Keys Posts 2012, Part 2

This entry is part 6 of 40 in the series 2012A

Jan 17, 2012

Glenda Green & Jesus

Glenda seems to claim much more than an impression. Here are some quotes from her book – love Without End:

Jesus appeared to me and was with me for almost four months between November 1991 and March 1992.

In the fall of 1992, much to my surprise, those special circumstances were arranged and another vision was brought to me. It happened in a little country church where I had given the evening presentation. During the closing prayer, I noticed the rare fragrance I always sensed when Jesus was in my studio. Lifting my head and opening my eyes brought confirmation of what I suspected. He was there! Without a word to startle the others, I quietly beheld a fascinating process. With every passing second He regressed in age until He became an infant in His mother’s arms. Mary was young and classically Hebrew in appearance. In her loveliness, she was the image of innocence and barely more than a child herself. After a few minutes, the vision stabilized and remained unchanged for the two months required to paint it. The Flame of Love, as the painting came to be called,

A wry grin began to take shape on His face as He focused a quizzical look at me.

“His eyes were like clear pools of water, as I gazed into them, and beheld the simplicity of His succinct reply.

While nodding to the reality of our history, His countenance remained calm and serene. A comforting smile spread across His face…

In His presence there was love overflowing. Glowing with an aura of contentment and happiness, His face radiated joy, and He often smiled from ear to ear. I was fascinated, however, by the fact that I never saw Him laugh.

Jan 17, 2012

Sarah’s Story

Sarah: I was diagnosed dyslexic at the age of 7, as well as intellectually gifted. At 15 I was diagnosed ADD and medicated with stimulants. At 21, I was diagnosed Bipolar and they added an anticonvulsant and an antipsychotic to the mix. At 24, they added a sedative. At 25, I found, got off all my meds that very night, told my doctors an parents I was not mentally ill…then I went crazy for a bit as I withdrew and then I changed my diet to predominately raw vegan and added vitamins and supplements including Klamath lake blue green algae.

And now I’m perfectly normal.

My cousin is diagnosed with Aspergers as well as other labels. His mother, my aunt, is a biologist as is a clinical coordinator of some kind for

There is no real biological evidence that famous people who are no longer living had Aspergers. They also say most of them were ADD and Bipolar as well…back when those diagnoses were up and coming.

Just my two cents. I am also an artist. I believed I was mentally ill my whole life because doctors labeled me and plus artists and musicians usually are crazy. But, I decided that was bullshit and I had control over my own mind.

Sent from my iPhone

JJ I would think that i would have a heck of a time typing a message like that on an iphone.

I’m really glad the writings helped you. I’m curious what you read on freeread that first night that altered your course so.

My boy asked me which supplement I would recommend if I was limited to just one and it was the one you mentioned – the blue green algae from Klammath Falls.

Jan 19, 2012

Can Love Be Defined?

JJ DK didn’t say that there are things that cannot be put in words but that we lack the words to define some things. He often complained that AAB had a limited scientific vocabulary and this limited his ability to explain some things clearly.

Some languages completely lack words that are common in English so this would limit their ability to put some things into words. If I am trying to explain a concept for which we do not have words I will usually put a new twist on an existing words – such as my use of Purpose in the Molecular Relationship.


Jan 19, 2012

Newt Gingrich Handwriting?

LWK asked me to take a look at Newt’s handwriting. It looks like only the first link supplied has a serious attempt to analyze Newt. I’ll make a few comments.

Lets look at the sample here:

Let’s examine some of his analysis.

1. Major daddy issues. This is probably true. He thinks he can greatly exceed the accomplishments of his parents. There are things about his childhood and upbringing he would just as soon forget.

2. He points out an undotted i. I checked out other samples and he seems to leave around 20% of his Is undotted. This can merely mean absent mindedness, but in Newt’s case it seems to mean lack of attention to details that are not essential in his view.

3. “Maniac d” then he says – “yes, the trait that is in serial killer’s handwriting.”

