Nov 2, 2011
Re: Morals and Legality
Blayne: Might does not make right or legal. That is essentially your argument;
JJ You’re only half right. I am saying that might does not make right, but might does create what is judged to be legal by Constitutional authorities.
Blayne: I wonder if the congress ever passed a law like I described that it was okay for congressmen and judges to rape any woman at will would that inspire the majority to stand up and say no that is illegal and even take up arms to enforce the majority will if necessary?
JJ They haven’t passed anything that outrageous but they have passed laws that so offended public consciousness that the people have forced change. The Kansas-Nebraska Act expanding slavery caused extreme outrage. The Jim Crow laws motivated Martin Luther king to lead millions of black and whites to support repealing them. Woman rebelled against the Constitution rejecting their right to vote as well as other laws preventing them from having control over their own property. Obamacare is certainly causing a lot of people to object and has fueled the Tea Party.
In Boise many years ago they passed a law that it is illegal to fish from a giraffe’s neck. That didn’t seem to have any teeth. I’m not sure if that was someone’s version of moral natural law or what.
Nov 3, 2011
Happy birthday Keysters
Last weekend marks the 13th anniversary of the Keys of Knowledge group. The group entity is now a teenager. Rick
JJ Time flies when you are having fun. I’m glad you nudged me into doing this ahead of my personal schedule.
Nov 3, 2011
Re: Morals and Legality
Using a definition of words that does not match the mainstream use changes nothing, but if we change the accepted laws which may not be just then we have accomplished something.
It doesn’t matter that much how words are defined. What matters is how we use those words to communicate.
LWK In our system a legislative act that passes the required steps is in fact the law unless challenged and overturned by the courts. I don’t see any other practical way to do it. One can say “illegal” all one wants but it is the law if passed unless challenged and overturned.
JJ I would guess that about 99% of the people would agree with you on this Larry s well as the Founding Fathers.
Blayne: Might does not make legal.
JJ Might has determined what is legal since the beginning of time. What makes you think otherwise????
Just because you or I think something should be doesn’t mean that’s the way it is.
Nov 3, 2011
Re: The First Point 101
Duke: I wonder which side they (the South) would have taken in World War Two, and whether that would have tipped the scales.
JJ There’s no way to know for sure but I would say there is at least a 50/50 chance they would have supported Germany. especially if they still had a grudge against the North and they were supporting the Allies.
Apologists think that slavery would have died a natural death within a few years, but I do not think so. The South was working to expand it to the West, Cuba and Central America. It was so embedded I don’t think they would have given it up without a fight.
Nov 4, 2011
Re: Morals and Legality
Blayne: Not true people have also practiced right actions or what’s legal without being forced since the beginning of time too.
JJ What people practice has absolutely nothing to do with determining what is legal. Even the most virtuous of laws can only be made and enforced through the might of the government. If there is no penalty attached then the law has no power. I myself, virtuous guy that I am, would go over 40 MPH in most 20 MPH zones if it were not for a possible penalty.
Blayne: Just because some circumstance the way it is does not make it legal.
JJ Because you are attached to only one definition of legal (even though there are several in the dictionary) this makes it almost impossible to communicate with you about law. You stick to your extreme minority definition and will not speak the sane language as others do here concerning legality or see where they are coming from.
It is a fact that you ignore that the powers-that-be determine what is legal and not your own version of what is moral.. Thank God, for if we let everyone do that we could have slavery again for half the country used to think that was a natural right.
Blayne: According to your logic if the local Mafia forces you to pay protection money or be harmed that makes it legal. After all that is the way it is…
JJ I’ve already dealt with this reasoning. The Mafia has no constitutional power to make or enforce law. But if they did control the government then what they passed would be legal.
Nov 4, 2011
Cool Topic
Perhaps I can illustrate the communication problem we have with Blayne on laws and legal if I illustrate with a different word. We’ll use the word “cool.”
Jim: That’s a cool song.
Bob: You’re wrong. Cool means a low temperature and a song has no temperature. It cannot be cool.
Jim: But there’s more than one definition of cool. I’m not talking about temperature. I’m saying that was a good song.
Bob: But cool, hot and cold can only be measured in degrees. A thing has to have natural form and mass to be cool. A song has neither.
Jim: You’re not listening. I’m not talking about cool as related to temperature but to the quality of a thing.
