Giving Away Our Power

This entry is part 11 of 31 in the series 2011B

Now we come to the final possible action that could restore us on the path of prosperity.

(10) Restoring the power to create money to our elected representatives, as specified in the Constitution, instead of farming this out to private enterprise.

Throughout most of history, from the time of the ancient goldsmiths to the bankers and now the privately owned Federal Reserve it has been the practice of kings, emperors and presidents to borrow money from those that lend and burden their people with the high interest on the loans that ever accumulates until the collapse of the kingdom.

The United States has proved to be no exception to this practice. As of this writing we have borrowed over $14 trillion and pay around $450 billion yearly in interest. At the rate the interest is increasing it will not be long before every dollar collected through federal income tax will be owed to interest and do nothing to reduce the principle.

One has to wonder why we allowed ourselves to get into this situation when the Constitution (Section Eight) provides us with a brilliant way to escape debt and interest. It says Congress has the power “to coin money, and regulate the value thereof.”

Since Congress has Constitutional power to coin (create) money this is one of the jobs our representatives have taken upon themselves to do – right?

Not quite. It is true that the taxpayers do bear the expense of minting coins and printing paper money. The only reason the government has retained this power to themselves is because it is a costly process and bankers do not want to do it.

Only about 3% of the money supply is composed of paper or coins. Economic writer Ellen H. Brown tells us this:

“The other 97 percent exists only as data entries on computer screens, and all of this money was created by banks in the form of loans.

“The money that banks lend is not recycled from pre-existing deposits. It is new money, which did not exist until it was lent.

Thirty percent of the money created by banks with accounting entries is invested for their own accounts.”
Web of Debt by Ellen H. Brown, 2008, Page 3

So it looks like all the new money put into circulation comes from three sources.

(1) 30% of it comes from banks investing in their own pet projects.

(2) Loans to businesses and individuals.

(3) Loans to our government.

When loans are repaid the money is virtually destroyed (withdrawn from the system) and must be replaced by new loans. This is one reason that the Fed likes to make loans to the government. The money is never paid back. We only pay on the interest and leave the principle untouched.

Many people who are concerned about overspending complain that the government just prints up money that is created out of thin air, but this is a misconception. Except for a small amount of hard cash the new money the government puts into circulation is not printed or created by it but by the Federal Reserve, and, as mentioned previously, this is a private company, not owned by the people.

Here’s the situation. Our Congress, which has been granted power to create money by the Constitution, has yielded that power to a private corporation. This corporation does not even have the expense of printing money but merely enters the loans on a computer database and charges us the interest from that point on.

It is difficult to imagine an individual giving away his power in such an outrageous manner but if he did it would go something like this.

Don has a bountiful cherry tree in his back yard. Anytime he wants some cherries all he has to do is walk outside, go up to the tree and pick all he needs. Better yet he has a kid that loves to pick cherries so all Don has to do is ask the kid to go pick him some and he has all he needs.

The neighbor notices the kid picking cherries and comes up with an idea to make a profit. He approaches Don and says, “I’ll tell you what. I’ll manage your kid’s cherry picking to make sure he doesn’t pick too many or not enough. All the cherries I will have your kid deliver to you will be considered a loan and I’ll only charge you 5% of the value of the cherries until you pay the cherries back. Sometimes the rate could be more or less but we’ll settle on this amount for now. But rest assured, I’ll make sure you have cherries whenever you need them.”

Now Don’s wife hit him on the head with a frying pan that morning so he wasn’t thinking too clearly. In an extremely fussy state of mind he said, “Yes, that sounds okay, I guess.”

All of Don’s friends and family thought Don was stark raving mad but he made an agreement and decided to honor it. It wasn’t long before the problem became worse than anyone foresaw. Don was unable to make any payment on the borrowed cherries – cherries from his own backyard – so as he used additional cherries the cherry debt became greater and the interest payment became huge.

Finally, the day came that the interest on the cherries amounted to a greater value than the cherries available to pick. It was at this point that Don finally awoke to his terrible situation, but, alas, it was too late. The neighbor laid claim to full ownership of the tree but made this nice little offer. “If you come work in my back yard and take care of my garden I’ll let you have a few cherries now and then.”

Sounds silly, doesn’t it? Most of us would not consider such a raw deal even if we got whacked in the head with a frying pan. But the amazing thing that is We The People have made a similar deal with our neighbor, the Federal Reserve.

Instead of creating our own money interest free we not only let someone else do this for us but we pay them interest on what should be our own money just as Don pays interest on his own cherries.

Is it any wonder our country is in trouble when our representatives are no smarter than Don?

Now we clearly see the problem the question is this: Is there anything we can do about it?

The answer, fortunately, is yes, for there is no problem that doesn’t have a solution and there is no hole that is so deep that one cannot climb out into the fresh air and sunlight of a better life.

Read This entire series. Here are the links.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Alternative Currency

This entry is part 10 of 31 in the series 2011B

(8) Expand alternative currencies &
(9) Bartering.

Today, in the United States there is only one medium of exchange universally recognized as money and that is the Federal Reserve Note, called the dollar. By law nothing else is allowed to compete with it.

However, this has not always been the case.

Before 1836 Banks issued their own currency with little or no regulation. 1836-1862 is called the free banking period by some, even though it was a period of increased regulations. During this time banks could still issue their own money.

As late as 1848 private concerns were allowed to issue their own gold and silver coins which were allowed to be used as money.

Things have changed. Banks no longer create their own monetary notes, but they are allowed to create money that is registered on a ledger. Their loans are mostly fiat money, an amount determined by a multiple of their deposits.

Privately coined or printed money is strictly forbidden in today’s world as Bernard von NotHaus has discovered. He started a company called “Liberty Services” and created a new coinage called Liberty Dollars, which were minted out of gold, silver platinum and copper.

Von NotHaus claimed his coins were not supposed to be competing U.S. currency, but coins to be used for barter exchange. Unfortunately for him the Feds did not accept this and considered him in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514.”[13] as well as 18 U.S.C. § 486:

Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

After a lengthy period of investigation he was convicted in 2011 of conspiracy and counterfeiting charges for making and selling the currency, which he promoted as inflation-proof competition for the U.S. dollar. He could serve up to 15 years in prison.

Even more troubling is that the government is seeking to confiscate for its own use $7 million in gold and silver from his company. I haven’t seen a good explanation as to why they can legally take the possessions of a private citizen, even if he is convicted of a crime.

This serves as a warning to those who desire to engage in the exchange of anything competing with Federal Reserve notes to make sure all their i’s are dotted and t’s crossed to make sure they are in violation of no laws.

The United States has some of the most restrictive laws in the world concerning competitive currency. Even so, there are legal ways to create something like currency that can be used legally. The main thing von NotHaus did wrong was to give his currency intrinsic value and give it the appearance of real federal money. A person looking at his coins might wonder if they were minted by the government and this is something that will not be tolerated.

Even with this Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of anyone involved in alternative currency quite a few versions have surfaced. Those who have ventured forth have adhered to two guidelines in an attempt to stay legal. The first is the alternative currency must not be coined as was the case with the Liberty Dollars. The second is the alternative money must not resemble any accepted United States currency.

In 1991 Paul Glover of Ithaca, New York created the most well known and longest lasing alternative currency called the Ithaca Hours. Notice that he cautiously called them “hours” rather than dollars. The value of an “hour” was an hour of labor or $10.00.

Ithaca hours has inspired other alternatives to spring up across the country such as the Bay Bucks in Michigan and BerkShares in Massachusetts.

Another alternative which has been around in several incarnations since 1983 is the Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Wikipedia gives this explanation of how they work:

1. Local people set up an organization to trade between themselves, often paying a small membership fee to cover administration costs

2. Members maintain a directory of offers and wants to help facilitate trades

3. Upon trading, members may ‘pay’ each other with printed notes, log the transaction in log books or online, or write checks which are later cleared by the system accountant.

4. Members whose balances exceed specified limits (positive or negative) are obliged to move their balance back towards zero by spending or earning.

LETS is a fully fledged monetary or exchange system, unlike direct barter. LETS members are able to earn credits from any member and spend them with anyone else on the scheme. Since the details are worked out by the users, there is much variation between schemes.

Because of federal restrictions and taxation of commercial use many of these attempts come and go within a year or so. Ithaca Hours is the exception.

However, during the Great Depression various forms of alternative currency surfaced in communities all over the country. If our economy sinks much lower this demand is likely to surface again.

It is interesting to note that many media of value are used today like they are money even though they are not considered currency. Here are a few:

1. Coupons.
These are not considered money, even by the IRS. Yet if you use a $5.00 coupon on the purchase of a $20.00 item you receive the same value as a $5.00 bill – assuming that the merchant didn’t jack the price up $5.00 before giving out the coupon.

2. Frequent Flyer Miles.
These are being exchanged for all kinds of purchases just like they were money.

3. Companies are issuing their own form of monetary credits that are used like money. For instance, a manufacturer may give out certificates of value as bonuses to employees that can be used to purchase anything the company sells. If the employee doesn’t need any items then he can trade it with outsiders for money or something else of value.

4. Promissory notes or contracts of sale. These are often discounted 20% or so but the remaining 80% is as good as gold.

5. Virtual currency. These are on the drawing board by a number of internet companies. Currently Facebook has “virtual credits” which are headed that direction.

6. Gold and Silver Coins
Utah, Virginia and other states are taking a cue from the Liberty Dollar idea and are seeking to make gold and silver coins legal tender. The hard times are causing different state governments to explore the idea of an alternative sound currency as a backup for a faltering dollar.

7. Barter
Barter suffered a major setback in the Eighties when the IRS insisted barter gains are taxable, but with the rise of Craig’s List it is becoming popular again. I have heard though that the IRS combs through Craig’s list seeking patrons who may be avoiding paying taxes on barter.

Far beyond this is the use of bartering with large companies and nations. Instead of paying with cash, gold or silver there is an increasing amount of exchange of various products where credits are accumulated and used like cash.

We are definitely headed toward a cashless society where almost all money will be digital. Even so, it would be wise to leave the door open to experiment with multiple forms of alternative currency, virtual and physical. Hopefully new legislation will allow diverse currency evolution to proceed.

Read This entire series. Here are the links.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Lincoln – Good or Evil?

This entry is part 9 of 31 in the series 2011B

Below is a compilation of dialog I had about Lincoln from the archives.

Feb 3, 2008
Blayne quoting JJ:
“Ron Paul sees Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and thinks he fought the Civil War to increase the power of government and the civil war was unnecessary. He would not have fought to free the slaves. He thinks the were close to being freed naturally. This is very naive thinking as the South was seeking to expand slavery in all directions in and out of the United States and were not about to let the slaves go free or support any legislation that would allow this.”

Blayne:
“This is a very naive statement. Lincoln did not fight to free the slaves, in his own words he stated:

“‘My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'”

JJ:
You left off an important part of the quote. He added:

“I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

I did not state the reason Lincoln went to war so you are not arguing against anything I said here. That said, yes Lincoln saw his prime “official duty” to save the union, but he also had an equally strong unofficial personal moral duty to free the slaves. He expressed a strong desire for this in many instances.

When he wrote this letter to Horace Greeley he was discouraged with the war to the extent that if there was some way he could save the union without freeing the slaves he would have done it for he was worried at the time that the war could be lost. As soon as the North began to see daylight he restored his attitude and ditched this momentary notion and added the freeing of the slaves to the agenda. This was a personal agenda of his throughout his life.

Blayne:
“He also rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.”

JJ:
He presented the highest concept of freeing the slaves that he felt the people could accept. Neither he or anyone else at that time thought the masses could accept racial equality. If he presented anything higher than he did then he would have been killed before Boothe got to him.

