contrary to conscience. Conscience should trump all, always, no exceptions.

That is the check that prevents atrocities in the name of God.

This is an important subject to bring up Sterling – one that I have been meaning to elaborate on for a while.

It is certainly true that there have been many atrocities committed in the name of God or religion. In fact, it seems that whenever you see or hear of a person doing something extremely unreasonable that religion is somehow involved. An exception may be the female astronaut who drove 900 miles in diapers to kill her boyfriend’s new girlfriend but even here a religious element wouldn’t surprise me.

The problems with communications thought to be from God or a higher source is they come from three sources:

The Beast or outer authorities who are accepted as speaking for God. The inner emotional nature. Real higher intelligence.

Now if a person rejects the idea that there is such a thing as real contact with higher intelligence then he is wise to just reject all commands inner and outer that do not make sense or seem harmful.


If the person believes there is such a thing as contact with intelligence higher than his own self then it is logical that this higher vision and seeing will go against many of his preconceived notions.

The problem we encounter is that those in categories (1) and (2) above will think they are in contact with higher intelligence either directly or indirectly and may receive destructive intelligence. How is one to tell that he may not be dealing with category three?

For one thing, category one is easy to eliminate. If the seeker is receiving commandments from God through a man and not his inner self then he should not trust any outer advice that does not make sense.

This is easier said than done as all the suicide bombers in the middle east (for example) are recruited by individuals who claim to speak for God and command the unsuspecting souls to go sacrifice themselves and kill the innocent.

Don’t think that they are the only ones who will follow odd commands. Just ask the faithful Mormons what they would do if the Prophet told then to sell all they have tomorrow and immediately move to Missouri and see what they say. Almost all of them would do it without question.

If they would do this without question then they would do much more – perhaps unthinkable things.

The world is just fortunate that a prophet has not come along who is deranged. Fortunately, most religious leaders at least conform to the morals of the day. There are exceptions. A notable one was Jim Jones who commanded his people to drink poison Kool Aide. Hundreds did without question.

The question then arises – what about true communication with higher intelligence? How should we handle this?

The first step in dealing with it is to learn to differentiate between something received from the lower self and that of higher benevolent intelligence.

The problem for those who have not yet made higher contact is their highest reception comes from their own emotional nature. If they associate an aspect of their emotional nature with God (as many do) then they have a problem. Any knowledge or commands they may receive could lead them most anywhere and create significant harm.

There is a strange difference between those who receive a command from the emotional nature and those who receive one from benevolent higher intelligence and it is this. Those who receive from their emotional nature will usually follow without question and those who receive from higher intelligence will be very questioning and doubting – at first.

Many would assume the truth would be the other way around, but it is not for this reason.

Those commands from the emotional nature are placed there by the thinking and feeling of the person himself. Because the direction (however odd) comes from himself he is likely to instantly and without question accept it. It usually fits within his belief system even if it is something crazy like drinking poison Kool Aide.

Now the person who receives higher intelligence must do so through the soul whether it comes from his Higher Self or a Master. When he reaches the point where he makes his first solid soul contact he has already passed beyond the stage where he is deceived by his lower emotions. When making his first soul contact he realizes the vibration and intelligence behind it is different than an emotional communication. Even though he realizes this he is reluctant to believe the communication is from God or higher intelligence or that it is reliable. He usually rejects it the first several times it is received.

But some time after the rejection he comes to realize that he made a great error in ignoring the communication – that he would have been much better off if he had followed the advice.

After several times of seeing the higher intelligence was better than his own he decides to give it a try the next time it comes. Then when it does come the information is difficult to accept. If he does accept it he later finds that the guidance saved him much grief and over a period of time he finds that this contact through the soul is the closest thing there is to infallibility. The only thing that can cause problems with it is if his own memory and feeling nature distort that which was received, but if the disciple is true to himself this will be reduced to a minimum.

Part 2 Let us comment on Socioheresy’s post. He says:

Trusting only what the Spirit of God tells you is great in theory. The trouble is, in my experience this so-called Spirit of God tells everyone something different.

Everyone I know well who has claimed that “The Spirit of God” was speaking to them has turned out to be either lying or badly mistaken.

JJ:Here’s what creates the problem. One communication through the soul does not contradict another communication through the soul, BUT over 90 percent of what people call soul communications, contacting the Holy Spirit, God, receiving revelations, Jesus, the Spirit etc. are merely contacts made with the emotional self. A thoughtform may be involved, but always there is emotional feeling that makes the person positive he communed with the divine in some way.

An emotional contact disguised as a divine communication brings information that is peculiar to the person’s own thinking and feeling nature which is different than any other person. Thus an emotional revelation will not be in harmony with either reality or other people’s emotional revelations – unless they are tapping into the same mass thoughtform.

On the other hand, soul contact brings contact with an essence that vibrates at the registration of true principles. The contact of one person will not contradict the contact of another. Neither will contact at one period of time contradict contact at another time in an individual’s life.

There is a principle that helps here. The lower cannot understand the higher, but the higher can understand the lower. The person who makes emotional contact cannot understand or relate to he who has soul contact. He who has soul contact can understand emotional contact as well as soul contact and differentiate between the two.

Visualize the path to liberation as an actual path ten miles long through a diverse landscape. True soul contact begins the journey at the zero point.

Many people without soul contact have been taught about this path and what it will be like. Some concentrate so much on it that they have dreams, visions, strong feelings and imaginings of what will be found upon the path.

The problem for them is that almost all the details they reveal about the path are not only wrong but do not even agree with each other.

On the other hand, those who have actually entered the path and traveled upon it do know what will be found at the various markers of 1, 2, and 3 miles until they get to ten.

Let us say there is a beautiful lake at the three-mile point and the traveler meets two others who claim to have knowledge of the path. The person who has not traveled the path but imagines that he knows will not describe the lake or know anything about it. But if the pilgrim meets a fellow traveler he will indeed know about the lake at the three-mile point and the two can share communion.

Now let us take a traveler who has gone to the seven-mile point who meets another who has gone only to the three-mile point. They both will have knowledge of the path up to the lake and will give the same non-conflicting revelations about it. But the seeker at the three mile point will have no certain knowledge of what lies between the three and seven mile point.

He who is farther along on the path will understand all that has transpired behind him and his knowledge will encompass all that the second traveler has, plus four extra miles. The second traveler can understand up to the three-mile point, but he cannot completely understand the first traveler’s knowledge until he also arrives at the seven-mile point.

Even though two who are upon the path will not contradict each other their descriptions may differ just as do our descriptions in physical reality differ.

For instance, visualize two seekers arriving at the three-mile point. One looks to the right and concentrates on taking in the beautiful lake. The second sees the lake also but is captivated by the beautiful mountains on the left.

When teaching one may talk about the mountains and the other concentrate on the lake, but both will be aware that both the mountains and the lake were there. There may be a difference in their description, but no contradiction.

SH: If I start following some inner voice that I labeled “The Spirit of God”, why in the world should I expect to be the exception? Am I so special that my Spirit of God would be the true one?

JJ: You will not be the exception. Eventually everyone finds soul contact, but we all find many illusionary paths before finding the right one.

The worst thing we can do is nothing like the two guys paralyzed in the parable of Decision. If we follow the highest we know and move ahead to the best of our ability we will indeed make many mistakes, but the pure in heart will discover their mistakes and correct them. It is only a matter of time before the true seeker enters the path as a knower.

SH: JJ still has my attention, but not because I believe anything divine is in communication with him. He has it because his ideas are original and interesting to me. I don’t care where he gets ’em from, but the less divine contact he outright claims the more likely I am to listen. I probably would not have read The Immortal if it had been published as non-fiction.

“Always follow the highest you know” is a much more useful teaching in my opinion. That is sheer brilliance. It’s a megathought, a singularity of pure truth, six words that can change a planet – Screwy Dewey at his finest. Those are indeed immortal words because they work for everyone no matter where they are (hello), and I don’t care if he got them off the back of a cereal box.

JJ: How’d you know I got that off a cereal box?

Seriously, I’m glad you realize the significance of that phrase. It is indeed something we can all do without worrying if we are high or low on the ladder. It matters not that the highest one knows may be different than the highest seen by another. If we follow the highest we know, and correct our mistakes as we go, then the path of liberation lies ahead. Not only this, but all who do this receive an inner peace and stability even though outside forces may be aligned against their progress.