Bob: But cool is always related to temperature.
Jim: Where do you get that idea?
Bob: That was the original meaning. Any change of the meaning is just a corruption.
Jim sighs…
Even so, what is called natural moral law is as different from the legalities necessary to legally execute Awlaki as the two definitions of cool.
When I asked if it was legal I wasn’t asking if it conformed to your version of what is moral nor was I referencing anyone elses version of morality but merely a legality that would be accepted in a current court of law.
Nov 5, 2011
Conclusion
This Awlaki discussion has probably run its course. We could continue dissecting but the point has been made. And what was that?
Remember that we began this discussion to illustrate two things.
(1) How difficult it is to resolve communication problems through the Internet. It is bad enough in person but here the process is much slower and sometimes sluggish. The one advantage is we can access facts through the Internet and take the time to sift through them as the discussion moves forward.
(2) The difficulty in reaching union when there is a strong disagreement. When we attempt to create a molecule it is important we approach it realistically. By examining this disagreement and others in the past I think we can see what we are up against in getting a group of 24 or more to reach the union necessary to achieve group soul contact.
I was hoping to get this disagreement to the point where we could narrow the focus down to a principle so we could attempt to reach union through the soul, but we haven’t come close to this.
Instead we got stuck on the definition of words which is about a million miles from finding the principles involved. The soul has no interest whatsoever in how society determines their terms, but how words, however they are defined, are used in dealing with principles.
If you can get down to the principles involved in an argument two or more sensitive people can reach harmony through the soul.
The first molecule will have to be composed of people who have been tested in group activity and are in basic harmony with each other on core principles and attitude toward life.
Here is a brief assessment of the Anwar Al-Awlaki case.
Was the assassination legal? The evidence seems to indicate it was but there are dissenters. The ACLU is going to file a lawsuit and if it goes to trial a final legality will be decided.
Is Awlaki guilty of a crime?
There are enough of his own words and witnesses to his words to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an enemy to the United States and is likely guilty of treason.
Did Obama do the right thing in taking Awlaki out?
I think we should take out all the active enemies of this country that we can but the fact that he was an American citizen made the situation problematic and should have been handled differently. They should have first revoked his American citizenship, made the details of his crimes available to Congress and the people and then taken him out.
Nov 5, 2011
Re: Blayne’s Blindspot
Blayne: … as long as [The Constitution] is the law the federal government is supposed to follow it sure would be nice if they actually followed it…
LWK I absolutely agree with that idea.It is kind of useless to have a “law of the land” that in many instances is largely ignored or twisted in interpretation into something entirely different.
Perhaps this highlights a mistake that the Founders made. It was their intention to make it difficult to change the Constitution and therefore the amendment process is very difficult, and impeaching judges who largely ignore it is similarly difficult. It might have been easier for the government to adhere to a Constitution and replace errant judges who blatantly misinterpret it if it weren’t quite to hard to change in the first place.
JJ Good points Larry. If there is some law our representatives do not like they will just ignore it whether it be in the Constitution or some law passed through Congress. Illegal aliens is typical. There are plenty of laws on the books that would take care of the problem if enforced but their solution is to just create more laws.
There’s still a law saying we can’t fish from a giraffe’s neck here in Boise, but no one is stopping anyone from doing it. They are ignoring that law!
Nov 5, 2011
Re: laissez faire thought experiment
Putting thieves and rapists in jail does not interfere with the workings of karma but enhances it. It secures the rights for those with good karma so they can live in freedom as they deserve. As far as payback for bad karma goes – if they can’t get it here there are hellholes like North Korea and Afghanistan reserved to take care of lots of negative karma various entities have accumulated.
The enhanced karma I was talking about is the good karma. That takes some law and order to secure for the just. There’s always plenty of opportunity for the bad guys to receive their just due – that is until Zion is established.
Natalie: When Zion is established what will happen to those “bad guys” who have not yet received their just due?
JJ As we move toward a more peaceable society with less violence and tyranny there will be fewer opportunities for those with a cruel or selfish nature to pay off their karma and many of these will not be able to incarnate. As a result of a better situation more people with good karma will incarnate causing society to improve.
Don’t worry about the bad guys though for they will eventually get another chance.