In actuality Lincoln took no steps to export the blacks after the war and seemed to have no intention of doing this though earlier in life he thought this may be the only acceptable solution.

Here is a good quote giving his views.

“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.” (Abraham Lincoln — Source: April 4, 1864 – Letter to Albert Hodges)

Blayne:
“Lincoln’s main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate.”

JJ:
And you think this because…?

The facts reveal otherwise. During the war, when South was separate, the Northern industrial power increased — not decreased. The economy in the North boomed and the South suffered severe depression. If Lincoln merely wanted financial dominance he did not need the South to stay in the Union. The greatest amount of wealth was created for the North during the war than any other time in history to that date. On the other hand, the South suffered numerous internal rebellions because of poverty.

Blayne:
“Lincoln also destroyed the original republic, he suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft and income taxes.”

JJ:

Habeas Corpus:

These actions did not destroy the Republic, but possibly saved it. Concerning habeas corpus Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Because of the rebellion the supreme court never found Lincoln’s actions unconstitutional.

The Draft:

Yes, Lincoln instituted the draft, but they also had a draft during the Revolutionary War. Were they also destroying the Republic? No they were creating it. The South alas had a draft.

Only 2 percent of union soldiers were the result of a draft. The rest were volunteers.

Income Tax:

Desperate times require desperate measures. He did institute a temporary tax of 3 percent on higher incomes. After the war habeas corpus was restored, the draft cancelled and income tax discontinued. How could these things destroy the Republic when they ceased to exist?

Blayne:
“And unlawfully attacked sovereign states who had every right to secede from the Union via the 10th amendment to the constitution since secession was not addressed in the constitution.”

JJ:
But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumpter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response.

Blayne:

“The congress was not legally in session since the southern representatives had left and on an on it goes.”

JJ:
Of course they were legally in session for the South was no longer part of the Union.

How about the Congress of the Southern States? Were they illegal also? Should neither side have any right to govern? That makes no sense for either side.

Confederate sympathizers often blast the North and Lincoln with criticism but neglect to mention that the South instituted a draft, suspended ex post facto law, nationalized industries, also started a income and profit tax, mandated hotels and railroads had to report to government offices who was staying at their hotel and riding the trains, the city of Richmond had a passport system in place for the coming and going of all citizens. See Jeffrey Hummel’s “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men” for a balanced libertarian perspective.

The fact is these were desperate times and desperate measure are always taken during such times and both sides did it — the South perhaps more than the North.

Blayne:
“Ron Paul simply said there was no need to fight the civil war and kill 600,000 Americans to end slavery He could have ended it without fighting slavery by buying the slaves and freeing them Instead of going to war and violating the sovereignty of the southern states and our constitution. By so doing caused quite a resentment toward blacks and the north that is still with us today.”

JJ:
As I said Lincoln tried to purchase the slaves freedom and the South wasn’t about to cooperate.

Blayne:
“Every other country-ended slavery without a war can you give any reason why we couldn’t have done the same?”

JJ:
Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor.

Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:40:55 -0600Subject: [Keysters] A Look at Lincoln

The Question:
What are the three ways that Lincoln altered the course of history for the better?

The first and obvious one is slavery. There are two groups that want to deny Lincoln any credit on this issue.

The first is the politically correct crowd who are rewriting texts books which teach the rising generation. Some of them only have a paragraph on Lincoln and give credit to the freeing of the slaves to anyone but him. If he is quoted they use a quote out of context that make it sound like his only goal was to save the union.

The second is a residual anti-Lincoln group which has never completely disappeared. These are joined by a few strong constitutionalists who adhere to states rights with little or no deviation. These also quote his few statements about saving the union as a prime goal and ignore his many arguments for freeing the slaves and making them equal with the whites.

Both if these groups judge Lincoln’s words with the politically correct standards of the present. As I said we could do this with any white person of more than a century ago and make him sound racist.

What is the truth?

Yes it is true that his prime goal was to save the union because he believed that if the union were not saved then we would wind up with a country that would not be free or worth living in for blacks or whites. Therefore, this was first in his mind.

Let me quote from a previous post: “Lincoln had publicly stated a number of times, even from his youth, that he had a desire to eliminate slavery and would do so if he ever had the opportunity. His most famous stance was made during the Lincoln Douglas debates where he stated that the United States was a house divided and as such cannot stand . It cannot exist half free and half slave. This famous debate brought him to national attention in a significant way for the first time.

“The South remembered his views when he became President and this was the main reason they seceded from the union, causing slavery to be a strong underlying cause of the war.

“During the war Lincoln made many comments , wrote many letters and had many debates with individuals about slavery and he definitely expressed a strong desire to eliminate the problem.

“As far as the Emaciation Proclamation goes. He took this step as far as was possible. He had the wisdom to realize that you can’t make major change in one giant leap so he always did what he could one step at a time.

“The next major step was taken in his second bid for the presidency, and keep in mind this was done during the heat of the war. At his urging the Republican platform supported the complete abolition of slavery and the introduction of the thirteenth Amendment.

“The platform stated that the President’s Proclamation aimed a “death blow at this gigantic evil,” and that a constitutional amendment was necessary to “terminate and forever prohibit it.”

“Lincoln was thus reelected on this platform making slavery a main issue of the continuance of the war during his second term.

“While Lincoln was still alive the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Ratification by the states was a sure thing at his death.”

So how about the argument that slavery would have naturally gone away if the civil war was not fought? After all other nations freed their slaves without war. What is left out of this idealism is that the majority of the states of the U.S. also freed their slaves without war. So why was the North and other nations able to do this? It is simple. The percentage of black slaves in the Northern States,. Britain, France and other nations was low compared to the Southern States. At the time of the Civil War there was a slave population of 3,500,000 out of a total of 9,000,000 people in the South. This was a total of about 39% of the population who were slaves. Unlike other nations who were considering the freeing of slaves the South sought to expand upon it and wanted slavery extended to western territories. The South was so dependent upon their slaves that without a war it could have existed another hundred years. Without the civil war I believe the civil rights era of the 1960’s would have been over slavery rather than the rights of the black man.

The second way Lincoln altered history for the better was in the preservation of the Union and holding intact the Country of the United States.

Now many think it would have been better to allows all states their right to secede and in normal times this may have been the right thing to do. But the reason the South wanted to secede was so they could practice slavery undisturbed (among other things). If therefore slavery was so perpetuated and secession was used for such a fowl purpose this would set a precedent for a further break up of the union for all kinds of lower purposes.

Consider the past and what happened to Rome when it started to break up. They lost all vestiges of good government and, even though Rome was not perfect, what followed was a period of the darkest hue with a loss of knowledge, education and technology unprecedented in history.

Could the break up of the union had been followed by a loss of the Constitution and all truths that were held self evident? Lincoln thought so and this was one reason he fought with all be had to preserve the union. Lincoln was an astute student of history and did not want to see it repeated in his country.

I personally believe he received a strong impression from the Hierarchy on the importance of preserving the union.

There is a time and place for all things. The time of Lincoln was the time to increase central control. Now is the time to work toward the opposite.

Civil War & More

Thu Feb 7, 2008 12:28 pm

Blayne quoting JJ:
“You left off an important part of the quote. He added: ‘I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.'”

Blayne the writes:
“A bit contradictory of him wouldn’t you agree? He could care less about freeing the slaves but desires all men to be free…”

JJ:
This is simply not true. His words bear witness time and time again that he cared very much about freeing the slaves. He did not feel he had a mandate to officially express that goal as president during the first part of his administration, but he always personally desired it and pursued it. His view on slavery was one of the reasons seven states seceded after he was elected, even before he became president.

Blayne:
“The point is he did not go to war to free the slaves but to force the Southern states to remain a part of the Union, which he had no authority to do.”

JJ:
It looks to me like he had authority, used the authority and this authority was never challenged by the other branches of government.

If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people.

Blayne:
“His actions speak much louder then his words. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy inaccessible to the union army. Union soldiers often were permitted to confiscate slaves in rebel territory and put them to work for the union army. In areas loyal to the union, slaves were not emancipated. After the war, Lincoln offered little land to the former slaves; most of the land was parceled off to his constituent power-base, the railroad and mining companies.”

JJ:
The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history — thanks to Abraham Lincoln — and no thanks to the Confederacy’s excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren.

Blayne:
“Lincoln’s main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate.

“The economic reasons are well documented and give insight into Lincoln’s agenda. The South, which supplied 75 percent of exports, was on the verge of becoming a low tariff, free trade zone. Lincoln feared this would disadvantage the North, and in particular his rich industrialist supporters. So Lincoln imposed punitive tariffs as a means to distribute wealth from the South to northern manufacturers.”

JJ:
What have you been reading? Lincoln didn’t impose any tariffs.

There were tariffs passed that affected the South before Lincoln became president which had bipartisan support and was encouraged and signed by president James Buchanan, a Democrat. Lincoln couldn’t have imposed tariffs on the South if he wanted to because the secession had already began when he became president.

Blayne:
“Lincoln instead could have moved toward peaceful prosperity by joining with England, France, other European countries, and the Confederate states in which free trade was already going on.”

JJ:
I suppose Lincoln could have, but he wasn’t given a chance because he never had any power over the Confederacy. He never had a chance to preside over the whole Union. Let’s stick with what Lincoln did or said do rather than what you think was in his heart.

Blayne:
“Where was the rebellion? Where in the constitution is secession forbidden? NOWHERE! Thus leaving it up to the States via the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'”

JJ:
But how about the blacks? They were people too. Rebelling for the purpose of benefiting from the profits of enslaving an entire race goes against everything sacred in the Constitution. They were only big on states rights because they wanted to maintain slavery. They were happy to violate the Constitution in many other ways. I am surprised you are so eager to defend a slave state when you are such a supporter of liberty. States rights is not excuse enough to secede for the purpose of enslaving a race and benefiting from their labor at the point of a whip. You’ll note that all the rebel states were slave states. If slavery was not the main issue then some non slave states would have also seceded.

Blayne states the draft by Lincoln was illegal:

This is from Wikipedia:

“In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[14] The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states’ rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution.”

Note: The Confederacy also had a draft.

Blayne:
“So-called desperate times have been the refuge of dictators and tyrants through out history in suppressing freedom.”

JJ:

Desperate times befall the good and the bad. Desperate measures have been taken by many good guys such as Hannibal, Washington, Churchill, FDR, Reagan and both the North and South during the civil war.

Blayne:

“What was Lincoln’s desperation? The southern states peacefully succeeded from The Union.”

JJ:

I wouldn’t call taking federal property by force, a first aggression, as peaceful. Also the blacks were not allowed to live in peace. Confederate sympathizers try to take slavery out of the equation, but it was central to the whole conflict. Without slavery there would have been no division of the States.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response.”

Blayne then writes:
“Hello — Fort Sumter was in So. Carolina, a southern state that had seceded. That aggression was an act of a sovereign nation protecting its territory. The confederacy seized all but four federal forts within their boundaries of which Sumter was one.”

JJ:
And the Confederacy had no right to do this because the fort was federal property and before the rebellion all the states agreed it was federal property. Lincoln said that Fort Sumter belonged to all of the people of the United States. He was correct in this and had the right to hold on to it.

Blayne:
“Lincoln provoked that attack by trying to send reinforcements to Sumter. Now are you going to tell me he didn’t have ulterior motives when he could have resolved this peacefully?”

JJ:
There was no way to solve it peacefully and keep that which belong to the federal government. The Confederacy was determined to possess it by any means necessary including drawing first blood.

Blayne:
“To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress. He declared martial law, confiscated private property, imprisoning about 30,000 Northern citizens and 31 legislators without trial, censored telegraph lines, and shut down northern newspapers for opposing the war.”