Part 3 Here are the questions I asked the group to ponder:

Is it possible to receive harmful information or direction when it comes to you through the soul?

If you do receive something that can create more harm than good then should this be an indication to you that you are not receiving through the soul.

Is it possible that the disciple can receive some extremely difficult direction through the soul – that may seem dangerous and contrary to all that he has believed in the past?

Sterling was concerned (and rightfully so) about those who receive harmful revelations in the name of God or supposed higher intelligence. Unfortunately, there have been many who have created great harm and even killed the innocent, even their own children – all feeling they are directed by God.

Does this mean that we should just play it safe and outright reject all communication that comes to us that is above our ability to understand?

For the person who has not established soul contact this would be a good course, for all harmful acts in the name of God do not involve soul contact. Unfortunately the religious ones without true contact are the most eager to do anything in the name of God to get their big toes in heaven.

The key to harmlessness is not to resist all higher intelligence but to learn to recognize the soul. Safety lies in following those communications that come through the soul and using your common sense to make all other decisions not directly related to soul communications.

So how can one be sure he is getting something through the soul and even when sure how do we know that something crazy and wild-eyed will not be commanded that will be harmful?

The answer is two-fold.

First, the seeker must learn to recognize the vibration of the soul.

Secondly, he must test its accuracy over and over like a spiritual scientist. If time and time again the communications are accurate then this gives sure evidence that true soul communion has been achieved.

I have tested communications through my own soul many times. It seemed each time I did that more difficult to believe communications came. But I tested them and they proved to be accurate and beneficial. Then after much testing and gaining faith in the inner voice I received several whoppers that tested every fiber of my being. But even here the soul led me in the most harmless direction and one with great reward.

Overall I have found my soul communications to have been 100 percent reliable as far as I have been able to test them.

Visualize that ten mile path again. Let us suppose there are several pitfalls that are extremely helpful for the seeker to know. A brother has already traveled the whole thing and is observing you on your journey. He realized two things that may give you a major problem. There is a fork at the four mile point and a trap at the six mile point. He gives you a warning to not take the left fork and then another to avoid the trap. If you knew for sure that this brother has traveled the path and loves you would it not make sense to listen and heed his advice? After all, there is no way you can gain his knowledge through reason and common sense alone.

Even so, if a master or high intelligence speaks to you through the soul you will know the communications are sent through the love of the soul and it is to be trusted above the seekers own intelligence.

The tricky part is to establish true soul contact and learn to differentiate between emotional contact with the desire body and that of the soul energy.


Feb 10, 2013

Disturbing Video

The guy admits he is deceptive one moment and claims he is a prophet the next. Here’s a quote from him in a newspaper interview:

“My whole purpose, though, was to write the sealed portion. Get the sealed portion done. Sell it to the church. My whole idea was to sell it to the LDS church. I was going to sell it to them, because all the Mormons are looking for the sealed portion to come back. I thought I had a good talent for writing. I was going to write it up and sell it to them. They could do with it what they wanted. They probably would have kept it off the market.” Link

Since the church didn’t want to buy his Sealed portion he apparently decided to present himself as a divine messenger with whom immortals are competing to talk to on a regular basis.

Of course some things he writes are true but a lot of his writings are very deceptive. On the sealed portion site I have pointed out many illusions in his teachings. For this he has condemned me as a servant of Satan and calls me his enemy.

Here’s a site ran by a guy who was once a true believer like Christine but also lost money and a lot of time to Chris authoritarian dictates.


Feb 11, 2013

Christopher Dorner

You’ve probably heard about the alleged cop killer named Christopher Dorner.

Here is a recent update:

He felt he was unfairly fired back in 2008 and now he is seeking revenge by killing fellow cops and their families until his name is cleared. If the LAPD will just admit that they are corrupt and he is innocent of wrong doing then he will stop the killing.

It turns out that Dorner is a big lefty who wants gun control and thinks Piers Morgan is a great guy and loves Obama, Feinstein and leftists in general.

He funny thing is that many on the Left are coming forward supporting the guy and comparing him to Rambo.

Question: Is the guy a hero like Rambo? Does he really have a case?

You can read his manifesto here:


Feb 12, 2013

The Left

Nathan writes: I want to know, what point do you find in referring to this thing called “the Left.” It seems to me to be very vague to have any meaning…

JJ I think what is identified with the Left and the Right in this country is pretty well understood by most people.

The Left is generally identified with beliefs in big centralized government, big spending, lots of controls and regulations, higher taxes and fewer freedoms for the individual as they are acquiesced to the State.

The Right is generally identified with smaller government, lower taxes, less spending on social programs, fewer controls and regulations, attempts to balance the budget and maximum freedom for the individual.

Nathan …and as far as I can tell the way you refer to it doesn’t make it seem like some ideological perspective you’re denigrating as much as it does just some stigma…

JJ I’m definitely talking about an ideological perspective. I come from a libertarian perspective where the central theme of maximum freedom is the rule of thumb. The Left from this perspective is anything that takes us away from maximum freedom and the Right takes us toward it. Dorners ramblings tell us that he supports more government controls which will lead to less freedom.

Nathan: Many of your posts go something like “Look at this current event, see how outrageous some of the reaction is, they are from the Left, the Left is out to destroy us.”

JJ I do not believe I have said the political left is out to destroy us. They have good intentions but many of them are full of illusion and I point them out. My dialog with the thinker and true believer attempts this.

Nathan; Sound like an us versus them mentality, yet who the “us” and “them” are isn’t really known. What’s the point? Who are “the Left,” if they are anyone specific at all? If so, is it really fair to lump them all into the same characterization?

JJ Who the Left and Right are in any situation should be crystal clear. It is not clear why you should think otherwise.

For instance, the Left supports fewer freedoms to own and use guns as specified in the Second Amendment whereas the Right wants a very liberal freedom to own and use them. There is nothing nebulous or unknown when you go through the various beliefs one by one. Things get pretty specific.

As far as the us verses them mentality the criticism of this is often voiced by the New Age community. It sounds good to them that this should be avoided yet it cannot be. Why? Because we live in a world of duality and even the most con confrontational will have an “us verses them mentality” pop up when presented with a belief he does not like. Many like to see themselves as living beyond this type of thinking yet none do. I have never met such a person myself.

Jesus had an us verses them mentality most of his life as, he time and time again, argued with the Jewish leaders and presented his case as opposed to their delusional thinking.

Gandhi had an “us verses them mentality” when seeking to overthrow the English rule.

I think the phrase can refer to a positive direction and that is one should avoid seeing the opposition as evil that needs to be destroyed. We need to recognize that we are all brothers and the “them” out there who are opposed to ourselves should be changed with enlightenment rather than destroyed with steamroller tactics.


Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 3

This entry is part 3 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 22, 2013

Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers

That was a good common sense article Larry. Link

It reached similar conclusions to myself. I’ve still been researching and contemplating Sandy Hook and have eliminated a number of points that are troubling skeptics. Here are the anomalies and conspiracy points I have discounted.

(1) There were no murders as they were faked.

Some think a conspiracy faked the murders but if you put your mind in the thinking process of a conspirator this would be a foolish thing to do. Even the biased bumbling media would be likely to discover such a thing.

(2) Robbie Parker and others were hired actors.

Again, this is very unlikely as it would be too easy to expose.

(3) Robbie Parker and others were actors and not the real parents of slain kids because they were caught smiling and looking cheerful during interview times.

Their behavior did seem odd but you can’t really predict how various people will handle a tragedy like this. Their odd behavior does not prove anything.

(4) Emily Parker who was supposed to be dead showed up in a photo with Obama after the shooting.

The two photos used for comparison were about two years apart and the girl with Obama was most likely her sister as claimed. After two years Emily would look older than the girl with Obama. Here is a good analysis: Link

(5) A fundraising site was place placed on Facebook before the tragedy. It was explained that the site was created before the event but for another purpose. Then after the massacre the purpose of the site was changed.

Because these and other points have been credibly debunked many dismiss all points presented by skeptics.

The conflicting reports on the guns is troubling as well as the possibility of a second gunman. It is also troubling that the ambulances went to the fire station rather than the school as ambulances were blocked from getting to the school.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is that there are no witnesses that have come forth. All but one who witnessed the shooting is dead. Both the shooter and his mom is dead and Lanza had no friends in the present time.

It is possible that this was a preplanned event but it is much more likely that the details of the event are merely manipulated to give gun control advocates in our government the ammunition they need to bypass the Second Amendment.