Nov 6, 2011
Thoughts on Oneness
I’ve been contemplating the unresolved differences we have had lately and have some thoughts to share.
The question that might arise in these discussions, not only with Blayne, but others in the past is this.
How is it that any two sincere seekers cannot resolve their differences when both have had a degree of soul contact in the past?
The answer is this. The language of the soul is the language of principles. To resolve differences you have to distil away the non-essentials until you are left with the pure language of principles. It is then that differences can be resolved.
To understand this let us examine the principles involved in the argument that I (and others) have had with Blayne.
(1) The Principle of Freedom. This relates to decisions, actions, plans, procedures, laws, etc that bring the greatest amount of freedom to the largest possible number of people.
I believe that Blayne and I both heartily accept this principle.
(2) Laws are a branch under the Principle of Order, which are under the Principle of Creation. Just laws should therefore enhance order and creativity, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some laws made and accepted by man conform to true principles and some do not.
(3) The Principle of Justice. I believe that both Blayne and I accept this and want it to prevail.
(4) The Principle of Judgment. Good judgment is necessary in the creating and application of law as they apply to humanity
I think that Blayne and I agree on these basic principles and if we had a discussion just dealing with them we would most likely be in harmony and open to group soul contact. So what causes the actual differences then?
The problem arises when we take our focus off true principles and put them on details that are not principles.
The biggest detail that has been a problem is the definition of “legal.”
The reason that arguing over definitions is a lost cause is that they have nothing to do with any of the principles of the argument. Instead, words can be used in any language with any definition to communicate true principles. Communication of principles is not dependent on how words are defined. If it were one could never explain a principle in French or Spanish as all the words are different there.
Every time I have had an augment with someone who reverts to the dictionary or some other source to prove the meaning of words I know the argument is going nowhere.
On the other hand, every time that I have been in harmony with someone there is never a need to define a word to prove anything.
Why?
Because two people touching the soul together can understand each other and sense the meaning of the communication even if some of the words may not seem to be used exactly right.
When Jesus said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” his enemies thought he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem, but those closest to him knew he was speaking of his body.
When we are close to someone and tune into them then we will know what they mean even if they use words differently than we personally define them.
Now Blayne thinks a law is not legal if it does nor conform to the morality of natural law. That’s fine and I accept that he thinks this way.
The problem is the question was not related to this definition but to how the legal system of today defines legal. When a judge, police officer or attorney uses the word “legal” he means something different than Blayne does. Since Blayne does not seem to recognize legal by the common use today (and this is what the discussion was supposed to be about) we had a huge communication gap.
The gaps create the illusion that we disagree on principles when we do not.
Maybe I should have asked Blayne something like this. “Was Obama’s action legal as seen though this corrupt system where everything is going to hell in a handbasket?”
Maybe that would have worked.
Anyway the key to union is to tune into each other so true communication can be established.
Note to Duke: You asked a good question. I’ll deal with it shortly.
Nov 7, 2011
The Two Definitions
Re: Jefferson’s inspiring wording
Larry, my friend. Your feelings seemed to be hurt over something. I don’t think that anyone had any intention of hurting you. All of us regulars seem to take turns being fiercely disagreed with at one time or another, but that does not mean that anyone is showing disrespect.
We want to have an atmosphere where all are free to speak their minds as long as they remain fairly civil.
As far as this problem with Jefferson and principles go, there seems to be some miscommunication going on. I don’t think we will disagree when we understand each other.
Dan quoted JJ, “He (JJ) says that Jefferson’s version is “true on the level that he meant to communicate them” (emotionally inspiring) and then winds it all up by saying Jefferson’s version is “more inspiring than the TECHNICAL TRUTH”.”
Larry Woods says,
JJ is inconsistent here.
JJ To be inconsistent I would have to teach one thing at one time and then something contrary another time. I do not see where this happened in anything you are referring to.
Larry ALL principles are pure and pristine on the intuitive plane. But when we bring them down to the three worlds of form they get messy.
JJ You’re making my point, though I would use the word “obscured,” or something to that effect. The person understanding a principle can put it in the clearest possible language yet there are still many that will not understand most of it. Principles are the language of the soul and can only be communicated in fullness through the soul.
