Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Lets walk forward now

The planning for the first year's proposals was introduced in 2012, and the contingency for the Exit Strategy for Iraq is based on the United States working together to amend our Constitution. That can take up to seven years. The United States can choose not to participate at all in the creation of the international government, or to stand back and watch. That is fine. One of the issues that must be addressed at the conference of world leaders is how to bring in the nations that choose not to participate.

By choosing to ignore a crisis or to go down deeper into the games when the choice to participate arrives, you face your fears, and that fear for the United States has been to get dragged into a feud. By fighting ISIS, that feud started. The solution is now for our organization to keep walking forward and for everyone to learn the lesson that it is not a good idea to allow the opportunity to pass you by. This is something that everyone is learning.

Our organization represent the peoples of the world. The United States is considered the overview perspective, but our organization is parallel to all the nations, too. We are functioning not as a global government, but as an organization of average people who would like to create the life we want and if we can demonstrate the potential of the plan in our own lives, that is wonderful.

President Obama is aware of the plan for the international government, but his time is office is coming to an end. The same thing is occurring in other nations. President Kabila of the DRCongo must leave office.  They no longer hold any power, but why waste their expertise? If power comes from assuming responsibility to undo the damage they have done, why not allow them to keep their power by giving them the opportunity to help create the international government?

We are doing this to purify the U.S. legal system. We are setting up classes in five U.S. law schools to review laws that were passed that have caused chaos in our legal system. Who better to assume responsibility for law review than the legislators who wrote the bills?

There has been a battle over the plan for the international government, but the battle spins off to the battle over technology. People equate ideas, like money and power or a strong military and power. But, equating ideas get people into trouble, because if you lose your money, you lose your power, or if another military is stronger than yours, you lose your power.

Our first focus in the technology segment is technology review. What if people protest the creation of technology that seems like a good idea, but procuring the natural resources can be oppressive to the people? How about nuclear power and using it to create weapons grade materials, or even atomic bombs? How many people are standing in protest?

No new inventions should be introduced until everyone agrees to the plan. Why not open the ideas to debate? If everyone in agreement, there is no resistance to the plan, and if the technology is kept secret to keep the profits high, what if you could sell the finished product on a global basis and be assured that you will have no problem procuring natural resources to bring it about?

We are back again to the overview plan for the proposed international government. The plan has been opened to debate and people in 85 nations like the idea, including Muslim nations, and so it has passed cultural review. Now we must demonstrate how it can benefit everyone.

We don't tell people what to do, but how to do it. If you look at the plan, you will see that it benefits every person on the planet. Our first proposal sets the stage for the creation of the international court system so that disputes between nations are resolved in court and the monies now wasted on war go to the people instead.

We know that technology review is the same as plan review. Mankind functions on a higher level by taking disputes to court rather than fighting disputes militarily. The only people who can protest are those who make money by waging war, including the military and weapons manufactures. Waging war is a power game, and if peace is possible, those who rely on manufacturing weapons can function on a higher level by manufacturing something the benefits everyone.

We have three innovative invention that allow three nations to come together to manufacture these inventions. Our tech team is responsible for creating the projects. As they come into the organization, they will create projects that benefit everyone, and they will advise the governments on how to set up the programs. Until they come in, the project ideas will be opened to debate, but not enough information has been introduced to create a finished project. If the team doesn't assume responsibility for their projects, they will lose it.