Jan 23, 2013

The Lords

Ruth notes that DK mentions quite a few different Lords and wants to know more about them. There are Lords of Karma, Flame, Destiny, Compassion, Liberation, Light and even Evil.

The first thing to understand in reading DK is he doesn’t give a lot of details in defining his terms. He seems to expect his readers to already have a good foundation in Theosophical terms and if details or definitions are missing he expects readers to either get the information intuitively or read between the lines.

He does acknowledge that new readers will have a difficult time in understanding him but encourages them to press forward and if they do that pieces will eventually fall together for them.

Hence there are no locations in DK’s writings where you can go to get clear definitions of the various Lords.

It may be helpful to consider what is meant when a being is referred to as “Lord of’ something. What does this mean? It merely mans that he is a master of the thing specified. Thus a Lord of Light is a being who has mastered the art of staying focused in the light and using such light intelligently. A Lord of Liberation is one who understands the principle of freedom, uses it successfully in his own life and ring-pass-not. He can guide others to the path of liberation.

A Lord of Compassion is one who has great empathy for fellow life forms and loves his neighbor as himself.

Where are these Lords, Ruth asks? There are various lords in the human kingdom and up in the various spheres as well as other planets. How many are there? Who knows? Quite a few all together.

Ruth: I am wondering then, is there a specific distinction or reason between why there are “Masters of Wisdom” instead of referring to them as “Lords of Wisdom”?

JJ They could have called themselves Lords of Wisdom but it just doesn’t sound as cool as Masters of Wisdom. After all, the main master to give out the teachings is Djwal Kool. (Real spelling revealed for the first time)


Jan 26, 2013

Underwater Hotel

Here’s the Latest project that not only houses people on the water but under the water.



Jan 27, 2013

Good Book – Sabbatai Sevi

I just read an interesting book about a little known character in history. His name was Sabbatai Sevi who lived from 1626-1676. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and gained quite a following. His work hit a snag when he was arrested by Muslims in Constantinople and later told to convert to Islam or be tortured to death. He decided to convert which discouraged many of his followers but not all. The true believers made all kinds of excuses for him even to the point of claiming that his true self ascended to heaven leaving behind a shadow of himself who pretended to convert.

The book I read is called “The Lost Messiah” by John Freely and is available at Amazon.

A good summary of Sabbatai’s life is found at Wikipedia HERE

It leaves out the important detail that the sultan threatened his life to get him to covert but otherwise is a good summary.

How about you? Have you read any interesting books the past year? If so tell us about one or two of them.


Jan 27, 2013

The Gospel of the Kailedy

Zenochio wrote:

There is a very little-known book that I recently re-read called “The Gospel of the Kailedy.” Very little information is available about this supposedly ancient book–where it came from, how it was found and translated, etc. One website says that those who came over to England with Joseph of Arimathea were known as the Kailedy, and there is speculation that this is Joseph of Arimathea’s own account of Jesus’ life.

JJ The Gospel of the Kailedy sounds interesting. I found a link to the full text here:


Jan 28, 2013


Ruth asks: RJ: “When the door opens once again for the highest from the animal kingdom consciousness to incarnate into human form, will these animal souls incarnate into the newer life forms created by humans?

JJ When the animals through fusion enter the human kingdom they will pick their opportunities to inhabit life forms just as we do now. If technologically created forms are available to humans they will be available to them because they will be human too.

Ruth; Was Hitler going to work on this same technology so he could create the “overlords”? Or was that a different type of technology?

JJ Computer technology was not available to Hitler but the Nazis would have used it when it became available. The Dark brothers have their own technology they could use to incarnate if they could have lowered he vibration of humanity enough to create a window.

Ruth: DK mentions that as we raise our vibration, then we become smaller, and even the animals will become smaller also. Will that take thousands of years for humans and animals to become really small until they “disappear” from sight?

JJ I do not recall DK saying this. Do you have a reference?

Over the millennia we have become larger. The average height around the time of Jesus was around 5’5″ for men. It is possible we may change again, becoming larger or smaller but we certainly will not become very tiny.

Ruth: JJ, I was wondering what your thoughts were about Sabbatai Zevi as being the Jewish Messiah?

Is Jesus allowed to proclaim himself as the Messiah to gain followers?

JJ There is no one to stop any of us from proclaiming anything we want. Where a particular proclamation is good or bad thing to do is another matter.

Sabbatai was no Jesus or Abraham but was a man with a big ego. I suspect he may have incarnated in this life as Chris Nemelka.


Jan 29, 2013

Unusual Questions

I have to give credit to Alex for bringing up questions I have not been asked before. After teaching for all these years this is rare.

Alex follows the teachings of the Raelians which has an unusual philosophy. Here it is in his words:

On the planet of Elohim the things are different. According to Yahweh (related by Claude Vorilhon), on the planet of Elohim, with the help of some medical procedure, they can extend their life span to about 1000 years. (First people on Earth created by them on the same principles also lived about 1000 years.)

However, they can not combat aging completely, nor they can regenerate tissues at will. So after about 1000 years it is time to die… But they found a workaround death.

What they do. Before death of a person they scan his/her brain and store all the thoughts and memories on a computer. Then when the person dies (or before that, does not matter), they scan DNA code from some cells. After that, using the scanned DNA they recreate a physical body with the same features and properties as of the deceased person. This growing of the physical body literally takes 10 minutes! Special machines are designed for that.

Now they have a copy of the deceased person. Now the most important. They download all the stored memories and thoughts from the computer into the brain of this just created body. The person comes back to life, remembering and being fully aware of him/herself. There might be a small memory gap from the time the memories have been scanned last time to the moment of death, but it is not significant. Also it might take some time for this person to readjust to his/her new healty physical body, which would be created usually younger — 25 years of hysical age.

But basically the person continues! Such process of recreation perfomed every 1000 years or in some cases after deaths resulted from accidents.

(Also, using the same technology, they can recreate dead people from Earth. To do that they need to scan the brain and take a DNA sample. They do it on rare occasions under hypnosis.)

Now the questions (assuming that this technology of immortality really exists and not just sci-fi): 1) Which soul reincarnates this freshly recreated body: – the same soul of a deceased person; – any random soul which likes the new young fresh body; – no soul, the copy thus becoming an intelligent robot with only a memory of a certain person?

2) The plot thickens if we take into account that they can create several copies of the same deceased person. Which one will be the real continuation of the deceased person and who will become an imposter? (By the way, the fact that we have many messiahs, Jesuses, Moseses and other prominent figures popping up here and there, is it not because of the experiments of Elohim?)

3) If a random soul enters a recreated body which remembers him/herself as a completely different figure, will it not be confusing for the soul to live in a body with such memories? (End Quote)

JJ Fortunately the Raelians are incorrect about life after death. There are number of spheres of existence of which they seem unaware. Their belief seems entirely centered on the idea that physical reality is all there is.

Even so, in this huge universe there are probably civilizations who have developed the technology mentioned. Assuming this is true let us look at Alex’s questions.

1) Which soul reincarnates this freshly recreated body?

Here on earth 80 years or so in one body is enough for the lessons we have to learn so imagine how we would feel after a thousand years. Most of us would be ready for a new body. If a clone of yourself was created and you had a chance to enter into it you would see from the higher angle of the soul if this is a wise thing to do. Most likely the answer would be no and a different entity would incarnate into it. It would not be a mindless robot unless it was manufactured that way.

2) If we take into account that they can create several copies of the same deceased person. Which one will be the real continuation of the deceased person and who will become an imposter?

Two different clones would normally be occupied by two different entities – similar to identical twins.

3) If a random soul enters a recreated body which remembers him/herself as a completely different figure, will it not be confusing for the soul to live in a body with such memories?

This is similar to the situation of walk-ins that we have talked about earlier. If a different entity occupies the body he would have the body’s memories and at first assume that he is that individual. As time passes he would have personality changes and become the entity he really is but with influences from the body he occupies.


Jan 29, 2013

Only in America

This has been circulating around the internet. No one knows for sure who the original author is but it makes some great points. It apparently was written by a Canadian.

1) Only in America could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black

3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just

magically’ become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience … and a complete failure at his job … be reelected.