Larry Dan points out that JJ offered two “real world” alternative wordings for Jefferson’s statement of the underlying principles of good law. Dan also points out that JJ said Jefferson was not technically correct because his famous Declaration wording does not cover all aspects of practical use (all the exceptions) where these principles run into messy problems in the worlds of form. However, the same can be said of ALL PRINCIPLES, including all the principles JJ teaches.
JJ Yes, just about all principles as taught to humankind are not technically, or literally, correct as taught by anyone. That is one of the weaknesses of human communication. This reality should not bother any seeker, but should encourage him to look to the soul of messages more than the exact meaning of the individual words.
Larry Using JJ’s technical correct doctrine that he applies to say Jefferson was wrong will shoot down everything that every human ever taught about higher truth.
JJ Where do you get such an idea? Words describing or using a principle merely point the way to truth, but rarely reveal the whole truth of a principle. I do not believe that Jefferson was wrong, but he was extremely correct in wording the Declaration the way he did. Sure he could have worded it differently and been more wordy to make sure he wasn’t misunderstood, but the soul of the message would have been lost.
Larry JJ seems to be saying that articulating ideal truth from the higher realm of Intuition is always incorrect because those truths always run into exceptions when expressed in the lower three worlds of form,
JJ You totally misunderstand me here as I have not in the past or the present said such things. There are no exceptions to truth as I have said many times, “the truth is true and nothing else is true.” There are no exceptions to principles. They are what they are.
What I have said there are exceptions to man made rules, laws, procedures and courses of action. One can never set a course that will be right all the time and a principle lies behind this interesting fact.
Larry it’s like he is saying truth is not technically correct.
JJ Where are you getting this? The way we all attempt to express truth is rarely technically correct but truth is technically correct. 2+2=4 and nothing else is the true answer. On the other hand, if I were to attempt to tell you tomorrow’s weather, the truth is, it would be a guess. My prediction would be subject to change.
Larry So I expect JJ will soon go back and reword everything he ever said about principles so he can get it “technically correct” enough to account for all the exceptions those principles run into when expressed down here in the real world.
JJ Again, where are you getting such thoughts? Certainly not from anything I have said. No, I’m not going to go back and reword everything I’ve said about principles. There are no exceptions to principles. For instance, if there is a cause then there is an effect – always.
A lot of what I have written about principles is not technically correct and it would be counterproductive to attempt to get them all technically correct because they are understood through the soul when the sensitive seeker is pointed in the direction of seeing the principle.
Larry: The question is, will JJ continue to discuss eternal principles while not allowing Jefferson to do the same?
JJ Wow, Larry, I’ve never seen you come to such strange conclusions before. What is going on in your mind?
Thomas Jefferson is free to come back from the dead and discuss all the principles he wants as are you. Why would you think otherwise?
Larry: Will JJ from now on qualify everything he ever says about words that do not pass away exposing all the exceptions they might ever run into in the real world so he can remain “technically correct”?
JJ You seem to think that I think it is important to always be technically correct because the subject has come up. Why would you think this? It may be important as far as legal matters go but it is not a big deal in teaching metaphysics. In teaching principles the important thing is to communicate the essence of things and paint a picture for the student.
When Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free,” he was not technically correct either, but he painted a picture that leads to principles and greater understanding. A book could be written on it, yet if one just reads it literally he will have little understanding.
The same is true of Jefferson’s words. His words are lost in the literal thinking of many but lead to soul truths for those who contemplate and see the bigger picture.
Larry: Is it true that eternal principles are not technically correct
JJ When a principle is seen and understood it is correct in every way. But we do not see the fullness of a principle through technically correct literal words. One must look through the eyes of the soul at the picture painted by the words.
Larry: Is there a “technically correct” principle out there that precludes the simple articulation of eternal truth unless you accompany it with many “real world” qualifiers? Let me try it. Jesus erred when he said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
JJ Again, Jesus was not technically correct but his words painted a picture of a principle which can lead to right human relations.
If one just goes by the literal meaning he could turn some friends into enemies.
Let us ay that I like someone to wake me at 6 AM every day. My wife, on the other hand, wants to sleep til 8 AM. Because I take Jesus literally I wake her at 6 AM. She is angry and I think: “The Golden Rule does not work.”
I would be wrong. It does work when the principle is seen. Waking my wife when I want to be awakened violates the principle, but seems literally correct.