JJ:
The number is usually given as 13,000. People were not put in jail for opposing the war. The New York Times and other papers as well as about a third of the Union ridiculed Lincoln mercilessly and opposed Lincoln as they now oppose Bush and Lincoln took no action. Action was taken toward those who sought to overthrow the government or to give aid to the enemy. If he hadn’t done this he would have probably lost the war.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor.”

Blayne then writes:
“Hardly, only 15 percent of southerners owned slaves.”

JJ:
That’s a pretty big number.

Blayne:
“The South was attempting to just expand to the west period not necessarily to further slavery.”

JJ:
Where do you get this idea? It is historical fact that they attempted to expand slavery to Cuba, central America and other areas. Expanding slavery to even one new state would be too much.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If we hadn’t fought the Civil War it would have taken a hundred years to eliminate slavery. There’s no evidence that slavery could have been peacefully ended.”

Blayne then writes:
“Well this is simply your opinion but there is no evidence to support it. Every other country peacefully ended slavery around this same time. Which suggest the USA could have done so also.”

JJ:
There’s a lot of evidence. After the war the slave owners were surprised to discover that slaves were not happy being slaves. They thought that slaves needed masters to take care of them and were amazed at how they felt when they were free to express themselves. They still tried to treat them as slaves and many blacks were killed who did not conform. This had nothing to do with the actions of the North. Any slight study of the period will reveal that slavery was institutionalized in the South much more than it was in England and wasn’t about to end soon by normal means.

Confederate sympathizers try to preach otherwise to whitewash the history of slavery, but they have no case.

Fri Feb 8, 2008 7:25 pm

Blayne wrote:
“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

JA wrote:
“What happened to the shining example or the Ensign America is to other nations? If the war would not have been fought America would not have become the example it is today if for no other reason then the time it would have taken to get to the level of freedom it is at today. Plus the actions America took during that time therefore setting an example. There is risk in all things or opposition in all things, I think that is a fact of life.

“So if people choose to break the law set by the government then it is justified because the people are the master of the government?

“That would be a journey into irresponsibility, is that what this is really about? The fear of that? What happened to the shining example?”

JJ:
Good point JA. This is indeed an amazing statement by Blayne and it reveals a potent path to many illusions.

Let’s see how this applies in different situations.

The Confederacy:

“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

It sounds like the Blacks are not considered people here. In fact a main point of debate in the Confederacy was whether or not they had souls.

How were the blacks who were definitely people masters of the government when the government was enslaving them?

If we apply this principle today then it would be OK if white people used government to their advantage and passed a law saying that all Chinese people had to be branded on the forehead and work for ten cents an hour.

If a black and white Ron Paul following of the Constitution leads to the support of slavery then we need to rebel against it and write it anew so human liberty is clearly enough defined so even Ron Paul followers can understand it and be lead away from their acquiescence of slavery and tyranny.

Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:55 am

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people.”

Blayne then writes:
“So its ok to kill millions to preserve freedom, but not ok allow slavery for little longer to preserve the constitution, which illustrates that freedom?”

JJ:
They were NOT preserving the Constitution, the main purpose of which is the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was a mockery for the South when over a third of their people had no liberty, no ability to pursue happiness and not even a right to, life if they left the plantation. The main states rights that concerned them was the right to own slaves.

Blayne:
“Once again your assuming Lincoln’s motive was to abolish slavery even though the evidence and Lincoln’s own words contradict that notion.”

JJ:
There’s no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864.

Here’s a dialog between Lincoln and one of his closest friends, Judge Gillespie, in the days before the inauguration:

“‘Gillespie,’ said he (Lincoln), ‘I would willingly take out of my life a period in years equal to the two months which intervene between now and my inauguration to take the oath of office now.’ ‘Why?’ I asked. ‘Because every hour adds to the difficulties I am called upon to meet, and the present administration does nothing to check the tendency toward dissolution. I, who have been called to meet this awful responsibility, am compelled to remain here, doing nothing to avert it or lessen its force when it comes to me.’

“I said that the condition of which he spoke was such as had never risen before, and that it might lead to the amendment of such an obvious defect in the federal Constitution.

“‘It is not of myself I complain,’ he said, with more bitterness than I have ever heard him speak, before, or after. ‘But every day adds to the difficulty of the situation, and makes the outlook more gloomy. Secession is being fostered rather than repressed, and if the [secession] doctrine meets with a general acceptance in the border states, it will be a great blow to the government.’

“Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. ‘It is only possible,’ said Mr. Lincoln, ‘upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states….’

“‘I see the duty revolving upon me. I have read, upon my knees, the story of Gethsemane, where the Son of God prayed in vain that the cup of bitterness might pass from him. I am in the Garden of Gethsemane now, and my cup of bitterness is full and overflowing….’

“I then told him that as Christ’s prayer was not answered and His crucifixion had redeemed the great part of the world from paganism to Christianity, so the sacrifice demanded of him might be a great beneficence. Little did I then think how prophetic were my words to be, or what a great sacrifice he was called upon to make.”

(The Life of Abraham Lincoln: Drawn from Original Sources, Vol II by Ida Minerva Tarbell – 1903, pg 200)

The key phrase here is:

“Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. ‘It is only possible,’ said Mr. Lincoln, ‘upon the consent of this government TO THE ERECTION OF A FOREIGN SLAVE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE PRESENT SLAVE STATES…. I see the duty revolving upon me.'”

In his Second Annual Address to Congress in 1862, he said:

“‘We know how to save the Union. The world knows we know how to save it. We even here — hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth….’

“‘If we do this we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it forever worthy of the saving.'”

He said here very plainly that to make the union worthy of saving the slaves had to be free.

He also made sure emancipation was in the Republican platform and then executed that desire and did free them. What more evidence do you want? This is historical fact you are arguing with, not my opinion. Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you’re reading aren’t doing the job for you.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history — thanks to Abraham Lincoln — and no thanks to the Confederacy’s excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren.”

Blayne the writes:
“So the many other countries that freed slaves around that same time without killing 600,000 of their countrymen don’t get any credit? You have a pretty narrow view of history my friend.”

JJ:
Perhaps you need to check your own view. The other nations that freed their slaves were in a similar situation to the Northern States that freed their slaves. Emancipation in the North was natural because there were so few slaves and the economy wasn’t dependent on them. Even so, England only had about 10,000 slaves and no strict law to dominate them. They were freed there because it was proven that slavery violated the law.

When England freed their slaves only about one in 800 persons was enslaved, In the South over one in three were slaves and draconian laws were in place to sustain Big Brother in making sure it continued.

To say that the Confederate States would drop this money making human machine like England and other nations is comparing apples and oranges. England and France who had basically freed their own handful of slaves wanted it to continue in the Confederate states. So much for their moral superiority.

In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves — over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the “right” to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations.

You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.

My personal belief is that if we had not fought the Civil War that the 1960’s would have been about ending slavery rather than civil rights. Please don’t say that is just my opinion as this is obvious to all. But it is a well thought out one.

Blayne:
“You might try Tom DiLorenzo’s ‘The Real Lincoln’ for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time. It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war.”

JJ:
If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion.

First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396

The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case.

When the secession began the rebel states cited Lincoln’s belief in emancipation as their cause for leaving above the tariffs from what I have read. Of course, slavery was not the only issue, but it was the core issue and without it we would not have had the war.

Blayne:
“Lincoln wanted to keep it (the tariff) since it favored the north and left the south at the mercy of the north in many ways. Bipartisan? Hardly, 137 representatives from the north and 87 from the south.”

JJ:
Bi-partisan means both Democrats and Republicans cooperated and this is a historical fact you are arguing with. Let me repeat. The tariffs you demonize were spearheaded by a Democratic president and passed by voting from both parties.

It can be argued that they were unfair to the South, but the tariffs some complained of had nothing to do with Lincoln who was not yet president. When Lincoln was elected the seceding states were more concerned with his views on emancipation than they were with his views on tariffs.

Blayne:
“Again there is ample evidence that the US Civil War was not about slavery albeit slavery was used as one of many excuses. It was about hanging on to the lucrative tariffs and taxes and expanding the north while limiting the south based on slavery.”

JJ:
If you read some books that give the whole picture rather than books trying to prove the South was right you would not come to this conclusion. Nothing enflamed the South more than the threat of emancipation or curtailing their “right” to own a human being as a piece of property.

“Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson is a good book that doesn’t have an agenda. It is very well written and fascinating reading.

Blayne:
“Also of note is the fact that the North was also benefiting from the slave labor as well and as Lincoln said he could care less about slavery his aim was to preserve the union, of course because it was lucrative to the north and his industrialist cronies.”

JJ:
You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The Confederacy also had a draft.”

Blayne then writes:
“I never said the draft it was illegal, It doesn’t matter what the Court ruled the simple fact is no draft is addressed in the constitution therefore it is left up to the states via the 10th Amendment. Colonial America had no constitution and it was up to the states then also. A federal draft is illegal. The courts ruling is a perfect example of the precedent Lincoln set of reading extra constitutional provisions into the constitution that are not there. What part of the 10th Amendment do they and you not understand?”

JJ:
But you only criticize Lincoln for the draft. The Confederacy, which you seem to think was the epitome of States Rights also had a national draft and executed it April 16, 1862, over a year before Lincoln did. Georgia’s governor Joseph Brown warned that he saw the signs of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of Jefferson Davis to destroy states’ rights and individual liberty.

About 25 percent of Confederate soldiers were drafted, but only 3 percent of the Union Army.

If the Confederacy did not start the national draft then Lincoln probably would not have felt the need to follow.

Blayne:
“As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.'”

JJ:
Tell that to Jefferson Davis who forced Lincoln’s hand. Why do you only criticize the lesser of two evils?

Some Constitutional Scholars think a national draft is constitutional and others do not. It is a judgement call that a Constitutional Supreme Court has condoned.

Blayne:
“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

JJ:
See my other comments on this. So you would approve of yourself being a slave as long as “the people” are abusing you and not the government. By the way the government is people.

Blayne:
“The federal government can only own property in the states with the consent of the sate and the legislature see Article One, Section 8, Clause 17. If the state withdraws its consent then the federal government has no right to property.”

JJ:
Sorry. The Constitution does not say the states can have the property back if they secede. There is not even a hint of such thing. The federal government had the approval from South Carolina and after that approval they owned the property and the state had no right to force them to sell or giver it back.

Blayne:
“The first aggression was when Lincoln sent reinforcements showing his hostile intent.”

JJ:
It is not an aggression to fortify your own property.

Blayne:
“To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress.”

JJ:
His actions were ratified by Congress after the war started.

Lincoln and a lot of the country viewed the handling of an internal rebellion as a different Constitutional matter than war with another nation. Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion was not considered unconstitutional.

Blayne:
“Where do you get this idea? So the newspapers that were shut down were trying to overthrow the government, and the legislators?”

JJ:
Basically, yes. They were thrown in jail for encouraging sedition and desertion. They were not touched for mere disagreement. You ought to read some of the articles the New York Times wrote about Lincoln and the war as proof of this. Again, the South took similar action.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:29 am

Blayne:
“Lincoln was destroying the Constitution. The South had seceded; he destroyed the Constitution by going to war against a sovereign nation when he had no authority via to the Constitution.”

JJ:
He did have authority and he used that authority and he did not destroy the Constitution.

Blayne:
“And they were not threat to the US.”

JJ:
Because of slavery they were a threat to the entire world.

Blayne:
“Your argument is he had the moral right to ignore the Constitution because of slavery.”

JJ:
That is not my argument. He never ignored the Constitution.

Blayne:
“Even though he stated his aim was not to free the slaves therefore your moral argument is now gone because he did not go to war on moral grounds.”

JJ:
Not so. Just before the war he said that the only possible way to avoid war is “upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states…. I see the duty revolving upon me.”