Jan 30, 2013

Interesting Story

Leaked emails prove Obama “backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad”  Link


Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 2

This entry is part 2 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 17, 2013

Conspiracy Theory Revisited

Blayne: Take 9/11 for instance we have gone over it several times and I have shown people the proof and pointed people to that has proven it beyond doubt with overwhelming evidence far more then Sandyhook yet people still claim they don’t “believe” when it is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. Has anyone looked there beyond a cursory look? Apparently not since no one has come back and refuted a single piece of evidence much less the conclusions of 17 hundred architects and engineers…

JJ The solid evidence for a conspiracy at 911 is miniscule compared to Sandy Hook and I have refuted all the major points of 911 and brought up others that no one has refuted.

The evidence for the 911 conspiracy is similar to the moon landing hoax conspiracy where people just find what they are looking for. There are always coincidences and strange facts surface in a major event and even with Sandy Hook 90% of them have a plausible explanation. Maybe the 10% does too but we don’t have the necessary information. I saw no such 10% that defied explanation from 911. Thankfully we have put the moon hoax conspiracy to bed now we have flown satellites over the landing sites and taken pictures. This has convinced all but a few.

Blayne I would beg to differ. You have not refuted a single point on the site and I have refuted everyone of your points multiple times. 😉

JJ You need to go back and reread our arguments. I think most of the group here would think I refuted them quite substantially.

Blayne:  Of course you think that. However most of those that agree with you just take your word for it.   As I have said no one here including you has refuted a single point on the site. For those that think they already have please put your money where your mouth is and go to the site there is a nice little list of main points on the front page in the far right column pick anyone of those points and refute them here.   They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the towers fell because it was a controlled demolition, that it was physically impossible for the planes to bring the towers down. That is much better evidence of conspiracy then Sandyhook and that is just the tip of the iceberg.   There is video of BBC news caster reporting tower 7 had fallen when it was in the background still standing and on an on. There is a mountain of evidence you simply choose to ignore.   If I remember right your main claim is that they could have never gotten all that explosives in place. When it doesn’t matter because it been proven they were a controlled demolition.   Go ahead and make my day.. 😉

JJ I haven’t seen any credible evidence at all that the three towers were the act of a controlled demolition. On a believability scale of 1-100 I would rate this belief as a minus 10 – kinda in the category of Jack and the Beanstock. You and Dean are the only two here I know that accept this.

And I have read a lot of material on this and watched a lot of videos.

Blayne:  So the fact that it is physically impossible for the buildings to fall at the speed they did without explosives clearing the path below them before hand simply means nothing to you… LOL!   There you have it illustrating my point once again. Another dodge with a non answer ignoring the facts and evidence and a poor attempt at ridicule to boot to divert attention away from the facts.   Just curious why for as long as we have discussed this off and on have you refused to address a single fact on the site but instead just make off the wall comments like this?

JJ You sound like the Moon Landing Hoax people and wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t also at one time believe that. They claimed that the moon landing defied the laws of physics and was an impossibility, but guess what? We now have photos of the landing sites proving for sure that we went to the moon. So I guess the laws of physics were not broken after all. Someone just miscalculated – which happens often.

When we argued this subject I covered the points you brought up. If you brought up some at the site you mentioned then I did cover them. I went there today and didn’t see much that was interesting or coherent.

When we discussed this earlier I countered all the points you made and you merely dismissed them or did not reply and moved on to another point claiming I had not answered when I did. Your mind is made up and we have already covered this subject into the ground so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up again and again. Maybe you ought to read some material on the other side like the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” If you read only the arguments on one side then that’s what you’ll be inclined to believe.

Blayne: You never refuted anything I brought up.

JJ This is completely untrue. I made dozens of posts refuting you and you were oblivious to being refuted. I don’t have time to get sucked into the same tired arguments again that bore most of the people here. I will post some general principles in discovering the truth behind conspiracies.


Jan 18, 2013

Forest and the Trees

Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is providing fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

For instance, we either went to the moon or we did not. There is no gray area in the truth here. Those who were fooled by the so-called conspiracy evidence need to reflect and examine their thinking and ask where they went wrong. If a person can be fooled on one proven point then maybe he is fooled on a number of items.

The tricky thing about examining conspiracies is that there are real conspiracies in the world so one is foolish to just dismiss them all out of hand. Each one should be examined for its merit and analyzed. Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is proving fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

That said, what are the major and minor points to consider? Do many miss the forest and only look at the trees? Yes, the big picture is often overlooked and those who are deceived get lost in the details.

Let’s see what we should be looking for if we want to find a real conspiracy composed of shadowy characters pulling strings in the background.

Major point: A shadowy conspiracy that must keep its identity secret must be composed of a small number of people to succeed. The ideal number is three. If there are more than six with a general knowledge of what is going on then the chances of the conspiracy being exposed is great and exponentially increases as more participants are added.

Most of such successful shadow conspiracies in our history have been murdering people who are considered obstacles. A conspiracy to murder has the advantage of only needing a small number of insiders to accomplish the job.

Sandy Hook fits in this category. We do not know if there was a conspiracy but one is possible because it could have been pulled off with three to six insiders.

On the other hand, many conspiracy theories would demand thousands of knowledgeable people participating. Two such conspiracies are the Moon landing and 9/11. Because both of these would demand thousands of participants and hundreds of insiders the mathematical probability of them being credible just from this one principle is so miniscule that they should be dismissed out of hand. The reason these conspiracies have to be very limited in number is that when more than six people are involved the chances of someone spilling the beans becomes high. When dozens or more are involved then you can be sure that the conspiracy will be exposed.

There has never been a proven shadow conspiracy that has involved more than a handful of people.

Conclusion: If you want to find a real shadow conspiracy look for one that can be carried out by a handful of participants.

Minor Point: A detail that doesn’t seem to make sense or seems too coincidental.

Sandy Hook has quite a few of these. For instance we have a picture of one of the dead girls, Emily Parker, showing up after the massacre. Then we have her dad being cheerful and laughing just before an interview.

The moon landing conspiracy claimed that the flag planted by Armstrong waved as in a wind which was impossible. Photos showed no stars in the sky and convinced them the astronauts were in a studio. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent giving them more supposed proof they were in a studio.

Happenings like this are odd but they can be explained away.

The point is that after every major event anomalies will be discovered. A number of strange coincidences always seems to surface, even in events where it is obvious that no conspiracy exists.

Second major point: Real conspirators rely on tried and proven methods and do not want to try something new that requires great risk or would have a high risk of exposing them.

For instance, if the moon landing was a hoax then it would only be a matter of time before it was exposed by another nation checking out the landing sites. Why would anyone risk such a sure fire exposure?

Conspiracy people claim that the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition, but the largest building ever brought down with explosives was the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit which was only 22 stories high. The Twin Towers were 110 stories and any technology to bring them down would have been very experimental and unproven. Only a fool would have tried such an unproven method and anyone smart enough to get away with a conspiracy is not a fool.

Minor point: It seems odd that the buildings collapsed as they did.

These details prove nothing because we have never witnessed the destruction of a building this size. Trying to guess all the details from theory is like the scientists trying to guess the results of the first atomic bombs going off. They knew nothing for sure until they actually exploded one and examined the results.

Science thought it was against the laws of physics that the universe could be increasing in the rate of expansion, but they found they were wrong when they discovered the very odd fact that the speed of expansion is increasing.

Observations around events that reveal oddities are the rule rather than the exception. A lot more reliable criteria for making a judgment is to look at the big picture and examine what is logical there.

Keith: Ideally, any crime committed can be best achieved by doing it yourself with nobody involved. Crimes can involve many people and succeed. Caesar’s assassination is an example of more than three persons being involved and succeeding. The Kennedy assassination probably involved more than three

JJ I said that three was the ideal number for a conspiracy, not that you couldn’t have one with a greater number. The larger the number the more awkward it becomes.

LWK did a good job in classifying the conspiracies as those that are intended to be kept secret (as the moon landing and 9/11) and those that require secrecy for a short time followed by the incentive of glory and power such as Caesar’s assassination and Stauffenberg’s group.

Another difference is no one can be proven to have known 911 was coming but Hitler knew there was a conspiracy against him. He suspected some of the players but did not go after them because it would hurt his credibility with the military. He was almost relieved after Stauffenberg’s failed attempt. He stated that he finally could go after the conspirators and still keep the support of the military.

All the main conspiracy accusations today involve shadowing characters that do not want to be discovered before, during or after the event.

If Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy I would guess there were only about a dozen who orchestrated it.

By contrast, the moon hoax would have involved over 100,000 – a mathematical impossibility. 911 would have involved thousands which would have made it impossible to keep secret after the event happened.