Larry: One more thing, we have a masterful articulation of the principles of good government from Jefferson in the Declaration. Why would we ever want to say it fails the technically correct test?
JJ We had argued for days and a good portion of the argument was different understandings of Jefferson’s words. When something like this happens then this is the time to further analyze the words and attempt to see what is technically correct as well as the principles involved. If we do nothing then there is no chance of reaching agreement. If we attempt to clarify then there is a chance.
Larry: These words give us one of the very best opportunities where people let down their heart wall so that we can teach truth about law.
JJ The trouble was that Blayne and others had major disagreements about law with respect to Jefferson’s words so further analysis was necessary.
Larry Why would we want to cast it in a bad light?
JJ Again where did you get this notion??? No one cast anything Jefferson said in a bad light – especially me. I have nothing but praise for the Declaration of Independence. I don’t think it could have been worded better.
Larry: You like JJ’s new teaching about technically correct way of stating principles.
JJ There is no new or old teaching about being technically correct about stating principles. Often times it is not desirable.
Larry: Show us how this new rule works out when we post so we won’t have to get corrected for technical blunders as that blunderer Thomas did.
JJ No one said Jefferson blundered and there is no new rule. What’s got into you today? You usually understand me quite well.
Larry: Yea, I like this new method of discussing principles by always stating every exception we can cover all the bases and always recognize that stating actual principles is NEVER technically correct in our real world, plus we don’t have to worry about stepping on any toes. This will be great fun. I’m glad JJ advocates this whenever TJ speaks in the Declaration.
JJ Larry, you are totally misrepresenting me here. This is not like you.
Larry I’m also glad he will follow his own rule from now on
JJ There is no rule except in your mind.
Larry: because it will shed much light on how technically correct truth actually works out in our discussions about real life. I’m anxious to see what the KOK looks like from now on with Dan and Ruth policing everyone who breaks the rule or who expresses any questions about the rule, I’ll check in next year…
JJ Again, there is no rule and I hope your offense gets healed shortly so we can have the good ole positive Larry back.
Nov 7, 2011
The Two Definitions
Principles (was Re: Jefferson’s inspiring wording)
Here are a few things I have written on principles.
Principles: What a principle is.
A fact is merely a piece of information that anyone can incorporate into their brain memory. It can likewise be programmed into a computer. A principle is a different matter. A principle is the underlying truth that makes all facts valid. It requires judgment to use and cannot be programmed into a computer.
For instance, the Constitution of the United States is built around the principle of the Free Agency of man. Around this principle has sprung the Constitution and thousands of books containing millions of facts. In the days of the foundation of this country there was only a handful of enlightened people who were able to understand the principle of freedom. People of a lower order could not see it. There was no way that King George from England could teach or enlighten George Washington in any degree on this principle even though he probably had as many facts in his head on the subject as Washington did. On the other hand, Washington could have done much to enlighten the King if he was willing to listen.
It takes a thousand facts to paint a clear picture of one principle, but the understanding of one principle reveals thousands of facts. It takes a certain point in the evolution of the human being to comprehend the difference between a principle and a fact but when he does, and learns to go within and touch the soul, then all the understanding and vision of a principle is revealed in a flash. Sometimes a book can be written about a principle revealed in one instant.
What is the difference between a principle and a law?
A principle is that which demonstrates the intelligence of God and makes things in the universe work toward a dominating good.
A law is a description of the working of a principle, or principles. By law I am referring to universal laws and not manmade rules.
If the law is accurately described then the perfection of God is made manifest because such a description shows the consistency of the principle and allows us to predict the future actions of the mind of God in the universe.
For instance, all form is held in place through the principle of magnetism which is an aspect of the principle of Love.
All the laws we have concerning gravity are produced by observing and describing this principle in action.
Within our souls is the capability of recognizing whether or not a thing is true. When a principle is spoken, you’ll feel within yourself the vibration of certain chords that ring true.
A principle is true yesterday, today and forever, but knowledge (as data) changes by the hour (the temperature for example). The language of the Holy Spirit is composed of principles, not data. To know all things in the language of the spirit is to know all principles.
True principles are always in effect all around us. The universe is built upon true principles, held together by them and will be dissolved by them. True principles govern our lives, our deaths, our relationships, our sorrow and our joys.