This is a d with a slant that shifts quite a bit farther to the right than the surrounding letters. I checked out two other samples of his handwriting and this shift in slant did not occur there. Strange shifts in slant of the letters whether they be Ds or other letters is a sign of inner emotional turmoil. These shifts often occur in teenagers as they are trying to figure our who they want to be. Newt does indeed act like an emotional teenager at times, but then other times he has pretty good control. This shows up in his various handwriting samples where some are more stable than others.

Looking at the handwriting as a whole there is not much likelihood he would be a serial killer but he is likely to react strongly to an attack as evidenced by his reaction to Romney’s ads.

4. Explosive. He will explode now and then but not an abnormal amount. He’s very sensitive and when offended he feels like lashing out but usually just lets off enough steam to stay sane.

5. Nasty, nasty, nasty temper. Yes he has a temper and lets off enough steam to avoid dangerous explosions.

6. A seriously mean person.

Sometimes uncaring, neglectful, and capable of vengeance, but I wouldn’t call him seriously mean.

7. Is dishonest. Actually in normal circumstances he is quite honest. He likes to be direct and to the point. He enjoys openly and honestly sharing his conventional thoughts. On the other hand, he has secrets, perhaps a secret agenda that he keeps to himself. Aside from these things he likes honest sharing.

8. Ruthless towards his enemies. This could be true if his feelings are stirred.

9. Careless. Yes, sometimes, but not always.

10. Unethical. Probably about like your average politician.

11. Greedy. Sometimes.

12. Skirts the rules. He will do this when it makes sense to him.

13. He says Newt Gingrich is The Inventor – INFP (Introvert – iNtuitive – Feeler – Perceiver) + Analytical. I agree with this.

14. He says Newt Gingrich is unqualified for leadership.

He’s better at coming up with ideas than gaining the trust of his fellow men in carrying them out. How effective he will be as a leader will largely depend on who he chooses for his inner circle. The trouble is that he will ignore the advice of his inner circle if convinced his ideas aren’t being advanced.

Overall he is very intelligent, never at a loss for words, intuitive, fiercely independent and determined to go his own way. He’s also very emotional and overly sensitive. Sometimes he’s at peace with his inner feelings and other times he is in conflict. He has a big ego and loves to be the center of attention – not as bad as Obama, however.

Jan 22, 2012

Possible Life on Venus Found


Jan 27, 2012

War with Iran

Ruth asked me to comment on this: “Ramtha has warned on several occasions war with Iran is likely if Republican is President.”

JJ There is a danger of war with Iran no matter who is president – except for maybe Ron Paul. We may avoid war for a while by following a pacifist policy as we did before WWII but the best course when you have enemies is peace through strength – as well as smart policy.

Jan 28, 2012


Rut asks about the timeframe before great destruction will come.

JJ I’ve never placed a time on a scenario of great destruction but have merely said that the gathering needs to have a serious beginning between 2025-2030. It may be 100 years or more before something is created that could really be called Zion where the inhabitants see eye to eye or soul to soul. The gathering will provide a refuge from all sorts of possible calamities that may befall the planet as the communities will be self sustaining. The work I am involved in extends way beyond this life.

Jan 28, 2012

Re: Bill Wood Interview with Project Camelot

JJ Even though we do not have video there were dozens of witnesses who actually saw the plane hit he Pentagon and none of them saw a Tomohawk missile. They all saw a plane and I hear one guy interviewed who said he was close enough to see the windows of the plane and people inside.

Jan 28, 2012

Re: The Literal Gathering of Israel, Chapter Four

Ruth: So there needs to be a small gathering first of 24 or 144,000 people? and then a major gathering might take place later on.

The people that gather first are the ones who are directed by soul to get together in the flesh at a specific destination? This is where I am confusing the time lines and phases of Zion.

JJ No, that’s not what I said. We may have to gather thousands before we find the 24 capable of creating the first molecule. The first 24 gathered will not create a working molecule. How many we will have to sift through before 24 can be found who can take all kinds of grief yet remain firm in the soul is hard to say. Time will tell.

After the gathering begins it will continue from henceforth for thousands of years with gatherings from the gatherings and regatherings as time goes on.