Let us suppose Stauffenberg and his group assassinated Hitler and wanted to keep it secret. Could they have succeeded? Not a chance.

Even so the thousands of supposed conspirators with the moon hoax or 911 could not have kept the details secret. We would have all kinds of insiders showing up on Sixty Minutes with disguised voices spilling their guts to clear their guilt.

Blayne:You forgot the Gulf of Tonken hoax that got us into the Vietnam war. They have admitted it never happend and it required hundreds of Naval and army personal to keep it quiet. Or how about Operation North woods? Here is a good list of proven

JJ The Gulf of Tonken and other examples prove my point. It was not kept secret. We now know all about it. Conspirators can often keep a plot secret, but after it is executed people pay attention and the truth comes out if there is a significant number of people who know about it.

It has been a dozen years since 9/11 and if it was a conspiracy as claimed then there would be dozens of the thousands involved who would be willing to talk about it just as many are now happy to talk about the Gulf of Tonken.

Blayne: This still does not explain the fact that the buildings could not fall through their own mass at near free fall speed as if there as nothing below them. Most of the building below where the planes hit was completely intact. Demolition is the only thing that can cause a building to do this as it clears the mass below.

JJ Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne; The details prove everything in this case…

JJ Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Keith: If 9/11 was a government conspiracy then the individuals behind it in the U.S. facilitated the terrorist attack for their own ends. I do not think they organized the attack from the ground up. They became aware of the pending attack which they could have prevented and deliberately let it happen. If the buildings were demolished by explosives after the planes hit, then the conspirators used their black-ops network to carry it out.

JJ At least you are presenting something that is a possibility here. It is possible some in inner circles knew an attack was coming and did nothing to suit their own purposes.

On the other hand, you think the regular 9/11 conspiracy could have been carried out by few dozen people. This is not possible. There would have been hundreds involved in planning and planting the explosives. There would have been hundreds of soldiers involved in faking the planes and capturing and executing the passengers as claimed.

There would have been hundreds more who participated in faking the phone calls from the planes. This doesn’t count the masterminds who had to include hundreds more in their circle. If it was a conspiracy as claimed I would suspect that there are thousands who could expose it.


Jan 18, 2013


Here is an excerpt from my book illustrating the improbability of orthodox conspiracy theory and 9/11.

So, here’s the situation they present: Bush, the supposed dumbest president in history, was a major player in a conspiracy that involved the cooperation of thousands of participants, pulled off the most infamous disaster in history, and never got caught. Thousands of people are pointing fingers at him, trying to nail him, but he is outsmarting them all, great genius that he is.

Here’s the conspiracy story in a nutshell: Bush and Cheney, in cooperation with invisible power brokers and the military, arranged the hijacking of four planes – Flights 93, 77, 175 and 11. Somehow, after they took off, they were mysteriously snatched out of the skies and taken to an undisclosed location. At this location, the passengers were killed and disposed. The planes were also destroyed, obviously completely pulverized that very day to prevent any recognizable piece from being later used as evidence to the crime.

This was an ingenious accomplishment on the part of Bush and other conspirators when you take into account the whistle blowers at minor atrocities such as Abu Ghraib. 9/11 was much bigger than making men perform tricks while naked.

Just imagine being in the military and designated as one of those disposing of the passengers. Four planes land and all the hundreds of passengers are unloaded and lined up to be shot. You and dozens of others are to kill them and dispose of the bodies. Isn’t it amazing that not one of them has anonymously spoken to the press?

After the planes were snatched out of the air, an amazing thing occurred. They were replaced by missiles or special pods created by the government. These missiles were painted and fixed up to look like planes, but were not planes. These missiles had no passengers on board, but were specially designed to accomplish the evil deed.

They had to make it appear that the passengers were still on board to the end so they faked phone calls made from passengers to loved ones on the ground. All the dozens of loved ones involved were fooled into thinking they were talking to the real person because the government somehow knew in advance who was going to be on each plane and duplicated the correct voices in advance using voice technology. Conspiracy people do not even ask how a bungling bureaucracy can even manage to successfully retrieve the phone numbers of the correct loved ones to call, let alone make them think a computer voice is a family member.

I don’t know about you, but if a computer called me pretending to be my wife, I think I could tell if I was talking to her or not.

The missiles then went about to accomplish their evil mission. The first was substituted for Flight 93 and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

What was that about? I know if I were a conspirator, the last thing I would do is to go through all that trouble just to crash a missile in a field. Strange.

The second, the substitute for Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon. What was that about? The military attacking itself? Oh, yeah… that was just to remove suspicion. That really worked, didn’t it? Even though dozens of people saw a plane, some even close enough to see the passengers, they were fooled. It was really a missile.

The other two missiles, which replaced Flights 175 and 11, plowed into the two Twin Towers buildings. Though millions of people saw the video of this, what they saw were not planes, but missiles or specially built pods that landed in just the right places to not interfere with the planned explosive demolition.

Explosive demolition?

Yes, and this is the amazing part. The conspiracy people believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition by the use of pre-planted explosives. Even though the largest demolition by explosives has been just over 20 stories, the conspirators decided to go for the Guinness Book of World Records. They increased that record not twice, or four times, but over five times and did it simultaneously with not one building, but two, along with a smaller record-breaking building on the side.

They didn’t care that the technology for such an unknown feat had not been perfected or tested. Instead, they recklessly went ahead blowing up the buildings, just hoping everything would work as planned. This would have indeed been a dumb thing to do, but it turned out that Bush was extremely lucky that things worked out.

Planting the explosives was the difficult part and really illustrates the hidden genius of Bush to have pulled this off.

Hundreds of workers with blow torches and construction tools would have had to enter the buildings and, without being seen, tear out the walls in thousands of locations in each of the Twin Towers. Then they would have had to pull out blowtorches and cut out “V” notches in the thousands of steel beams that supported the towers.

Next, they would have had to wire one explosive charge to another in thousands of locations, destroying and disrupting offices as they moved along. After this, they would have had to repair their destructive work before each worker entered his office again. The repair would have had to be so seamless that none of the thousands of people in the Twin Towers would notice that any changes were made.

Even more amazing is that none of the hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of demolition workers have spilled their guts. Not one of them has gone to the press to become the hero of the ages. Maybe the conspirators had the military kill them all.

Again, the question arises. When the military lined up and gunned down all the demolition workers, was there not one of the assassins that had a prick in his conscience and was willing to tell his story?

I guess not.

It must have been the genius of Bush that pulled this all off so seamlessly.

If you believe this is the way 9/11 really happened, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Sorry, I do not have time to answer all the time consuming questions. Instead, just google the answers or go here:

We have already covered this subject to death and I have no interest i repeating what I have already said.


Jan 19, 2013

Re: Forest and the Trees

Blayne: The Gulf of Tonken incident did not come to light for decades Along with many other incidents…. there goes your point. There have been dozens willing to talk about it.

JJ The truth of the Gulf of Tonkin was available from the beginning. A number of insiders tried to reveal the truth. Senator Wayne Morse had an informant shortly after the incident that revealed the truth to him, but wasn’t able to stop us going to war. The 9/11 incident was much more massive and would have involved many more people but we have no Senator or member of Congress claiming to have an informant giving us details of a conspiracy.

Not one insider has come forward with any testimony on a 9/11 conspiracy let alone evidence of a demolition. If your belief were true many would have come forward by now.

JJ Quote Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne: Yet the fact remains they fell at near free fall speed mainly into their own footprint. The only way that could happen is to have their mass below them cleared out of the way and the only tech that we know of that can do that is controlled demolition.

JJ You keep bringing up this freefall doctrine just like you did a couple years ago when we covered it thoroughly. We both gave our explanations and now you want to do the dance all over again. Why? You’re not giving any additional light this time around.

The last time I gave you this reference: LINK

And here is a more recent one illustrating that the freefall was not such a freefall after all.


Of course the conspiracy people counter this but unconvincingly.

Blayne: Also I wonder why you think taking down the towers would be any different then any other high rise? The tech has existed for decades.

JJ You have absolutely no proof of this. Either prove it or quit making this claim from the seat of your pants.

JJ Quote: Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Blayne I have posted them many times.

JJ Strange. You keep saying this but I have not seen it. Has anyone else?

You then want to bring up many details that we have already discussed. If you want my answers on the rest of your questions go back two years and read my posts. They are still there.

I will add this interesting quote from the popular Mechanics book on the subject of demolition.