The bird flies making use of true principles, yet does not understand the principle of flight or realizes it exists. So it is with us. We live in a sea of principles, which governs all things, yet until we touch the soul we do not even realize what a principle is.
Many of the best authors touch upon a principle. Some have a sense of that which they have discovered, while others do not discern them from facts. Sometimes you can find a principle in a book written by an author that does not know what a principle is.
A principle is not created. A principle is always present and always works without beginning or end.
Take the principle of cause and effect. Was there ever a time that it did not work? Cause and effect has always been here and always will.
Take another principle:
**If there is no beginning there will be no end.
No one created this; it just exists past, present and future. Take a look at any true principle and you will see it had no creation, but just always is and always works and cannot be destroyed.
I think that truth, as a principle, is so abstract, that it needs its own “vehicle” in order to manifest. So, we have to speak of “knowledge of the truth” or “the light of truth”. When the light of truth is thrown on a conflict (illusion versus illusion), the illusion is swept away and the conflict vanishes.
A principle is an enunciation of what is. A principle isn’t made. A principle is eternal and it always is. Like Newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He discovered a principle. From that he was able to deduce a multitude of truths.
The truth that makes us free is found in the understanding of true principles.
The challenge for us to advance from facts and data to the language of principles and then, when a principle is understood, advance to a higher principle still.
There is a hierarchy of truth. The bottom of the hierarchy is truth manifesting on the physical plane. At the top of the hierarchy is the truth that there is One Great Life we call God. I am only stating God as a fact, a piece of data, because the principle behind God is a great mystery which has never been revealed.
As we advance from physical plane truth to truth on the higher planes, that which binds us is loosed and greater freedom is obtained.
A principle is true yesterday, today and forever, but knowledge (as data) changes by the hour (the temperature for example). The language of the Holy Spirit is composed of principles, not data. To know all things in the language of the spirit is to know all principles.
Let’s compare us to a slug. We don’t really know anything about the slug’s world but our knowledge is much higher than that of the slug. Just as we’re thinking on a much higher level so are the higher lives whose language is the language of principles where they can communicate principles, which is equal to thousands of pieces of data in one instant. They communicate without knowing anything about the data because they don’t need to know the data. They only need to know the principle. So when the principle is communicated by the higher lives, the lower type of knowledge isn’t even necessary but the lower type of knowledge can be discovered if it’s important for it to be discovered. When a principle is communicated to us we can translate that principle into a language we can understand by explaining it with a lot of data. The higher lives don’t have to do that.
Nov 9, 2011
Re: OT: Proof that the devil is in the details
Duke: In 1289 Italian painter Giotto di Bondonne painted a series of frescos on the wall of the Basillica of St. Francis of Assissi. Hidden in the clouds of one is the face of a devil, which apparently went unnoticed for over seven centuries, up until very recently. Just goes to show that the old adage is indeed true: The devil really is in the details.
Link
JJ The fact that the presence of the devil was missed for 700 years really illustrates the principle that you find what you are looking for.
This link has closeups that are much easier to see:
Link
Nov 9, 2011
Law of Rebirth
Natalie is attempting to create a group and expressed interest in having some type of lesson plan to teach from. I put together some basics years ago using a question and answer technique. Often just throwing one question at an audience can lead to quite a lot of discussion.
I’ll post a few of these lessons which all are free to use. Sooner or later I’ll add to them and fine tune them.
The first one is here:
Dan: If more advanced people are needed to form a molecule, it seems to me it might be useful to develop lesson plans that are more philosophical and not so scripture-centric in order to attract them.
JJ You are correct. I wrote these original lessons around 30 years ago when I was attempting to reach out to the Mormons and regular Christians. To expand their usefulness more cosmopolitan versions need to be written, which I plan to do. In the meantime these lessons will be useful in some circles.
Susan: Initiates of classes (class leaders) have the calling to create the lesson plans. It is not on JJ’s shoulders to spoon feed us everything. You are quite capable of developing lesson plans Dan if you truly feel called to have them. I have faith in you. 🙂
JJ Some teachers will need a little help and structure and others will want to put together their own lesson – maybe from material that I haven’t even covered. We want teachers to feel free to use their creativity. I think though that making lessons available will help some feel more confident in starting some classes.
Nov 11, 2011
Promising New Energy Source
Copyright 2011 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