He saw that the only way to prevent a slave state was to do what is necessary to prevent a slave state. I quoted this in my last post. Perhaps you missed it.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“There’s no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864.”

Blayne then writes:
“Once again actions speak much louder then words although Lincoln’s own words that he could care less about the slaves also reveal his true motives.”

JJ:

You keep saying this over and over and I correct you over and over. Let me repeat. Lincoln NEVER said he could care less about the slaves. Why do you distort the words of a great man?

Blayne:
“That fact that he contradicts himself in other word only speaks to his being a slimy politician that changes his words to whichever way the wind is blowing.”

JJ:

I think he was the most consistent politician that ever lived. You have no case if you stick to quoting his actual words in context. If you just throw out “Lincoln said” and then add your own words you can make him or even Jesus sound like a villain.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you’re reading aren’t doing the job for you.”

Blayne:
“Perhaps you could be more specific as to what books you are referring to and if so then you could refute their sources rather then labeling them southern supremacy books to try and discredit them without any evidence.”

JJ:
You mentioned “The Real Lincoln” by Tom DiLorenzo. That is certainly one. Most things you say about Lincoln mirrors some of the material I’ve read in Southern Supremacy material. You really sound like you are parroting what I have read in the past — almost to the extent that I can predict how you will answer next.

Blayne:
“I have and your not including the many slaves they had in the West Indies. You are also ignoring the fact that the law did not emancipate the slaves and that did not happen till later. Britain had been working on freeing slaves for 20 years already.

“http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html”

JJ:
That’s a good article, but nothing in the British empire mirrored the situation of the Confederacy.

JJ quoting himself:
“In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves — over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the “right” to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations.”

JJ then writes:
You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.

Blayne:
I in fact am the only one so far who had posted any reference. Why don’t you post a reference for your percentages of those enslaved in the confederacy?”

JJ:
Here is one of many I have come across:

“The South had a population of 9 million, including almost 4 million slaves.”

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500823_18/United_States_History.html

If you want a reference on the fact that The South had intent to expand slavery to Cuba, Mexico and South America read the first 120 pages of “The Battle Cry for Freedom” by James McPherson. The Boise Public Library should have the book as well as the audio of it.

Blayne:
“The evidence is that 14 other countries ended slavery peacefully. You can deny it or spin it all you want that does not make it any less evidence.”

JJ:
Yes, but let me repeat again (sigh) that slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than any of these countries or the Northern States. Instead of diminishing they were seeking to expand it. Many even thought they would lose their “freedom” if they lost their slaves. How ironic!

Blayne:
“The South wanted to expand to the West so of course they wanted to be able to have slavery there, as it was part of their economy and culture, which was agrarian. However your assertion that the soul reason they wanted to expand to the west was to preserve slavery is ridiculous.”

JJ:
I don’t believe I said this. I said they were seeking to expand slavery to the West. Slavery was not the reason they were going west, but in going west they wanted to have slaves. Please argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say.

Blayne:
“One other thing not mentioned is law like the Fugitive Slave Act, which propped up slavery. Incidentally Lincoln strongly supported that law.”

JJ:
You keep accusing Lincoln of going against the Constitution, but the Constitution was the reason he supported this act. Even though he was personally opposed to it he recognized that we were legally bound by it.

Article 4, Section 23 reads:

“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

Thank God Lincoln paved the way for the 13th Amendment which superseded it.

Blayne:
“The abolition of that law would have reduced the profitability of slavery helping speed its demise.”

JJ:
But that would have been unconstitutional and you seem to be for a black and white support of the Constitution come hell or high water.

You are inconsistent here. You say the South had the right to hold slaves because of the states rights provision of the Constitution, yet you think Lincoln should have directly violated the Constitution by opposing the Fugitive Slave Act — which was basically already the law because of the Constitution.

Blayne:
“It has also been mentioned that the advent of the tractor and the cotton gin among other things would have greatly diminished the need for slaves in the South. The first tractors were steam engine and invented around 1868. The cotton gin as already invented about 1802 and later improved I believe.”

JJ:
It’s quite possible the Confederacy would have merely shifted the slaves from the fields to the tractors. I think slavery would have eventually been eliminated but it would have taken much longer than you think — in my opinion. I think Lincoln advanced the cause of human freedom a good 50 years or more. The sacrifice was great, but it was worth it.

One thing we do know for sure and that is right after his election Lincoln saw his choice as to fight or not fight the creation of a slave state. (See previous quote)

Blayne quoting himself:
“You might try Tom DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war.”

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion.”

Blayne then writes:
“You are very good as subtly trying to change the subject and the argument.

“Your little label of ‘southern supremacy’ is meant to try and change the issue to bolster you false argument that it was about slavery and the moral failings of slavery. Some might fall for this sleight of hand type tactic as it is only meant to bias readers against any disagreement to your argument. It won’t work on me however.”

JJ:

I am accurately educating the readers to the fact that most literature portraying Lincoln as a tyrant or destroyer of the Constitution are people who hold on to the idea that the South was right in its view of Lincoln. These people, of course acknowledge that slavery was wrong but see it as a problem of small significance that would have just faded away without Lincoln.

Ron Paul who has a negative view of Lincoln is closely associated with many of this bent including the Ludwig von Mises Institute which publishes his books.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group. Paul enthusiastically endorsed Woods’s secessionist endorsing book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.”

Blayne:
“I am not arguing that slavery wasn’t wrong and morally repugnant, I agree it is and so do those you try to pin your false label on.”

JJ:
No one is saying this today, but you and the secessionist movements minimize the problem that slavery was. I am with Lincoln in not minimizing the loss of human freedom — no matter the place, the time or the race.

Blayne:
“The issue is did Lincoln need to go to war and kill 600,00 of his countrymen in what is known as the Civil War. The answer is clearly no. Your argument is there was no other way. I contend there was and there is plenty of evidence to support there was some of which I have pointed out.”

JJ:
I haven’t seen any evidence. To compare other countries that did not have institutionalized slavery with the South is fallacious. It is like saying that the Taliban will give equal rights to women soon because other nations have. It’s not likely because they have institutionalized their bias.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:

“http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

“http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396”

Blayne then writes:

“Well the Claremont Institute crowd is not exactly the pillar of honesty, being a government subsidized think tank that shouldn’t be surprising. We could post articles back and forth but it would probably be best to read both sides and weigh the evidence. Here is an article where DiLorenzo responds to the Claremont Institute:
“http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo31.html”

JJ:

I read it. He sounds like a bitter man.

The guy’s refuting people I did not quote and says nothing that effectively counters any of my arguments. He does make a lot of the same arguments you do.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case.”

Blayne then writes:
“This is simply not true; can you post some evidence for this assertion? Non-slaves states had no bearing. The tariffs were also on imports and were especially high on the manufactured items the Southern states did not produce.”

JJ:
Yes, there were tariffs and taxes on both imports and exports and many in the South felt they were unfair but these alone was not enough to make the South secede.

Of the four states that issued a declaration of cause of secession only Georgia even mentioned the tariff. They all complained of slavery as the main cause:

Here is a statement from Georgia:
“A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.”

Mississippi:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. THERE WAS NO CHOICE LEFT US BUT SUBMISSION TO THE MANDATES OF ABOLITION, OR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION,”

South Carolina complains:
“Those (Northern) States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

Texas:
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color — a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

See full text at:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

How clear can the word be? How can one read these declarations and not realize that the problem of slavery was the paramount reason behind secession?

Blayne quoting JJ:
“You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery.”

Blayne then writes:
“Amazing I posted a quote of him saying essentially that and now you are denying it? Here it is again:

“‘My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'”

JJ:
There is nothing in that quote about not caring about slavery. I already destroyed the potency of this quote by giving the rest of it. Let me repeat it again what you left out:

“I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

Does his statement you keep leaving out sound like he couldn’t care less about slavery? An “oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free” certainly shows that he cares, but at the time he officially had to adhere to the publicly accepted objective of saving the union. He had to be careful to stress this in a letter to the most influential newspaper editor in the United States.

Lincoln did not have enough support in the North for abolition to appear to be promoting it too much so he had to be careful in his wording.

April 16, 2011
To compare Lincoln to Hitler doesn’t make any sense at all to me. When in a war fighting for survival extreme measures are always taken and the criticisms aimed toward Lincoln could be made as much or more toward Jefferson Davis. This is a point Dilorenzo seems to be mysteriously silent on.

If one had a grudge toward George Washington he could also make a case that he was a tyrant for he used strong authority when necessary.

Like Larry, I receive a great vibration from the man when I read anything about him, even from his enemies and especially from his own words. I am certainly in good company for DK calls him a “Racial Avatar” on the side of light coming forth “from the very soul of a people, and introducing and transmitting racial quality to be worked out later as the race unfolds.” White Magic Page 298

He also says “The power which the New Group of World Servers will eventually yield, will be drawn from two sources: first, from that inner centre or subjective world government, whose members are responsible for the spread of those ideals and ideas which have led humanity onwards from age to age. This inner centre has always existed and the great leaders of the race, in every field, have been connected with it. The great idealists and world workers, (such as the Christ and His great brother, the Buddha, and those lesser workers, such as Plato, Spinoza, Abraham Lincoln, or Florence Nightingale) have all been associated with this centre.”

If DK is truly a Master working under the direction of the Christ this would mean that even the greatest of us all sees Lincoln as a great initiate.

Jesus said that we can recognize true workers and teachers by their fruits. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Here are some of Lincoln’s fruits.

(1) He is the most quoted president or world leader of all time and many of his words stir the soul and almost have the ring of scripture.

Many quote Lincoln’s words. Who quotes Hitler or any other tyrant?

Next to Jesus he gave the most famous speech of all time, the Gettysburg Address.

Historians almost universally rate him as our greatest president.

He freed the slaves. This was one of the greatest accomplishments by any man in history. If we had not fought the Civil War I believe the slaves would not have been free until about the 1960’s. Instead of struggling for civil rights we would have still been dealing with the slavery issue.

He preserved the Union. If we were a divided nation during World War II it is quite possible Hitler would have won the war.

He supported the construction of the first transcontinental railroad.

He supported for the Homestead Act. This act allowed poor people in the East to obtain land in the West and greatly increased the wealth of the American people.

He defied the national and international bankers and refused to borrow money at high interest and issued greenbacks that cost us no interest.

He set an example of honesty and integrity that has inspired millions.

He initiated Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

He signed a proclamation for a day of national fasting and prayer.

There are many stories giving evidence of his kindness and compassion. He planned on being forgiving and compassionate in victory – not something a tyrant would have done.

He had a great sense of humor and told many funny as well as teaching stories.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Taking It With You

This entry is part 8 of 31 in the series 2011B

Matthew writes:
As we reincarnate from life to life are our previous personalities imprinted in our new life and if so is this done so that the personality evolves? Since you have done past life regressions then it stands to reason that the memories are stored in a data base within us that we can access, is this thought on the right path here?

JJ
All of our memories are stored in our permanent atoms as well as the akasha. Our previous memories are not fully imprinted or accessible except in certain circumstances.

Strong emotional impacts carry over into future lives much more than memories of data. If you were buried alive, for instance, you would be likely to have claustrophobia in this life. If you were madly in love with Person X in a past life you would feel an immediate attraction after meeting him or her in this one.

On the other hand, if you spoke German in your last life you would normally not be able to speak it in this one but would have to learn it like everyone else. There is enough of an imprint that the learning would be easier for you than one who was Spanish in his last life.

The data of the past is not regularly in our consciousness but is not lost and can be accessed in some dreams and past life regressions. Over half of regressions include quite a bit of illusion and just fragments of real truth. Then once in a while there is a real good one where the person goes 100% back into the past. This is easier to achieve with hypnosis than a guided meditation that I use. I usually use guided meditation because it is very safe with no negative side effects.