“if you look at any building that is imploded, the explosives are primarily placed on the ground floor and the basement,” Loizeaux (a demolition expert) says. “Why? Because you want to remove the columns when you have the majority of that stored potential energy above where you’re taking the columns out. You want to release as much energy as possible. if you look at the collapse of these structures, they start collapsing up where the planes hit. They don’t start collapsing down -below.” Loizeaux says even if explosives had been placed on the upper floors, they would have generated significantly more dust and debris than mere “puffs.”

Despite his credentials as a physicist, Jones is among those who make faulty assumptions about controlled demolition. in putting forth his case that the buildings were brought down with explosives, Jones writes: “Roughly 29000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) would then suffice in each Tower and WTC 7 to cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down.”

According to Loizeaux, Jones is simply wrong. “The explosives configuration manufacturing technology [to bring down those buildings] does not exist,” Loizeaux says. “If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece. You would need forklifts to bring them into the building.”

The biggest commercially available charges, Loizeaux tells Popular Mechanics, are able to cut through steel that is three inches thick. The, box columns at the base of the World Trade Center towers were 14 inches on a side. If big enough charges did exist, Loizeaux says, for each tower it could hypothetically take as long as two months for a team of up to 75 men with unfettered access to three floors to strip the fireproofing off the columns and then place and wire the charges.

“There’s just no way to do it,” Loizeux says, adding that it is similarly implausible that explosives could he smuggled into the buildings. “If you just put bulk explosives in file cabinets next to every column in the building, it wouldn’t knock those columns down. It would blow the windows out. It would trash the [building] and probably blow out two floors above and a floor below . . but it wouldn’t knock the [buildingl down.”


Jan 19, 2013

If It Will Save One Life

I’ve always hated the “save one life” argument. The Left uses it as an emotional argument often to take us away from freedom. They used it to create the irritating 55 MPH speed limit and all kinds of regulations. They have spent up to a billion dollars to save a life with nuclear energy regulations where for about a hundred bucks they could save a sick kid in Central America.


Jan 19, 2013

Re: 9/11 Analysis

Dean You should have already researched it.

JJ I have researched supposed whistle blowers before but new attempts at supplying them come up all the time. None from any insider and none with any convincing evidence.

Dean: I already gave you witnesses in the link, there is many more I didn’t reference, but you are so much in denile so nothing will help you?

JJ You’re dreaming of another reality. Just make a feeble attempt to give us one actual whistle blower that goes beyond someone hearing a noise, hearsay or something. Give me one like the actual witness to the Gulf of Tonkin that was on the ship and spilled his guts to Senator Morse. Maybe you could supply a soldier feeling guilty for gunning down the passengers of the planes after they were miraculously snatched from the air – or maybe someone who fabricated the cell phone calls or helped plant the explosives etc.

Blayne’s whistleblowers “FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged woman in America, having the State Secrets Privilege imposed on her twice, went public last year to reveal that Bin Laden maintained “intimate” relations with the US right up until 9/11.

JJ It’s common knowledge we supported Ben Laden during the Russian war with Afghanistan and if we kept some links going that proves nothing. This gal was no insider with any knowledge of a conspiracy.

Blayne: Another whistleblower is former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro “LJ” Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.”

JJ Again, a million miles from an insider. Lots of people have heard strange stuff. Listen to Coast to Coast and you’ll be amazed, but observations and hearsay does not prove a conspiracy.

As I said, out of the thousands that had to be involved not one with real knowledge has come forth. Surely one of the hundreds that had to plant the explosives would feel enough guilt to come forward. The fact that no one has ought to tell you something.

Good information on the black boxes is here:

Blayne: Again if no conspiracy can exist without an original conspirator coming forward how did the Manhattan Project stay secret?

JJ The Manhattan project didn’t stay secret. Right after the bomb hit Hiroshima everyone knew about it.

It is fairly easy to keep preparations a secret but after they are executed it is another matter. After 9/11 was executed some participants would normally come forth – particularly rank and file workers just doing their job planting explosives.

JJ Of course the argument made in the video is invalid. The speed of a transfer of force is faster than freefall which explains the supposedly strange data.

Blayne: You have never gotten past the fact that it is physically impossible for a plane and low grade fire to bring down a metal framed building much less the speed of the fall. Yet you continue to thumb your nose at over 1700 architects and engineers informing you of that fact… Talk about fantasy land geeze..

JJ Nothing to get over. It fell at the speed it fell whatever that was for there seems to be lack of agreement on this except for certain truthers who are always 100% sure they have the facts right.

This is just like the moon hoax conspiracy except the moon hoax people had better evidence.

To calculate what an event would accomplish when it was a one of a kind event often results in occurrences that baffle calculations.

Keith listed a number of them from the Moon Hoax but at least he accepts the photographic evidence of the landing sites we now have. The laws of physics were not violated. Instead many just either calculated incorrectly or used bad data in the process.

True believers will never prove their 9/11 conspiracy theories because they make no sense. 20 years from now we will still have no insider whistle blower and the truthers will continue with this same tired debate.

On Sept 11, 2010 we started going back and forth on this subject for about two weeks through about 200 posts. I’ve tried to not repeat myself this round but I think we have covered this enough so unless some really significant new material is presented this will be my last post on this subject for some time to come.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 1

This entry is part 1 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 1, 2013

Celebrities For Gun Control

Check out the celebrities who are for gun control HERE


Jan 3, 2013

Are We Crazy?

Ruth gave an interesting link to a study that gives evidence that people like us are more unstable than most. And who are people like us?

They are those who are not a part of an organized religion yet claim to be “spiritual”

Read over the article and then answer some questions: (LINK)

(1) Does this study reflect the truth?

(2) If so why are those who seem to have taken a higher path having mental problems? (3) Or have some or all not taken a higher path?


Jan 4, 2013

 More on Sandy Hook

I got sidetracked tonight watching videos about the inconsistencies of the Sandy Hook shooting. There are an increasing number of things that just do not add up. Take a look at these videos.







Jan 5, 2013

Mysteries of Sandy Hook

LWK Have you ever seen an event like this (mass school shootings, theater shootings, Murray Bldg., World Trade Center, etc., etc.) where there were not apparently huge conflicts between initial reports and later reports?

The media almost always reports initially with whatever gossip, second or third hand reports – anything or anyone they can stand in front of a camera – at the beginning? They don’t give a damn about truth initially, they just want to have breathless reporters reporting on something.

What would be really surprising, and I mean _REALLY_ surprising, would be an event where initial reporting was found to be even remotely accurate. 🙂

JJ In other incidents like this and major events I often find the media distorts the news to fit their agenda, but with few exceptions the actual facts are usually fairly accurate. For instance, NBC edited George Zimmerman’s statement to make it sound like he was a racist when the unedited version presents a different story.

In reporting the Aurora shooting they speculated there could be an accomplice but didn’t put it forth as fact.

With Sandy Hook the media put forth a lot of things as fact and then retracted and changed the story or just acted like the original reporting did not exist.

For instance, the original reports had Adam using handguns with his rifle in the car. This was changed to him killing the kids with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and maybe a shotgun in the car.

I haven’t seriously considered a conspiracy since the JFK era but this one has my attention. I haven’t concluded some insiders planned and executed the whole thing but it does appear we do not have the whole story and there is some type of cover-up going on.

Here are just a few of the problems involved.

(1) The Medical examiner who was supposed to be a sharp intelligent guy sounds like he can’t articulate a sentence that makes sense. LINK

(2) Reports of multiple shooters from witnesses now ignored. LINK

(3) Victoria Soto’s RIP Facebook Page created 4 days before shooting, has recently been taken down. Numerous other pages claiming inconsistencies have disappeared. LINK

(4) Sandy Hook Principle Gives Interview After Being Reported Dead. LINK

(5) Sandy Hook father, Robby Parker, appears to be acting for the cameras. How can he be smiling and taking pictures after his daughter was gunned down? LINK

(6) Facebook is Deleting accounts that don’t jive with the official story. LINK

(7) Sandy Hook Children Practicing Evacuation Drills Before Shooting LINK

(8) Adam Lanza’s Hard Drive was destroyed and his mother was killed making it difficult to discover many details.

(9) Why was he wearing body armor if he planned to commit suicide?

(10) How did Lanza manage to carry 90 magazines which was needed for all the shooting?

(11) Connecticut police spokesman threatens to arrest independent journalists and whistleblowers LINK

(11) No footage of the shooting has been released even though it must exist.