Feb 2, 2012

Possession Problem

Stephen, The fact that you are experiencing this problem after attempting automatic writing indicates that you opened yourself to an external entity or at least elemental negative forces. It doesn’t sound like the Dweller experience proceeding the third initiation because you have not mentioned anything indicating the Angel of the Presence.

You mentioned that things seemed worse after saying the Song. This could indicate the entities revulsion toward the Song and that you should say it more not less.

Reread everything I’ve said about the principle of attrition in Book 3 and the archives. Even though you undergoing a painful experience proceed with your life as if nothing negative is affecting you or even in your presence. This is a state of mind you must acquire. Don’t do any type of meditation until you are healed. Prayer is fine.


Feb 2, 2012

UFO Crash Site?

To this Dan writes:

I can do ya one better:


Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Posts 2012, Part 1

This entry is part 5 of 40 in the series 2012A

Jan 1, 2012

Gaps in Words

LWK Speaking from personal experience, the _only_ thing that will really convert the atheist mindset is pain; physical, emotional, and spiritual. They have to see for themselves that they need to somehow step outside the paradigms they have defined for themselves and take a leap of faith (“faith” as JJ defines it in The Gathering of Lights, Ch. 19 – Real Faith).

JJ You are right here Larry. In fact I have been arguing with atheists on another forum for the past couple days, kinda as a diversionary vacation, and I use their terminology and of course have changed no minds. I did find one guy who explained to me why he lost his faith who may have some hope.

Anyway, we are all like the alcoholic who has to hit rock bottom before we will make real change. I’m not clear what turned you around but I am sure it was something painful rather than a peaceful argument.

Jan 2, 2012

Re: Intelligent Aid

There are indeed two ways that we evolve. The first is through trial and error. Eventually the next learning point dawns on us as we stumble forward.

The second is with the assistance of a teacher or some type of guidance beyond the physical, perhaps from a higher life.

Now, even in the first category we are not alone for we slowly progress through interaction with other lives who are fellow travelers. These may not be able to explain to us the knowledge we need but they may stimulate or motivate us.

On this note DK gave an interesting thought. He said that higher lives looked upon primitive humans and their struggle to survive and basically felt sorry for them. They decided to help them and came to the earth and stimulated their minds greatly speeding up their evolution. He said that if they had not done this humanity would have still moved forward but much more slowly. The most advanced among us would be living like the Australian Bushmen in a primitive condition with little civilization. It would have been a long time in the future yet before we would have arrived where we are now.

As I’ve reflected on this it could give an explanation as to why we have not yet picked up an intelligent radio signal from another solar system. Perhaps we are one of the few planets that have received such stimulation and most of the life on other planets is still quite primitive. Maybe one of our purposes is to visit them in the future and stimulate them.

Jan 3, 2012

Odds on Candidates

Back in May I gave my odds on the various potential candidates getting the nomination. Since we are approaching the first primary in Iowa I thought I would revamp my odds.

At that time I gave Romney the highest odds for the nomination stating that he has karma on his side because of the way the press destroyed his Father when he ran for president in 1968.

I think he still has the best chance for the nomination, but it’s been a weird year. Every month or so a new favorite has arisen who has looked like he would eclipse Romney so far this hasn’t happened. Romney hasn’t seemed to move much up or down but of late he has been inching upward. In his favor is that he seems to be a known quantity with no hidden vices, actions or comments that can be exposed and he’s performed well at the debates without making a major error.

The greatest criticism at the debate came from him offering to bet Perry $10,000 that he was correct on a point. In my book I thought it was his finest moment but others were upset the average person could not bet $10,000.

My overall odds have changed as the landscape has changed. Here they are.

Romney: 60% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 70%

Ron Paul: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 30%. It looks like he will do reasonably well in Iowa but his past newsletters is starting to hurt him with new converts as I earlier predicted. If Romney views him as a threat he will do to him what he did to Gingrich with an attack ad blitz

Rick Santorum: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 45%

Gingrich: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 60%

This leaves a 10% chance anyone else will get the nomination

There’s a 30% chance Donald Trump will run as a third party candidate. If he does all bets are off and a reevaluation will be made at that time. A third party run by Trump would definitely increase the odds of an Obama win. A third party in development called Americans Elect started by Obama supporter Peter Ackerman has about $22 million to advance its cause and could wind up with someone like Trump or Huntsman for its candidate and could help Obama get reelected. This may be its purpose. In my view this has a 20% chance of having a significant influence on the election. We’ll hear more about this group as we approach the election.