One interesting thing that hasn’t happened at a gathering yet is someone going back and speaking in the ancient language. This is quite impressive when it happens. Unfortunately, you usually have to use hypnosis to get a person into that deep of a state.

Your personality is largely determined by your rays and they change from life to life. In one life you may be an introvert and another an extrovert. You are still the same person though, but just subject to different influences.

To understand this consider how different you are at a ball game and then at a funeral. You are the same person but the different influences make you act much differently.

The one thing you do take with you 100% is your basic intelligence and light of the soul.

This doesn’t mean that your intelligence will seem the same to observers though. Consider two people of equal intelligence. One is born to enlightened parents that teach him about all kinds of principles and esoteric knowledge and the other born to fundamentalist parents who teach the kid the earth is only 6000 years old and the Bible is literally true in all circumstances.

The first kid will seem to be the more intelligent even though they are both equal. A very intelligent person can become trapped by a lot of illusion because of circumstances.

Larry W
So Joseph Smith, at 14 years of age, was light years ahead of me at 61. These lessons are HARD WON. I also hope I can hook up with the BOL and with non-limiting BOL teachers. I feel so blessed that I hooked up with JJ and that he guided me to DK and to AAB. I sincerely hope I can get this back in future lives.

JJ
An account in Joseph’s handwriting gives the age of his experience at 16 rather than 14. This is probably the accurate one. Yes, you will keep your basic intelligence, but that doesn’t mean that you will not be born into some fundamentalist family. It does mean that breaking free will be easier next time.

mdesignsfor6 writes:
An aside question: If while in the astral zone our experience is not “real” and then eventually we move on to our dream-like sleep that isn’t reality, will we be able to communicate/interact/serve others in these different worlds or will it all just be only going on in our own “minds” for our own learning?

JJ
All form, including this world in which we live, is created by illusion, BUT all experience in the worlds of form is real. If you dream you are being chased by a monster or on a desert island with 100 scantly clad girls then the experience is real just as a real life experience is real.

In between lives you will meet real entities that you have known in this one but then there are times you go to sleep and dream about friends and merely tune into their essence which is very much like encountering them in real life – because even here you deal with their vibration and the higher part of themselves.

We’ve had some discussion lately about Ramtha and his teachings and predictions. We have some Ramtha supporters in the group and then we have others who are either indifferent or do not like him.

I want to stress that both sides and those in the middle are welcome here.

Over the years I have analyzed a number of teachers. Just about all of them say some things I agree with and also teachings with which I do not agree. Sometimes I have offended readers because I did not agree more with a favorite teaching or school of thought, but no one is perfect. I am sure that some of my writings have mistakes in them, even though I have followed my soul to the best of my ability.

That said; let me say this about the various teachers that members of the group may find enlightening. Each of us are on different rays and so are teachers. If a certain teacher has rays similar to your own then you will be more attracted to him than another teacher on different rays. Even though that teacher may have quite a few flaws the student, if he follows the highest he knows, can still learn a lot from him, for all teachers good and bad reveals various levels of truth.

Therefore we must be tolerant of those following a path different than we would pick for they may be moving forward at a higher rate of speed than you think. Eventually all roads lead to Rome and all paths lead to The One Path, but until the convergence it is helpful to realize the honest in heart are moving onward in their own way and nothing can stay their hand.

This doesn’t mean that we should not critically analyze various teachers and give our opinions good and bad. Members here should develop a thick skin for you never know when a sacred cow will be starkly criticized.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

The Way of Truth or Lies?

This entry is part 7 of 31 in the series 2011B

I never thought I would have to defend the idea that telling the truth is a good thing and lying is not so good, but after reading the post by Christopher Nemelka on March 29, 2011 I feel for the first time in my life that I need to write on this very subject.

Every teacher I have encountered in the past, good or evil, in the light or dark, mean spirited or kind has presented themselves as truth tellers – even champions of it. Few will admit to lying about anything and if caught will at least defend themselves as trying to present truth. Even Satanists claim to be presenting the truth.

Chris is not only politically (or spiritually) incorrect (which attitude I often admire) but he takes his contrary view to a new dimension when he makes statements like:

He is teaching “under the mandate of the lying God.”

“BY GOD … literally … WE ARE COMMANDED TO LIE!” (caps in original)

“IF I DID (tell the real truth) I WOULD BE LUCIFER’S MESSENGER, NOT GOD’S.”

These statements ought to get any readers attention. If nothing else, these quotes alone show that Nemelka has an unusual approach. Now let us examine his post in more detail.

According to him he always told the truth to the best of his ability until June 16, 1987. From that date forward much of his thinking was reversed. He says:
“Once I gained a proper perspective of real truth, I was filled with consternation that ‘lying’ was part of the plan for mortality, and that the very first person to lie, was not Eve, it wasn’t even Lucifer, IT WAS ELOHIM!”

“That’s right! Elohim, the God of all Gods.”

To back up his case he reviews the account of the fall of Adam and Eve. Here are pertinent quotes from the Bible about it:

Genesis2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Genesis3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Genesis3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Genesis3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Genesis3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

To this scripture Nemelka says that God lied and Lucifer told the truth, but was this the case?

Actually Nemelka is far from being the first to make this accusation. It has been made many times by atheists who say that God lied when he told Adam this: “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Adam lived over 900 years after he ate the fruit so he didn’t die in the day he ate the fruit – so they claim.

Do they have a point?

Not really. For one thing do you really think Hebrew scribes would let something stand for thousands of years that presents God as a liar? Of course not. Followers are not perfect and they will protect their own and change the text if necessary to protect their God from such an accusation.

So why then does the text read as it does where it is as ambiguous as it is?

The reason is that we are not reading the Hebrew, but an orthodox English translation which often distorts the Hebrew meaning. To get as close as possible to the original meaning we must look at the Hebrew.

First, let us look at the English translation again.
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen 2:17

The first word to note is “day” which comes from the Hebrew word YOWM. This doesn’t necessarily mean a 24-hour day but can also be translated as “time” implying an unspecified period of time.

A key to understanding lies in the phrase “shalt surely die.” This is composed of a repetition of the same Hebrew word for “die,” which is MUWTH. So the verse reads “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely (muwth) die (muwth)”

Thou shalt die, die doesn’t make a lot of sense so what is the explanation? The two words are slightly different in the Hebrew. The first die (muwth) is in the infinitive tense and the second in the imperfect.

The repetition of the two words in the two tenses is interpreted by scholars to mean emphasis so most translations render it as , “surely die,” or “certainly die.”

If we translated it literally it would read, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt be dying and die,” or “dying you shall die.” The Concordant Bible’s literal translation is, “for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.” Young gives the translation as “dying thou dost die.”

The repetition of the word “die” does tell us that God was making a very definite and sure statement that Adam was going to experience the process of dying if he partook of the fruit.

There could be another interesting reason for the repetition of the word “die.” This could be symbolic of two kinds of death. After all death does not mean that we no longer exist, but death is a separation of some kind. With physical death we are separated from our bodies but there is a second death called a spiritual death where we become separated from God. The day that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit they suffered a spiritual death and were separated from the direct presence of God. Also beginning on that day or time they started the process of dying which ended in physical death.

The trouble with words is that they rarely communicate the whole thought of the sender.

Suppose I tell my kid, “If you start eating lots of candy bars then you’ll get cavities.”

Even though this is a true statement a young kid is only left with a partial understanding. He may assume that he will get cavities the next day for the communication did not reveal anything about the time factor.

Even so Adam and Eve didn’t know if they would die immediately or after a period of time. They probably didn’t know they would suffer from two different kinds of dying.

Then after receiving the commandment Satan comes along and tells Eve;
“Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”Genesis3:4-5

Here Nemelka claims that Satan was telling the truth whereas God was lying. But was Satan telling the truth?

Notice that Satan did not say, “You shall not die TODAY,” but just a flat, “You shall not die.”

Now after they partook of the fruit it may have seemed like Satan told the truth for they were still alive even after their bodies changed from an immortal to a mortal state. But, after 930 years Adam did finally die, so Satan’s proclamation that they would not die was a lie and deceptive.

Satan’s next statement had truth and error in it for he said: “then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

This statement was true in that they learned about good and evil but it was not true in that they would be like the gods and not die.

Our imperfect minds could be mislead by either God or Satan, but God told the literal truth and Satan’s words were literally not true.

When those on the side of the light speak their words are true, but they rarely reveal all the details.

“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” Proverbs 25:2

To conceal a thing is not a lie. A lie consists of words spoken or written that are intentionally not true. All of us think many thoughts we do not vocalize and we are not lying when we do not speak them all.

Jesus verified that Satan lied for he said this to the Jews who were about to stone him:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” John 8:44-45

Jesus acknowledged flat out that Satan murdered and lied in the beginning and he presented himself as one who tells the truth. He even said:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

How often did Jesus say, “Verily, I say unto you…” Verily can be more literally translated as “truly,” or “of a truth I say unto you.”

The side of light and love always places great emphasis on telling the truth for often it was written that Jesus was “full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

God himself is referred to as a “God of truth.”

“Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.” Psalms31:5

“That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth;” Isa 65:16
“He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” Deut32:4

“And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” I John 5:6

We could talk indefinitely from the scriptures about God being on the side of truth. The only way to come to any other conclusion is to discard them completely. If Nemelka’s followers discard them completely then their only outside source of spiritual truth will be him.

That said, let us look at a few more of Nemelka’s comments.

He tells us:
“…our entire mortal existence is one big, divinely perpetuated lie, orchestrated by our Creators.”

He is using the word “lie” incorrectly here. “Illusion” is the correct word. We do not say a magician is lying when he demonstrates illusion. Illusion and truth are both here to give us experience.

Then he says, “Mortal human beings are all consummate liars.”

This may be his experience but not mine. Most of my friends are consummate truth tellers.

He believes we lie if we do not tell an unattractive person they are ugly or express a controversial, opinion.

He doesn’t seem to realize that it is not a lie to not reveal all your thoughts. The important thing is that all the words you speak are true to the best of your knowledge. This is the code I live by.

Then he says:

“I realized that lying was much better for the human race than telling the real truth.”

This is perhaps the most illusive belief I have seen a supposed spiritual teacher advance.

Nemelka claims to have translated the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon and presented it as truth. Now he says this about his work:

“And then I was instructed to introduce another set of scripture to lie about a lie, which countered another lie that we had invented to try to get us to stop lying to each other.”

So the Sealed Portion was a lie about a lie (The Book of Mormon) which countered another lie (the Bible).

Then Nemelka makes this fantastic statement:
“I have publicly admitted that I have lied, deceived, and manipulated. But I have done so …

“IS THE WORLD READY TO HEAR THIS?

… under the mandate of the lying God who placed us here on this godforsaken planet in the first place!”

There is a huge problem with the idea that God is full of lies toward us.

If God lies then we cannot depend on His word or the word of messengers on his side.

If we cannot depend on God’s word then we cannot trust God.

If we cannot trust God then we can have no faith.

Without faith there is no hope.

Without faith and hope there is no love.

Without faith, hope and love, there is only despair.

Is the plan behind the Father of lights one of despair?

No. A thousand times no. It is one of love leading to hope and peace and empowerment.

Nemelka ends with this confession:

“I’ve never liked what I have been doing, and I never will. I would rather work for Lucifer.”

I’d feel the same way if I thought God wanted me to spread lies.

On the other hand, I concentrate on telling the truth and giving out the highest truth I can understand. I love doing this because truth and love go hand in hand.

I suggest to Nemelka that he flee from any God, angel or messenger whose message is based on lies and concentrate on the truth. If he does this his zest for a living work will be joyful.