(12) Emily Parker appears to show up after she is dead. LINK

(13) It is odd that Emily Parker’s donation website designed and developed and rolled out the same day as the shooting. LINK

(14) Why is there no record of Adam Lanza’s existence for the past three years?

(15) How could he have his brother’s I.D. when his brother hadn’t seen him for two years?

(16) Why are all the families given a “minder” and none but Robbie Parker (who may be an actor) are allowed or willing to talk to the media?

We could probably add to this list. If anyone thinks of something let us know.


Jan 5, 2013

 Re: Mysteries of Sandy Hook

lwk: After the Oklahoma City Bombing there were very quickly reports of middle eastern men seen near the building (and later reports they were seen with McVeigh). Those reports quickly stopped and were later ignored.

JJ This is another event I have wondered about. In this case I doubt that a government conspiracy engineered the catastrophe but think there have been some mid eastern contribution that was covered up or not investigated.

As far as Sandy Hook goes, all your explanations are possibly true, but because of the number of things that have to be explained away the whole thing smells fishy. I doubt that there was a major conspiracy but my best guess so far is this.

The Feds who arrived on the scene represent a mindset against the Second Amendment and are pro Obama. The first thing they look for is ammunition to use against conservatives. If Adam did the killing with handguns when a so-called assault rifle was available then this was not a situation for their maximum advantage. They caused the story to be recast so the main weapon was the Bushmaster.

There could have been an accomplice who a quick check turned out to be an Occupy Wall Street character so the FBI sequestered him and he was never heard of again. The case against guns would be much better if the gun owner seemed like a right winger as Nancy Lanza seemed to be.

Actually, it has not yet been reported which political party any of the Lanzas belonged to. Nancy appears to be a right wing gun owner and that’s what the media wants, but it is entirely possible she was a Democrat, being from such a liberal state.

All this is mere speculation, but this story does have enough mysterious elements that I am pretty sure some important facts are missing.


Jan 6, 2013

Re: Are We Crazy?

We’ve had several good comments on this question but you hit the nail on the head Larry. This answer is very close to what I had in mind. The story of Hercules going insane for a while illustrates this problem.

The only thing I might add is there are some who are just drifting and not on any path who have not achieved soul contact who rebel for the sake of rebellion or are disconnected merely because they are lazy.


Jan 8, 2013

Heaven On Earth if You Ask Me...


Thought some here might be interested in this. He is the JJ of Self sufficiency and farming IMO. This is the future!

Check out this guy’s farm in the Austrian Alps. Simply Amazing in high altitude what they grow and do with his own brand of permaculture and makes a good living too with no subsidies no fertilizers or chemicals etc… It’s heaven on earth if you ask me!

Wow this guy uses rocks to heat his fish ponds with the sun this guy is amazing what he is doing we can all learn from him. He is even growing citrus at 4000 feet altitude with no greenhouse… It doesn’t give details on the citrus so I have to find out how he is doing it. But he says terracing and rocks and raised beds (not like what we do) create micro climates and more heat etc…

Amazing stuff and the place is just beautiful around a hundred acres or so. LINK

More Sepp Holzer wisdom! Raised bed gardens and orchards with no irrigation needed. This is Awesome! LINK

This can be done in your backyard too. Imagine a garden you don’t have to water or weed? Wow! JJ Good find Blayne. I watched all three videos. If the guy can have that much success at 4000+ feet imagine how much easier it would be at 2-3000 feet. I am amazed he can raise lemons there and never saw a good explanation as to why he could do that. His system is really quite complex for a plain spoken farmer and I would think one would have to put in some serious study to duplicate it. I’ve always envisioned the Cities of Light to have sustainable farming something like this.

I have an idea for you. If you ere interested you could probably make a good living giving lectures and classes on this type of farming. You’d have to get a sound knowledge of it though. I did a search on Amazon for the words “Temperate Permaculture” and quite a few things came up. I ordered one from my library.


Jan 8, 2013

Principles & Matter

John Crane asks: One question I always meant to ask JJ is what is the true principle and the false principle behind the creation of the etheric physical plane and the dense physical plane. What ARE those principles? And, what is the difference between a TRUE principle and a FALSE principle? If a principle is false, is it really a principle?

JJ Good question, John.

First, this teaching came from DK and he never explained why physical matter is not created on a principle but etheric matter is. He merely stated it as a fact several times in his writings.

Concerning DK’s views on principles it is interesting that he never uses the term “false principle” or talks about such a thing. It appears that his view is that either a principle is in play or it is not.

He most likely believes that physical matter is not based on a principle because it is merely a lower reflection of etheric matter. The etheric is created first and the physical follows. Therefore, the principle that creates physical matter lies in the source of creation of etheric matter.

That principle of which I have extensively written about, is the interplay of positive/negative male/female energies.


Jan 9, 2013

Alex Jones Interview

I decided to write another letter to my local paper on the attack on Alex Jones. Here it is:

The Alex Jones-Piers Morgan confrontation was great entertainment and the left would certainly like to portray Jones as the spokesman representing Second Amendment advocates but such is not the case. Most Second amendment advocates I know think he is somewhat of a nutcase and is far removed from their idea of presenting a case.

On the other hand, Piers was not to be outdone in the craziness department. The next day he had a panel of anti gun advocates and Buzz Bissinger of the Daily Beast suggested that Piers take Alex up on his boxing match challenge and show up with an automatic weapon and shoot him.

To this Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post) responded: “I’d love to see that” [laughter] in uniform.”

Then Piers Morgan showed approval stating: “I’ll borrow my brothers uniform.”

Alex Jones was just overly aggressive in presenting his case but the Piers Morgan peace group talking of killing Jones was beyond the pale.

Piers argued with Jones that the super strict gun control measures in Britain led to fewer gun killings. True, but North Korea has virtually zero domestic gun deaths. Is that where we want to go? He overlooked the unintended consequence that England and Wales lead the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people and your chances of being mugged in London is six times higher than New York. References:  LINK 1  LINK 2  LINK 3


Jan 9, 2013

Gun Warning from Russia

You’ve got to read this:


Jan 10, 2013

The Point of Tension

Blayne JJ seems to think the millions of innocents killed in the middle east to combat the dark forces is acceptable collateral damage.

JJ First, let me point out that millions of innocents were not killed in the War in Iraq. According to Wikileaks revealing of classified information there were 66,081 civilian deaths.

On the other hand, if there is a reasonable chance of preserving freedom it is worth most any cost, even the lives of millions as happened in World War II.

Then too there is a time to fight physically and a time to strategize and fight on the emotional and mental planes.

General Washington realized that it was not wise to stand and fight to the last man against overwhelming odds. If he had done this just once we would not have a USA. Instead, he attacked sparingly, retreated liberally and waited for his moment which finally came on Christmas Eve when he crossed the Potomac.

Even though Washington and his rag tag army fought against great odds they had a huge advantage over gun supporters today who want to take on the government. They had an organization with about a third of the population solidly behind them.

In our recent past any group who has stood up to the government has been small and when the firing began no one came to their aid.

This tells us that it would take a big event to cause gun supporters to unite enough to become a major threat. It would take something like Obama issuing an executive order to confiscate all guns.

He’s smart enough to not do that so he will proceed one step at a time.

The question now before us is what his next step will be. He has indicated he will make one and Joe Biden has suggested that he will bypass Congress and issue an executive order.

My guess is this. He will seek to ban all semi automatic weapons. Then he will wait until the next disaster and seek more control with the goal of reaching a complete ban by 2016.

Now is the time to attempt to influence public opinion, not by firepower but by our words, feelings and thought.

Unfortunately the greatest power of persuasion here at the end of the Piscean influence is through the emotions and the killings at Sandy Hook have pressed powerful emotional buttons. It doesn’t matter that mental plane logic tells us that more people are murdered with hammers and bare hands than rifles. Therefore, we need to put the Sandy Hook killings in context. Context does not enter in to the emotional plane. Those 20 kids are dead and by George we need to do something so it never happens again.

The NRA does a good job of making mental arguments but they need to fire back on the emotional plane. They need to run ads giving emotional testimony from people who have been saved by guns.

We are at an awkward point now. The next step is to wait and see how big of a move Obama will make and then seek to influence Congress and public opinion in the opposite direction. A point of tension will most likely come but it has not yet arrived.