Another thing that could change the election equation is if Hillary is selected for vice president. Most Democrats want this to happen, but the two people most opposed to it are Obama and Clinton.

I think Obama doesn’t want her because she may overshadow him and he doesn’t trust her in that position. Clinton is reluctant to seek the vice presidency because she wouldn’t have much power there. If she were nominated for this position it would increase Obama’s election chances by about 10%.

Only time will reveal the truth for sure. It will be a interesting political year.

Jan 6, 2012

Re: JJ Quote from the Archives for Today

JJ Quote: “Each odd number representing a ray or plane (and even years) is polarized in the positive energy and the even numbers are polarized in the negative energy. Notice that concerning this great number of seven that we have four positive numbers and three negative which gives all creation a domination toward the positive, or the dominating good.”

Ruth: I am wondering that now we are entering an even number year which means the polarization more towards the negative energy, or rather female/intuitional/receiving/magnetic energy may come into play more in all aspects of living etc.?

JJ When we speak of the energies being positive and negative the meaning is not to be taken in black and white as good and evil. Both polarities are necessary for creation. Nothing would exist without the both of them. Both male and female aspects have their positive points and there would be no dominating good without them both working together.

The odd years will reveal more male energy and the even numbered years the female or emotional side will be stronger. It is no accident that U.S. elections are on even numbered years where emotion reaches a high point.

Jan 7, 2012

Re: Big Bang Theory

It’s one of my favorite shows.

I also like Revenge, Chuck, The Mentalist ,Hell on Wheels, Castle, The Middle, Two and a Half Men, and Fringe.

Jan 9, 2012

Re: A question for JJ on the Face of Jesus.

This gives me an idea for a group assignment. There are two portraits online where the artists claimed to paint Jesus from actually seeing him. The first is the one you mentioned by Akaine at:

The second is by Glenda Green at:

Take a look and these two and see if either registers as a true image.

Next go to Google image search at:

Type in “Jesus portrait” and scroll through the images. If you see any that strike a chord give us a link with your impressions.

Jan 10, 2012

Re: A question for JJ on Jesus.

Thanks for your comments and participation on the face of Jesus. There is something one can say for sure about him if he were to come across a true picture which is this. The eyes would be interesting and exude intelligence and a strong life force. Take this picture for instance:

It is a composite put together using research and guesswork and though some ingredients may be more accurate than the traditional pictures the eyes are surely way off. The guy just doesn’t look very bright and if a person is truly intelligent it is revealed through the eyes as well as the whole look of the individual.

Other pictures make Jesus look weak, wimpy, and effeminate in a syrupy way. These type of pictures can be ruled out as being good representations

I do not see any pictures on the internet that strike me as being 100% accurate but some capture part of his essence. I would have to say that I like Akaine’s picture best at:

I did see one many years ago in a tabloid that impressed me as accurate. I cut it out and saved it for a long time and was finally lost in one of my moves. It hasn’t surfaced anywhere on the internet. I wish I had it to show it to you. I’m sure the group would be impressed.

It was painted by a lady who claimed to have had a vision of Christ when he was in his twenties. His hair wasn’t that long and he didn’t have a beard at the time, but it was the most interesting looking human being I had ever seen.

Ruth brings up an interesting item of discussion. If one has soul contact does this mean he would recognize a true picture of Jesus?

Not necessarily. If one had known Jesus in a past life this would be possible but if he had not then it would require true psychic powers rather than soul contact to bring forth the right image.

Remember soul contact deals with principles more than data. Sometimes when it is important the soul will send an impression on a piece of data but more often than not we are on our own to reason it out. On the other hand, the person with reliable soul contact is very capable in seeing true principles and how they play out in this reality.

Jan 10, 2012

Re: recognizing Jesus.

Dan: How about if the overshadowed Jesus were actually standing before us? It seems almost incomprehensible that MOST folks wouldn’t feel the impact – I suppose to some it would just evoke irritation rather than peace but SOMETHING would register in almost everyone wouldn’t it?

JJ The actual presence of a person is much different than a photo or painting. In this case soul contact is a great help for you can sense the aura of the person as well as his inner being. As I said before one with soul contact can recognize another with it in their physical presence and often in communication away from their presence.

Jan 12, 2012

Ron Paul & World War II

Ron Paul was drafted for service He had to go. FDR did not get the approval of Congress to help Churchill during the war before 1941 but had to bend the rules. His good judgment made a world of difference – something Ron Paul would have never done. I doubt if Paul would have declared war on Germany until they were at our shores.

Keith: Ron Paul may or may not have gone to to war in 1941 if he was President. There is no way for anybody to know for sure. I honestly do not know. My gut instinct tells me Ron Paul is being unfairly painted as an isolationist who would never go to war. I do not believe this is true.

JJ No one is saying he would never go to war. He has made it clear the conditions in which he would go to war though.

(1) The United States must be attacked by the enemy. (2) Congress must first officially declare war.

His statements indicate that he would have not responded to Hitler until he had attempted to invade our shores and that wouldn’t have happened until he had first conquered all of Europe and Russia. At the end of the war he was close to developing nuclear weapons and if he had some more time he would have had them available when the time came to attack us. Even so, with Iran Paul wants to do nothing to make them mad but will wait until they send a nuclear bomb somewhere.

As far as controlling spending and reducing the size of government I am with him 100%.

I would guess that Paul would have declared war on Japan but waited on Germany even though they were allies. Their alliance was not that tight before the U.S. got into the war. I’m not even sure he would have declared war on Japan since Hawaii was not yet a state. After all he was opposed to even going after the terrorists in Afghanistan (after 911) until a revolt by his staff changed his vote at the last minute:\ nistan-invasion-staff-threatened-mutiny/

I’m not saying he wouldn’t have done anything after Pear Harbor, but not sure he would have retaliated with an all out war. If he was set on not retaliating for 9/11 then it is probable he would have been reluctant to do much because of Pearl Harbor, specially since Hawaii was not a state.

Here is additional powerful evidence I am correct with his own words:

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP’s leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a moral imperative.

“I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn’t”

“I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that,” Shapiro wrote.

(Like someone on their own was going to make war with Hitler),7340,L-4167841,00.html


Jan 12, 2012

Inside Ron Paul’s Mind

Here’s another quote, this time from a former member of Ron Paul’s staff, Eric Dondero: Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that saving the Jews, was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just blowback, for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views.

Jan 13, 2012

Re: Ron Paul Predictions

Keith: The only part I slightly disagree with is your assessment that we are not in a dollar crisis. I think we have been in a dollar crisis for a few years now.

JJ I think you misread me there. Here was the dialog.

Ron Paul: An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.

My response: Didn’t happen. Interest rates have been very low over the past 10 years.

What didn’t happen was a dramatic rise in the interest rates due to any dollar crisis. I made no statement saying there was or was not a dollar crisis. It’s up to interpretation whether one would call the current instability of the dollar a crisis, but there is certainly a danger with it considering the world situation. The danger from the European situation is much greater right now than the fact that we have printed so much money.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here


After New Hampshire

This entry is part 2 of 40 in the series 2012A

Now that the New Hampshire voting is over I thought I would give a rundown on my views of the presidential contenders for the Republican party.

(1) Romney. With two wins it looks like his chances are improving to get the nomination. All may not be smooth sailing however because the other candidates are ganging up on him. Gingrich and Santorum have received substantial contributions lately, Rick Perry still has cash and if Jon Huntsman gets some help from his rich father he could wind up doing some damage. The there’s Ron Paul with lots of cash who goes after anyone he doesn’t like or agree with.

I’ll cover the rest of the candidates and then go back to Romney.

(2) Ron Paul. I agree with many of his libertarian stands as far as they support liberty and financial common sense but many of his views I consider to be anti libertarian, especially his isolationism. I think that if he were president instead of FDR that he wouldn’t have assisted Churchill and Hitler would have conquered England and all Europe. It is doubtful he would have developed the atomic bomb whereas Hitler would have and would have eventually invaded us with him having atomic weapons and us being ill prepared, but standing on some obscure principles of supposed non interference and supposed freedom.

Today we face new Hitlers and Ron Paul wants to just leave them be to establish a new incarnation of Nazism that we fought so hard to defeat in the last century.

Whoever is president should demonstrate the power to use good judgment but the trouble with Paul is he has everything formulated in black and white and doesn’t seem to leave any wiggle room for making judgments out of the box when necessary.

I see his core group of supporters remaining strong and enthused but the 23% in New Hampshire will most likely be near his high point in votes.

(3) Huntsman came in third in New Hampshire. Earlier he said that if he didn’t win in this state that he would drop out of the race. Well, he came in third and he’s more determined than ever to stay in and bring Romney down. Even though Ron Paul beat him for second place by five points Huntsman has the gall to proclaim that he really came in second. Why? Because Ron Paul doesn’t count.

This idiotic statement by itself is enough to turn me off of Huntsman. I’m no fan of Ron Paul but he does indeed count and most take him much more seriously than Huntsman.

I’d vote for Huntsman over Obama but there is something about his demeanor that rubs me the wrong way. He exudes an atmosphere of superiority that I think a lot of people sense and are turned off by. For instance, he seems smug about the fact that he accepts the orthodox view of global warming and sees skeptics as “anti-science.” This is not true at all for the true scientific method has to include a hearty dose of skepticism.

(4) New Gingrich. When I learned he was entering the race I told myself that if he wanted my support he had to do something to redeem himself for appearing with Nancy Pelosi in support of orthodox global warming propaganda.

Instead of changing my mind he has only reinforced the idea that he is capable of making big mistakes that is unbecoming a president.

He started out with an air of superiority himself by claiming to be the only candidate who was going to remain positive to the end. Well, he took an about face on that idea after Romney ads took him out of the picture in Iowa. He has now turned into the most negative candidate I have seen in my life. He seems more determined to destroy Romney than he is to become president. He’s like the general who turns on his own troops in anger while forgetting that he has a real enemy to fight.

On top of this Newt has attacked Romney as a supporter of “predatory capitalism.” Obama and the Wall Street protesters couldn’t have come up with a better attack phrase. When I have heard him attack Romney’s efforts in capitalism the past few days I hear words that could have come from socialist Bernie Sanders.

(5) Santorum. As expected Santorum took a hit in New Hampshire and is unlikely to win much in the future. To his credit he hasn’t joined the chorus in attacking free enterprise. His big drawback is he comes across as too religious and places lopsided attention on social issues. Reagan was a conservative, but he placed over 80% of his attention on the economy and national security. I believe that this is where the majority of Americans want the president to put his attention.

The biggest problem I have with Santorum is his bad judgment and lack of self control. When he was running again Hillary and debating her he left his podium, walked over to hers and challenged her. That really seemed to infringe on her space and was a big item in his defeat.

Several times in the current debates he ran into overtime and then interrupted other candidates, stealing their time talking over them. That really rubbed me the wrong way.

Our president must be more than a pure ideologist but must be composed and have to self-control to use correct speech and timing in dealing with world leaders.

(6) Perry He seems to be a lightweight lacking gravitas similar to Santorum and also spoke out of order during the debates. He clinched my rejection of him when he called Romney’s legitimate business ventures “vulture capitalism.” He appeared to be attempting to out due Newt in the attack capitalism department.

This brings me back to Romney. He may not be the perfect candidate but he is head and shoulders above the rest of the bunch. I think a lot of the criticism of him is misplaced and he seems to have good self control and presence that will be needed in dealing with world leaders.

Agreeing with me is only part of what I look for in a president. If he agrees with me but doesn’t have presence of mind to avoid insulting world leaders and possibly leading to an unnecessary conflict then he is not for me.

Overall I think Romney has the best judgment of the bunch and if elected president I believe he will eventually be compared to Reagan.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here