Log on to Freeread Here

Additional Points

I’ll cover the next three points briefly as there’s not much new to be said about them.

(4) If we do not have a balanced budget amendment then something needs put in place where borrowing and spending is kept within reasonable boundaries.

It is difficult to create black and white rules that work with consistency.  There always seems to be times when rules need to be broken – as Solomon says, “There is a time and season for all things.”

The problem with our economy, and especially the spending part, is that it must be handled with good judgment and our elected representatives have a dismal record beyond what could have been imagined in this category.

We need to do two things to correct the problem.  First, we must change their job description as written about previously. Secondly, an independent body such as The Committee of Twelve mentioned earlier should approve any budget-busting spending.

And finally citizens themselves must serve as watchdogs and let their representatives know the full force of their will and that will is not to spend toward bankruptcy.

(5) Grow the economy through low taxes and business incentives.  A healthy economy strengthens the dollar.

This is a no-brainer and there has been plenty written on this subject.  Unfortunately, the tax and spend crowd just does not seem to understand that infinite taxation is not possible.

More taxation does not mean more corresponding income to the government, as the Left seems to mistakenly think.  There is a percentage point, which if crossed, brings less income and not more.  I have heard of no definitive study that proves what that percentage is but many guess that the rate is around 20%.  In other words, a tax rate averaging at over 20% may bring a diminishing return and is not productive.

In addition to keeping the tax rate low the tax collection system needs an entire overhaul.  Consider this:  The cost each year to businesses for all the accounting and record keeping to comply with the tax system is estimated to be $338 billion for just one year.  That is an enormous sum equal to over $1000 for every man, woman and child.  Add to this the $12 billion (and growing) to sustain the IRS and the lost production due to the diverted capital and energy we’re talking about some big money here. That’s plenty to cover any Social Security, Medicare, health care, or educational shortfall we can imagine.

Supporters of the Flat Tax claim that this would reduce the compliance expenses by 94%.  If this   is true than that alone makes a great case for implementing it.  In addition to saving all that money business owners would have much greater peace of mind since they do not have to place so much attention on pacifying the IRS.

An even more labor saving idea is a national sales tax.  Not only does this eliminate the need of the many billions spent on compliance but it increases the tax base.  Currently there are many who do not pay taxes, or fudge the books and just pay part of them. This not only includes many business and individuals but drug dealers, The Mob, and many others outside the law. With a national sales tax even the drug dealer who declares no income to the IRS would have to pay the sales tax when making a legal purchase.

It is indeed important to overhaul our tax system but we must not let this goal overshadow the necessity of making spending cuts, which are of equal importance.  We must achieve a working balance in both of these areas.

(6) Reduce the trade deficit. We have had a trade deficit since 1975.  Should we be worried?

The problem with deficits is they lead to us becoming a debtor to the nation that holds our dollars.  If we spend $100 million more in China, Japan or the UK than they do here then that nation’s banks will be just sitting on all that cash drawing no interest. This they do not like to do so they will take that money and loan it back to us if we are willing to take it – and we always are. These loans are usually made in the form of buying U.S. Treasury bonds.  They figure it’s better to have these bonds drawing interest than just sitting on the cash making nothing.

If you buy some tires on credit the problem is that sooner or later the tire company will want payment of some kind.  Even so, our debt to China is over a trillion dollars and this gives them a tremendous economic power and advantage over us.  We are in a similar disadvantage to a lesser degree with numerous other nations.

During the past decade our deficit has ranged from around $400 to over $800 billion.  The interesting thing about this is that the average deficit is not that much more than the cost of our oil imports.  If we were to become energy independent then our deficit would be minimal and very manageable.

Doing more manufacturing and developing resources at home could do a lot to solve the problem, but energy is the big item that could reduce the deficit and that is the core of the next point.

(7) Secure energy independence.  This is another no-brainer but the problem occurs in execution.  The Left and the Right have conflicting ideas of how to achieve this.

Helping the trade deficit is just one of the benefits of securing energy independence. There are numerous others.  Among them are:

• Producing most of our energy at home will create many American jobs and reduce the unemployment rate creating more prosperity and a sounder economy.

• It will reduce power from many who wish us harm such as Iran or Chaves from oil rich Venezuela.

• It will remove the securing of oil in foreign lands as an incentive for us to go to war.

• The United States will be seen as less intrusive which would improve our reputation around the world.

With all these potential benefits it is almost criminal that our fearless leaders have not had the common sense to devise a workable plan for energy independence.  One thing we know for sure and that is the mere speaking of words is not enough.  Here are a few we have heard in the past.

“At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need.”
Nixon 1974 when oil imports were at 36.1%

“We must reduce oil imports by one million barrels per day by the end of this year and by two million barrels per day by the end of 1977.”
Gerald Ford 1975. Oil imports still at 36.1%

“I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never.”
Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1979. Oil imports – 40.5%

“While conservation is worthy in itself, the best answer is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the greatest extent possible for our energy.”
Reagan 1981, Oil imports – 43.6%

“When our administration developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our policy: reducing our dependence on foreign oil…”
George H. W. Bush 1992, Oil imports – 47.2%

“The nation’s growing reliance on imports of oil…threatens the nation’s security…[we] will continue efforts to…enhance domestic energy production.”
Bill Clinton 1995, Oil Imports – 49.8%

Unfortunately, by the time George W. Bush assumed office the rate had hiked to 61% and continued to get worse forcing Bush to act. In 2006 when imports reached 65.5%. He said:
“Breakthroughs…will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.”

Finally in 2009 when imports had reached 66.2% Obama added:

“It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.”

A couple years has passed at the time of this writing and nothing much has changed.

All of our presidents have meant well, but the lesson we get from them is not how to achieve energy independence, but that words alone without a workable and executable plan is meaningless.

What should we do then beyond just speaking the words – “We must get off foreign oil!!!”  “We must become energy independent!!!”

First we must realize that adding exclamation points to out desires does nothing.  We must have a plan.

A book could be written on a reasonable plan but I just have space here to cover some essence.

The pure essence of our energy policy should be this:

Do everything possible to maximize domestic energy production of current energy products and methods. In addition to this we must encourage practical forms of alternative energy and do what we can to bring forth new energy sources.

It is possible that new energy sources like fusion, or wave energy will be perfected in the next couple years and our troubles will be over but we can’t risk letting down our guard on conventional sources until their replacement is secure.

Right now their replacement is not secure so we must drill for oil, mine coal and build nuclear plants.  The advantages of securing energy from conventional sources far outweighs the disadvantages of discarding them too early.

Without sufficient energy we would wind up polluting our country much more than we would by burning fossil fuels.  If you do not believe me then check out the quality of the environment in third world countries where there is a dearth of conventional energy sources.

Environmentalists do not want us to drill for oil in America because of potential damage to the planet but if we do not get domestic oil then we will get it from some foreign country and that country is still part of the planet.  If we look at the earth as a whole what is the difference between drilling in the United States or Mexico, Venezuela or Canada?

None.

If we can continue to supply the energy we need and advance in technology then we should have viable alternatives to coal (the worst polluter) and oil within 50 years, maybe less.

If we sabotage ourselves and shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting off our energy sources then technology will suffer and it could be hundreds of years before environmentally friendly alternatives are perfected.

In other words, we have to advance to clean energy on the back of not so clean energy.  Sometimes you have to wade through some mud and grime to get to the cleansing current of the river.

Abundant domestic energy is crucial to our economic prosperity and economic prosperity is crucial to achieve a lasting clean environment.

May we follow the sensible path.

 

Read This entire series. Here are the links.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Interview with the Devil

This entry is part 6 of 31 in the series 2011B

On another forum this question came up. Suppose a teacher appeared and taught some things that were interesting and could be true. You find them stimulating and want to continue learning from him.

Then you find out the guy is a real bad dude. He has lied to you and others many times, has misused people, has an inflated ego, squanders other people’s money etc. In other words, the guy has the faults of a typical cult leader.

The question which arises then is this. Do you throw everything you learned from him out the window? Do you dismiss as untrue everything new that comes out of his mouth?

Suppose he was Hitler himself reincarnated or Satan born in the flesh. Does this mean one should reject everything he says?

One could turn this question around and ask: Suppose you met another teacher of impeccable character and you found out for sure that he had regular visits from divine messengers – or better yet was Christ reincarnated? Are you now to place your powers of discernment on hold and just accept without question everything that comes out of his mouth?

I think most of us know the answers to these questions – at least in theory. In the real world though we humans are fairly lazy and are always looking for the easy way out. If we could just find someone with all the answers then we would no longer have to struggle with right or wrong, truth or error on a personal basis.

There is a great attraction for many to the guy who will do all their thinking for them. It’s a lot like discovering a government program that pays us not to work. Even though one may have reservations about hopping on the bandwagon most would take the freebies and once the free lunch is relied upon the individual will then defend his situation with all his might and will resist doing hard work again.

With our teachers we are like pendulums and swing from one extreme or the other. A teacher is seen by many as being all right or all wrong. For fundamentalists Christians every word in the Bible is true and not to be questioned, but accepted even if it seems to not make sense. Jesus and all the prophets are to be accepted without question. On the other hand, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon is to be rejected out of hand.

Then we witness that the Mormons bypass the filtering process and accept, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the current prophet without question but will flat out reject any revelation or prophet not connected to the church.

This black and white attitude is pervasive and remnants still surface even in true seekers trying to rely on the inner voice. When an outer voice comes along that seems to have all the answers the temptation is great to become lazy and quit doing the hard work of discovering and verifying for oneself and to just sit back and accept the other guy without question.

Then we also want a neat littler package of structured beliefs so we can outright dismiss any new doctrine that comes along.

The question then is what is the right approach? Suppose you had a change to interview the Satan himself in a safe environment. How should you approach him? Do you automatically assume everything he tells you is a lie? Is it possible you could learn some new truth?

According to legend he was once an archangel and had access to all the mysteries of God so he probably knows a lot more truth than any mortal and is smart and cunning. We are told he is a liar so you can’t trust anything he tells you but that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in many things he would say.

They key, of course is to rely on the inner voice and confirmation. If a true seeker listens to this master of deception speak he will register some things as true and some false. If he is able to pick the devil’s brain then he may come up with some interesting pieces of the puzzle of life.

Now, if someone introduces you to a teacher and testifies that he is full of light and truth, what should be your approach in judging the truth of his words?

Verily, it should be the same as if you were talking to the devil himself. Some of what he says will probably be true and other things no so much.

Now merely investigating teachers and attempting to discern the truth of their teachings can be fairly harmless as long as one takes the good and leaves the bad behind.

The problem occurs when the person becomes a follower. If he becomes a supporter and gives his time, labor and money to the teacher then he must make sure he is going the right direction. In this case your leader should be a person of virtue. Giving your support is much more serious than just listening and learning. By giving your support you will now further the goals of the teacher and if his goals further the dark side then your efforts could support an enemy of truth.

The conclusion that the disciple must arrive at is this. Go ahead and listen to all teachers, philosophers and politicians that you find interesting and use your best judgment to assimilate the good and discard the bad.

BUT…

If you are going to support them, first get inner confirmation to the extent that what you are supporting makes perfect sense to you and you are confident people will benefit from your efforts.

If all would do this, the earth would soon become a paradise.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Log on to Freeread Here

 

The Fed and Common Sense

This entry is part 5 of 31 in the series 2011B

We have spent a lot of time covering the gold standard for a good reason. Most people who want a return to some type of gold standard are reasonably informed and are thinkers. They understand the importance of having a sound monetary system, of not overspending and the genius incorporated into the original Constitution. Having one of these on your side is more potent than a dozen of those who formulate their views from media soundbites.

Therefore, I have presented what I consider to be logical information on what will and will not work as far as gold as a standard goes. I will add a few more things as we continue. For instance, the market value of gold could be used as a standard to formulate the value of a dollar to increase the stability of the current or future fiat system.

We’ll discuss more later about how the dollar could be backed but for now we’ll continue on the ten points that are under consideration to create a sound money system. The gold standard was merely the first consideration. Let’s take a look at the second.

(2) Eliminate the Federal Reserve.

A great number of books, articles and treatises have been written on this subject. Since I am trying to present ideas and information that may be new to readers I will only cover this briefly as a simple Google search will bring up a plethora of material.

A good deal of the information is either from conspiracy theorists or from those just who loath the organization and want it abolished.

It didn’t help that it was created during the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson and passed in 1913, the same year that instituted the Income Tax. Then it was supposed to create enough malleability with currency so a depression could not happen again yet it was powerless to either prevent or cut short the greatest depression in our history.

In addition, there is something about its name that really get’s its critics blood boiling. It is called The Federal Reserve. They say it is called such to deceive us into thinking that it is an arm of the government, but they maintain this is a big lie because it is a private corporation ran by greedy bankers. Some believe the insiders make an unfathomable amount of wealth that is hidden from the public and this is why it has never been audited.

Ron Paul has always been suspicious of the Federal Reserve and has introduced H.R. 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which would require it to be audited and force it to operate in the light rather than the dark.

Some critics give a distorted view of the Fed when they stress that it is a private business, as if it were entirely divorced from the government and keeping all the profits. It might more accurately be called a quasi governmental organization for all members of the Federal Reserve Board, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress. The government also sets the salaries of the system’s highest-level employees. This doesn’t happen with a purely private business.

In addition the U.S. Government receives all of the Fed’s annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks’ capital investment is paid. The Federal Reserve returned $78.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury in 2010. This was an increase of $31 billion over 2009 because of earnings on stocks that they bought up to pump up the market.

Congress has oversight with them and can change the rules at any time, but overall the Fed has, at present, pretty much unrestrained freedom in dictating the rules for America’s currency and banking systems.

So if the Fed must return profits to the U.S. Treasury, and their salaries are controlled by Congress, why do conspiracy theorists paint the Fed as a sinister entity that is stealing America’s prosperity with insider bankers becoming wealthy beyond the imagination?

Part of the reason is that some critics do not fully understand the linkage between the government and the Fed. But for those that do the problem is the Feds’ secrecy. Yes it is true that a set amount of profits go to the government and their salaries are set by them but because they can operate under the radar with so much secrecy it is suspected that insiders have giant expense accounts and channel funds in directions that will enrich them.

The Fed also plays the stock market to assist the economy and who knows how many employees trade with insider knowledge.

If the Fed were fully audited on a regular basis and all its dealings were available to the public then we could know the truth and we could lay the basis for a more honest and stable economy.

Another problem is that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create money. Many feel that it is wrong for them to have given away this power to a secretive semi private organization. Thus there are many calls for the elimination of the Federal Reserve and to ether give the power to create money back to Congress or directly to the people. We’ll talk more about this later on.

(3) The third suggestion to strengthen our economy is a balanced budget amendment.

This sounds like it should be a no-brainer, but is it? Why hasn’t Congress ever taken this seriously?

There is a great mystery surrounding the fact that Congress just cannot balance their budget or even come close to living within their means. They are like a teenager who has been given a large credit card and then he decides to blow the whole thing on everything that feels good to him. Then when the limit is reached he comes home to Daddy (the taxpayer) and pleads for more money.

The mystery is this. The people we elect are the among the best and brightest of us, yet they act like stupid teenagers in their job performance, especially as far as spending money goes.

These people are not stupid as rocks so why are they fulfilling their jobs with the competency of drug addicts higher than a kite waiting for their next fix?

It appears that our representatives are either out of their minds or just plain hate America and all taxpayers.

We know that this is not literally true, but we also know there has to be a reason for such self-destructive behavior, but what that is seems elusive. It is amusing to see Joe Q. Public of average intelligence watch these screwups and exclaim in exasperation, “What’s the matter with these guys? They are spending millions on golf videos for the Irish, elevator attendants to push buttons for lazy congresspeople, research to see if volunteering is helpful, millions for unneeded golf courses for military brass when we are short changing the brave soldiers who are risking their lives for us, bridges to nowhere projects and the biggest boondoggle of them all – a nearly trillion dollar stimulus that was used for political payback costing $228,000 for each job created and causing untold misery for many others who lost jobs. Are these guys out of their minds?” asks Mr. Average? “I know better than to waste money like this. Why do they not know?”

There are two reasons for this apparent stupidity. The first was mentioned previously in chapter three and that is our President and Congress see, as part of their job description, that they are supposed to spend money to please voters. Since every employee wants to do a good job then our elected officials feel they have to spend lots of money to receive praise from their employers, the taxpayers. Unfortunately, this illusionary job description is reinforced when they bring home the bacon to their home state and the few who are on the receiving end give lavish praise whereas the ones paying the bills are too busy working to protest much. Representatives therefore receive the lopsided idea that they are performing well by sinking us into unprecedented debt.

The second reason for the stupidity is addiction. Now if a person is not exposed much or has little access to smoking or drug use the chances are that he will not become addicted. But if everyone around him is a user then it becomes difficult to resist and most will join the crowd.

Spending money can be an addiction  like drugs. There are many shopaholics that just cannot resist spending more money than they can afford.

Congress is a club where most members are spendaholics and when a person who is not an addict arrives he is met with two major temptations. First he is given trillions of dollars to spend. Maybe in the past the most he has blown has been a couple grand, but now we’re not only talking millions, but thousands of millions and even millions of millions – or trillions.

If spending money created a high for him in the past then being a member of Congress will blow his mind.

The second problem that sucks him into addition is he is surrounded by spending addicts who gleefully spend money like they are little gods with unlimited power.

Anyone with a weak will who goes to Congress doesn’t have a chance. He will become addicted.

Will he vote for a balanced budget or term limits? Not likely. He may talk a good game but when it comes down to taking action the true addicts will side with keeping their power to spend intact.

And what would happen if we did pass a balanced budget amendment? Does a mere law prevent an addict from getting his fix?

Not really.

Did the constitutionally mandated gold and silver standard prevent us from throwing it out the window and then spending money we didn’t have?

No

Even so, unless we cure the addiction of Congress and the Presidency they will find a way around any terms of a balanced budget amendment just as they have other limitations that have been there in the past.

In a health emergency it may be necessary for a non addict to take some drugs. Even so, during a war or national emergency it may be necessary to spend extra money. Because of this and the willingness of the addicts to break their own laws a balanced budget amendment may cause as many problems as it solves.

One thing we agree on is that our elected officials must run this country as efficiently and with as much common sense as a wise family. They may borrow money now and then but they operate their budget on common sense principles. Government must do the same and we the people must be the last line of defense in making sure they comply.

Read This entire series. Here are the links.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Comet Elenin, Planet X & More

This entry is part 4 of 31 in the series 2011B

I wouldn’t bet my grandmother’s operation money on the idea that Comet Elenin is going to cause earthquakes on a specific date or any date. Some have already predicted earthquakes on March 14 or 15 and nothing significant happened. For one thing it is definitely not a red dwarf. If it were it would now be the brightest object in the sky next to the moon. Currently it has a magnitude of +16.7 (very dim) and is a couple hundred million miles away so it is probably less than a couple miles wide and would have negligible effect on us
gravitational wise.

I misspoke and should have written brown dwarf. A red dwarf star 200 million miles distant would be much brighter than the moon. A brown dwarf fits the description I wrote.

I think the coincidences here are like the Bible Code. After things happen you can find all sorts of coincidences where prophesy seemed encoded. But then when they attempt to predict the future by it they are no better than a monkey throwing darts to pinpoint different events.

A brown dwarf would be at least as big as Jupiter but the evidence is that this comet will be a couple miles or less, probably less than a mile. It is difficult to tell the exact size at this point because of reflected gas that surrounds a comet.

Any connection between Elenin and earthquakes or anything else would either be coincidence or astrological cycles of which we are unaware. It could not be due to a negligible gravity.

I’m sure that any earthquakes (and there will be some) between September and December of this year will be attributed to this comet, but I think we will not see any exact connection that many expect and it will not be the end of the world or even Wormwood from Revelations.

Susan: There is some other evidence there may be some science behind this idea. The link below doesn’t talk about the comet/planet, but it does talk about Jupiturn and Saturn and their effects etc.

Check out this:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/478/998/US_MegaQuake_Coming_Warn_Russian_Scienti\\ sts.html

JJ  The gravitational effects of Jupiter and Saturn would have millions of times the gravitational effect as the comet Elenin and could have some power to effect us. Even so the effect of gravity would be small. In the years leading up to March 10, 1982 there were many doomsayers predicting great earthquakes and end of the world scenarios because not two or three but all nine planets lined up on the same side of the solar system. This was a one in a million years occurrence and there was a lot of speculation in the new age community about it. I was one of the few who said that noting significant was going to happen on that date and nothing did.

More powerful than gravitational effects are the electrical effects of celestial bodies. This is something little realized or studied by science. Even though a comet may be small, it could have an electrical influence and act as a trigger. Such triggers though would be little understood by science, let alone new agers, and prognosticators. If another major earthquake occurs on an alignment date with Elenin then that would give evidence of an electrical triggering effect, not a gravitational one, for when it gets close enough to be visible the low gravitational influence will be established beyond doubt.

Most brown dwarfs have some light of their own, but just dim and some of them are up to 80 times as large as Jupiter. Even if it did not give off any light of its own it would reflect the light of the sun and because it is closer it would be brighter than Jupiter in the sky – the brightest object next to the moon. If it still had some light of its own it would be brighter still.

The nearest brown dwarfs to us are many thousands of times further away than Elenin and very difficult to detect because of the vast distance.

Blayne writes: This got me to thinking, everyone is looking at this from a gravitational standpoint. However if the Universe is really the electrical model (I tend to lean that way) then it could makes sense the a comet like Elenin could have an effect especially with magnetic fields.

Any thoughts on that? Or care to elaborate on how Elenin might have an “electrical triggering” effect?

JJ Consider this – from ancient times humanity has viewed comets as having great significance. They have thought such a celestial sighting was a great portent of some kind. Some thought a comet meant there was going to be great catastrophe or even the end of the world and others thought it meant some other kind of great change or the birth of a great soul.

The thread that goes through these ancient beliefs is “change.”

Now something that has a common belief in early man often has elements of truth. The reason for this is that even though early man was superstitious he was very instinctual and often picked up threads of truth and incorporated them in his beliefs.

If this is so then what is the underlying truth?

To get the picture we must view the universe as a living organism and ask how comets would correspond to elements of human life.

There are many comets in our solar system. Some of them have fairly short orbits, others like Hailey’s take 85 years and still others take millions of years. It is now thought that Elenin’s orbit takes around 10,000 years to complete.

Then there is another breed of comet and others thought Elenin was one of these. These are comets that are not native to our solar system but have arrived from interstellar space. They were either thrown out of an orbit or just never had a home.

Some scientists think that life was seeded on earth by a comet that hit us in ancient times.

The average comet is only about a half mile in size which is extremely small in relation to a planet. Most of its visibility comes from gas or dust particles that surround it and become it’s tail as it approaches the sun. I’ve heard it said that the entire tail of a comet could fit in a suitcase if it were gathered in one spot.

Some scientists think that comets are dispensers of electrical current though this is not an orthodox line of study.

Putting this together it seems that comets are very subtle, almost esoteric influences within the universe and are even shared at times between neighboring solar systems.

On a smaller scale two humans can meet and share subtle influences. One can pick up another’s energy, feelings and personality through a subtle exchange of energy. When two auras blend there is an exchange of real particles that create a unique communication.

Comets could do this same thing between star systems, which are also living entities.

As a subtle communicator through electrical energy a comet could trigger unique reactions in various planets and their moons as it approaches or aligns with them. Their gravitational force is negligible so electrical or other subtle forces would have to be their avenue of influence.

Consider this. To ignite the rocket that sent men to the moon only took the push of a button. Even so, in our solar system and universe there are times when great events are triggered by small subtle forces.

I am sure the Masters have knowledge of the influences of comets. Maybe DK will share this with us the next time he speaks.

This is not the first time I’ve dealt with excitement over the approach of heavenly objects. Back in 2002 a lot of people thought Planet X was going to show up. Here was my reply:

The excitement around Planet X (called Nibiru) centers around the writings of Zecharia Sitchin. Now the interesting thing is that the prediction of the appearance of Planet X around spring of 2003 is not made or supported by Sitchin. He thinks the planet will show up someday, but not sure when.

A person making the prophecy is Mark Hazelwood who claims that Planet X is a brown dwarf that will visit is about a year from now. We do not need soul contact to be assured this will not happen.

Why?

Because a brown dwarf is much larger than Jupiter, up to 48 times as large, and is likely to still be emitting light of its own. Anything this large would be visible to the naked eye for about five years before its approach to the earth.

The prediction is that Planet X will arrive in spring of 2003, less than a year from now. At the fastest possible orbiting speed from an elongated orbit, this planet would now have to be closer than Jupiter to have a chance of getting here within a year.

If then Planet X were within the obit of Jupiter it would be the brightest object in the night sky, over 20 times brighter than Venus the brightest object in the Sky, next to the moon. If it was a brown dwarf with residual light of its own, it could be a bright as the moon.

Because we look up in the sky and see no such object, then the only conclusion is that there is no brown dwarf within harm’s way for years to come.

Some have seen the discovery of new asteroids as evidence of Planet X, but Planet X has been described as something much larger than an asteroid. Asteroid 2000WR106 was thought by some to be evidence of Planet X, but this was only about 10% the mass of Pluto and since it is about 4 billion miles from us, it poses no more threat than any other orb in our solar system.

http://www.freeread.com/archives/1715.html Posted June 2, 2002

Nathan: Supposedly there actually is a brown dwarf in our solar system. I heard it mentioned on CNN awhile ago. It’s no Nibiru prophecy though. It’s way too far away.

Link: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/scientists-telescope-hunt-massive-hidden-ob\ ject-in-space/?iref=NS1JJ

A small binary star of some kind has been theorized by astronomers for some time. Before Neptune and Pluto were discovered outer planets were predicted to exist because all the gravitational effects in the solar system could not be explained by the seven planets at the time. When Neptune was discovered the gravitational anomalies were still not explained and many predicted the discovery of a fairly large planet beyond Neptune’s orbit.

Finally, in 1930 Pluto was discovered but instead of being a large planet it turned out to be smaller than our moon, the smallest planet in our solar system. In fact it was so small that it was recently declassified as a planet so now there are eight that are called planets instead of nine.

Since the discovery of Pluto astronomers have suspected there are planets beyond its orbit. Now it turns out they were right. In 1992 they discovered additional objects in that area of space and since then have identified about 1000 of them and about 70,000 are believed to exist. They named this area of space the Kuiper Belt. This belt starts at the orbit of Neptune (about 30 AU) to way beyond it (about 55 AU). Two dwarf planets have been discovered there which are Makemake & Haumea. Makemake is about three quarters the size of Pluto and Haumea is about one third the size.

In January 2005, way out in the boondocks, about three times as far from the sun as Pluto (over 96 AU) they discovered Eris, which was 27% larger than Pluto. This caused a dilemma for astronomers. Do they call Eris a tenth planet or cease calling Pluto one? They decided on the latter and called these smaller planet-like objects dwarf planets. Many astronomers are disappointed that Pluto is no longer called a planet. To some it was like losing a kid.

Do the dwarf planets and the other objects in the Kuiper Belt explain all the gravitational anomalies? Astronomers do not seem settled on this as some think there could still be major objects to be found but most think a dwarf star would have been detected by now.

A lot of this speculation is fueled by the writings of Zecharia Sitchin who claimed that an inhabited planet, named Nibiru, exists on an elliptical orbit that extends from 469 AU to 1 AU. The orbit is supposed to take 3600 years and after this period is supposed to flyby the earth (1 AU) and create all kinds of havoc.

Because of Sitchin’s writings – every time a new comet or object is discovered it is identified by the new agers as Nibiru, or Planet X. Several times Sitchin himself has told his followers that they have not identified Planet X but they do not even listen to him for they seem bent on having some doomsday object arrive.

Some scientists have said that the extreme elongated orbit of Nibiru would be a gravitational impossibility. If there is a planet X or brown dwarf it would most likely be very distant and never get that close to earth… Unless, there are forces beyond gravity that move objects in unpredictable ways. So far this has not been observed, but you never know.

Meanwhile an interesting space probe called New Horizons is speeding toward Pluto, which has never been visited. It is now near the orbit of Uranus and will reach Pluto on July 14, 2015. After that it will head into the Kuiper belt in the hope of visiting several more objects before its mission ends.

In recent space news the Messenger spacecraft, after a six and a half year journey, as of March 17, entered the orbit of Mercury. It will begin operations on April 4th and then we should see some interesting new pictures and learn of new discoveries.

Learning more about what is out there is always stimulating to me and is a use of tax dollars I am happy to pay.

— In Keysters@yahoogroups.com, QuasarAZx@… wrote: I am an amateur Astronomer, as I have said before and I took astronomy classes in college and read books on it. I have been studying astronomy off and on since 1991. JJ, how is it that you know so much about astronomy? You even solved the mystery of dark matter when I asked you what it was?

JJ

Few scientists would accept my esoteric views on dark matter.

From the time I was about seven to thirteen I wanted to be an astronomer and learned all I could about the subject and had my own telescope. Then I got interested in rockets and wanted to be an astronautical engineer and send men into space. Finally I changed my attention to spiritual science as the most important field of endeavor that I could pursue. I now help people explore inner space rather than outer.

DK says that a disciple can become proficient in any field that he sets his mind to. I’m still interested in the physical sciences but only have a limited amount of time to keep up with them.

Larry Woods writes: So JJ, the fact that Elenin’s orbit already lined up with several Earth catastrophes means nothing?

That interactive orbital chart seems very compelling whether this is a brown dwarf or not. If this is only a comet, could that affect tides and tectonic plates when it aligns with our Sun in relation to Earth? Past alignments coinciding with major catastrophes suggests so. If our moon affects our tides, could gravitational forces compounded by Elenin alignments affect us? I ask because the model predicts very close future alignments in September and in November: 11 Sep 2011 Closest proximity to sun 0.482 AU ? fill in the blank – Solar flares triggering who knows what?

27 Sep 2011 0.381 AU Earth opposite of Sun ? fill in the blank – By far the most powerful alignment!

17 Oct 2011 0.232 AU Closest proximity to Elenin ? fill in the blank – Worldwide events?

02 Nov 2011 0.317 Earth slides through debris path ? fill in the blank – Celestial light show and some huge meteors?

23 Nov 2011 0.582 AU Earth between ? fill in the blank – Far closer alignment than the Japan event!

JJ Most likely the alignment with the Japan and New Zealand quakes were just a coincidence. Comets in the past aligning with the earth in this way have not created much that is unusual. A synchronous event is much more impressive if it is predicted in advance rather than viewed on hindsight as has happened so far.

I would be surprised if  extraordinary events happen on the dates you mention. Huge meteors are extremely unlikely as comets are surrounded by small dust particles, not huge rocks.

There is likely to be some newsworthy events on some of those dates and some earthquake activity but devastation like that which hit Japan is very unlikely during those times. Someone has already predicted devastation on March 15th because of Elenin and that did not happen.

We’ll now wait until those dates approach and I will then make further comments.

Keith asked about Vulcan. Could it be Planet X?

Vulcan was supposed to be a planet within the orbit of Mercury. This is one of the few things DK taught that can appear to be a mistake. There are two possibilities. (1) It could be an etheric planet or (2) he could have used it as a substitute for the sun.

Here are a few things I have said about it.

Vulcan

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Log on to Freeread Here

Preparing for the Worst

This entry is part 3 of 31 in the series 2011B

Maryellen: Does it matter if we buy gold and silver coins vs. jewelry made of the metal? I mean, if it doesn’t matter, we may as well enjoy our investment as jewelry!!

JJ I think Blayne was steering you correctly about buying coins, not only as an investment, but as something that can be practically used if the dollar collapses.

There are several advantages of collectors coins.

First they have intrinsic value so they can be used for trading.

Secondly, they have collectors value so even if the price of gold or silver drops they will still hold their value and in many cases go up.

Thirdly, you do not have to pay sales tax when you buy and sell them.

Getting a few gold coins is fine for diversity of investment but they are not too practical for spending. A one ounce gold eagle sells for about $1500 so this would be kind of awkward to trade for some groceries.

I would recommend the pre 1921 Morgan silver dollars for several reasons.

First, collectors love these coins and they will always be in demand.

Ruth: What if the Lights don’t gather because many didn’t have soul contact or hear the soul, is that a possibility?

JJ If the lights do not gather by the time the next major earth changes come then we could lose many of the basics of our civilization and have to start over.

What happened in Japan was just the earth scratching an itch. Imagine what a major spinal adjustment would be like.

So far the media and anti nuclear people are attempting to scare the dickens out of the people.

The truth is that no one has received a dangerous level of radiation yet nor are they likely to unless the worst possible scenario happens and if it does it will be nothing like Chernobyl as the Japanese plants have a much better design.

The only ones who need to be concerned about radiation levels at present are those working directly with the core in the plant itself and they are monitoring levels closely.

Here’s an article giving some good information without the hype.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2011/03/14/a-factual-reply-to-the-nuclear-panic-spark\ ed-by-the-japanese-disaster/

Secondly, there is a very limited number of them so they will eventually go up in price even if the price of silver goes down.

There are two directions to go with these. You can buy the rare more expensive coins, say $60 or more retail – or the less expensive at around $30-$40 or less each. The cheaper ones will have good value for their silver content as well as the collecting value. I would recommend going this direction unless you get a good deal on the more expensive coins – and this can be done.

You can accomplish this on Ebay by reviewing numerous coins and then making bids on those that seem to be undervalued. Here are fairly current prices on Morgans: http://www.numismedia.com/fmv/prices/mordlr/pricesgd.shtml

The problem with buying jewelry is that the price is highly marked up and if you ever sell it then you have to take a big discount. If I wanted to buy jewelry as an investment I would go on Crag’s list and look for some deals from private individuals. If you buy low enough you can always get your money back and maybe make a profit.

If anyone else has good ideas for inflation proof investments feel free to post.

Dan: How are you going to treat the water for storage in your 55 gallon drums? Purify, mineralize, sun, and then store it or just store tapwater which you then purify, mineralize and sun prior to drinking (or some other method)?

JJ If I wind up using them I’ll do the same thing. I’ll filter it, add ingredients (if available) and then place clear jugs in the sun. Purifying water by using the sun is recommended in survival manuals anyway.

You can get clear glass bottles by going to glass recycling bins and taking what you need. Gallon ones are not always available though.

JJ wrote: If I wind up using them I’ll do the same thing. I’ll filter it, add ingredients (if available) and then place clear jugs in the sun.

Dan: You’ll do this before or after you place the water in the 55gal drums and store it?

JJ
After. I’ll take the water out of the drums, filter it, put it into clear glass jugs, add ingredients and then place them in the sun.