Jan 10, 2013

Re: The Point of Tension

Dan: Just to clear ANY ambiguity, by “firepower” you are talking about some kind of armed revolt/uprising against the govt, you are NOT talking about arming/protecting one’s self/family normally as one should see fit such as with a handgun or etc. Is that correct?

JJ Correct. Any group right now that is seen by the government as organizing an armed revolt will be in danger the next four years. The best thing Second Amendment advocates can do is link up through the net so they can band together should a point of tension come. Without that point of tension they will loose.


Jan 10, 2013

Re: Alex Jones Interview

A agree. Jones did not turn up for a debate but to filibuster and dominate. He threw out a few good facts but didn’t tie anything together and wouldn’t answer Piers’ question. He could have easily defeated Piers if he had answered his questions when he asked them and gave a couple intelligent ones back but as I said people judge mostly by their feelings and most had the feeling that he was a crazy man so that negated any good facts he presented. To prove my point consider this question.

What are people discussing: The context of Jones’ dialog or the way it was presented? So far the answer is 99% the latter.


Jan 10, 2013

Re: Alex Jones Interview

JJ What are people discussing: The context of Jones’ dialog or the way it was presented? So far the answer is 99% the latter.

Dean I don’t agree only those that are infantile are discussing that.

JJ Everyone here including you must be infantile then because we have not been discussing the words he said but only the way he said them. Can you supply any source where people are quoting his actual words in support of the Second Amendment or to show he won the argument? They may exist, but I have not seen them.


Jan 11, 2013

Piers Met His Match

You have to watch this debate between Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro. Shapiro dominated him and was a 1000 times more effective than Alex Jones. LINK


Jan 11, 2013

The Future of Gun Control, Part 1

My last post had a massive typo in the headline. I deleted it and am replacing it with this one.

There are two approaches Obama can take with his gun control measures.

(1) The “boil the frog slowly” method so he gradually gets his way.

(2) Take bold measures and deal with the awakened frogs.

The Left normally uses method #1. They proceed step by step until the frog (the people) is sufficiently neutralized and then they will proceed boldly.

If the Left sticks with method one, disarming the people will take much longer than Obama’s next four years but it could go something like this.

2013 Banning the sales of so-called assault rifles and large capacity magazines but stopping short of confiscating the ones already in the people’s possession.

2015 Because of additional shootings with “assault rifles” already in circulation the word is that this type of possession is too dangerous for our kids. A program is initiated to buy them back from citizens willing to turn them in.

2016 The buy back program was only mildly successful but crazy people still surface with assault weapons killing people. The media goes crazy with the stories and Democrats clamor for more action.

Finally, a law is passed making assault weapon illegal to own. People are told to turn them in or suffer prosecution. They are smart enough to not go on a door-to-door search at this time as they deem it too dangerous.

About 40% of the illegal guns are turned in.

After this there are regular stories about gun owners arrested here and there that are caught with the illegal guns. This tends to cause many owners to fear and a trickle of guns continue to get turned in.

2018?? There are still incidents of crazy people murdering with assault weapons and the Left demands more action to save our children. Those who still possess the illegal guns are told to turn them in or they will be taken by force. If they have to be taken by force then the offender will face jail time.

After this warning all but the strongest willed turn in their guns.

The authorities then go after the owners a little at a time and avoid any mass door-to-door searches. They go through their list and begin issuing warrants for their arrest. If they turn themselves in their penalty will be light. If not then the results will be dire. When a person turns himself in the authorities then go to his home when he is away and search his premises and take his guns.

Those who do not turn themselves in are considered dangerous so they stake them out and when they are out of the house or at work they approach them and arrest them. Later they search their homes and take their guns.

2020-2040 There are still shootings, many with regular handguns. The confiscation of handguns follows the same process as with assault weapons, leaving only hunting rifles and eventually the process repeats itself with those until the United States is declared to be a “gun free zone.”

Blayne: When California banned assault rifles only about 10% complied. So I think your 40% number is a bit high.

JJ I don’t think California went after the owners or threatened prison time just for possessing arms they acquired legally.

On the other hand, if there was a serious threat of prison for those who were to continue to possess certain types of firearms after a ban with a command to turn them in then I would still guess that about 40% would comply.


Jan 12, 2013

The Future of Gun Control, Part 2

The Bold Approach.

2013-2016 Obama uses an executive order to ban the sales of so-called assault rifles and large capacity magazines and makes the very possession of them illegal. All owners must turn them in or suffer the threat of jail.

Most of the blue states cooperate but some of the governors of the red states announce that they will not enforce this decree because it is unconstitutional.

Gun advocates organize in all states and soon there is talk of a new civil war between the states. Many gun owners in blue states move to the red states.

Congress tries to step in and bring order but Obama is stubborn and insists his decree be followed. He calls on the military to take over the capital of one of the rebel states to set an example. Some of the soldiers go AWL to protest but most obey. They are met with resistance and the new civil war begins.

It’s not a prophecy. I presented two different paths that the Left could take and the probable outcomes if such steps were taken. Obama isn’t likely to take the bold step I referenced – at least not as a first step.


Jan 12, 2013

A Story to Convince the Left

The Left may not think it is necessary to have guns to protect your family, but protecting your dog may be another matter.

Here’s a story about a guy who shot a burglar who was attacking his dog. When the bad guys start choking your dog that may be too much for even a leftie and just may convince him to support the Second Amendment.


Jan 15, 2013

Best Sandy Hook Video Yet

Sharón sent me this and I don’t know how anyone can watch it and not question the orthodox version.



Jan 16, 2013

Re: Best Sandy Hook Video Yet

I’ve spent most of the night doing additional research on the Sandy Hook shooting so I don’t have much time left to write a post.

I’ve read quite a few that claim to debunk the conspiracy. Most of the debunkers do a very poor job and instead of refuting with facts they paint anyone who questions the official version as crazy people who are truthers and racists who believe every conspiracy out there. I despise these people who use name-calling as their main weapon of argument.

In addition to name-calling they mischaracterize and distort the beliefs of most skeptics. They paint with a broad brush stating that we believe no one was killed, the people interviewed were actors and the Jews did it.

True, there are a handful with black and white beliefs who have reached some wild conclusions, but I find most skeptics are like me who are open to explanations but have not received satisfactory ones from some of the mysteries.

For instance, who was the handcuffed “suspect” they had in the police cruiser described by an eye witness on the scene? Who was the “suspect” they had in the woods behind the school, as seen by the helicopter?

Some say this was Chris Manfredonia, the father of one of the students who was looking for his kid.

Manfredonia is the athletic coach for the school. The man in the woods is not likely Manfredonia. The man in the woods is tall and slender, while Manfredonia is stocky. Also why would an athletic coach be wearing camouflage pants to school as the mystery man was wearing?

It is very questionable how many guns were used and which ones did the killing.

Unlike other shootings not one witness have come forth to describe the incident.

Usually in an incident like this twenty or so are wounded but in this case all involved were killed but one and we have not heard from the one.

It is unlikely a nerd like Adam would have been a good enough shot to have killed all 20 small kids in such a short time leaving no survivors.

I’m not big on conspiracies but it appears that we do not have all the truth on this. I hope this eventually gets thoroughly investigated.


Jan 17, 2013

Re: Best Sandy Hook Video Yet

JJ: I despise these people who use name-calling as their main weapon of argument.

Ruth: That word seems a bit harsh coming from you.

Do you mean that you despise their personalities?

JJ The answer should be obvious. Do you think I despise their souls? Of course not.

Ruth: Personally, who cares if people use name calling. It is just part of the programming humans instill and use against each other, but it doesn’t need to be taken as a personal insult and it doesn’t even need to affect our emotions. You teach that.

JJ No I don’t teach that. What I do teach is that the emotional bodies of all of us are affected in both positive and negative ways and it is important that we recognize both reactions and not deny or suppress them. If we do we are headed for ill health on a number of levels. The important thing in dealing with negativity from others is not to ignore or pretend the negativity does not exist or that it has no effect on your emotional body but to make decisions based on looking at the soul.

Yes, my personality despises name callers, probably similar to the way the personality or Jesus despised the money changers at the temple before he chased them out. I have no problem with that. On the other hand, because I attempt to decide from the viewpoint of the soul I do not reply in kind by calling them names back but attempt to influence them by other means.

Yes, I see their souls from my soul, but I see their personalities from my personality and will allow my personality to honestly feel whatever it wants to feel. The personality though is not the decider. It can influence, but the decisions are made on a higher level.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE