Our organization has been attempting to travel to Washington DC with a proposal to President Obama, but due to the hostile takeover of our organization in the form of character defamation, we have not yet been able to go there. The election is coming soon, and we have not developed a relationship with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, so we are posting the executive summary of this presidential proposal today.
It makes no difference if the president of the United States is involved because U.S. participation comes in the form of a constitutional amendment, and the president of the United States does not sign an amendment into law. It is a matter for for the people of the United States, Congress and the state legislatures to determine.
If President Obama chooses to support the plan for the international government, he can continue to do so by becoming a delegate to the conference in Europe when the other world leaders meet. Several other world leaders are or will no longer be in office at that time, and joining the delegation allows them to rise in power even while out of office.
This proposal is a channeled message from Seth, a seventh dimensional entity. All of our proposals are channeled messages, and at this time, contain only the executive summary. If the nation chooses to agree to the overview proposal, Seth will continue on with the rest of the information. If this proposal is purloined by the perpetrators of the hostile takeover of our organization, they do not have the capacity to follow through on the proposal. Seth will not work with anyone who does not stand on the principles of Universal Law.
The Choice to Step Out of the Crisis
Imagine that once you hit the point of no return, you have a choice of going deeper into the crisis or rising above the crisis. The point of no return is an opportunity for you to step out of the crisis. It is a moment of choice based on the ultimate conclusion of your actions.
How this applies to the United States at the present time is that many nations are standing up in protest about what has occurred to the sovereign nation of Iraq. They see themselves as the next in line for their countries and their governments to be toppled, also. What is to stop them now that the United Nations has proven ineffectual to prevent or to stop wars? Many people believe the United Nations has become an institution of body counters. In the Iraq crisis, as it was beginning, instead of going in and solving the crisis, and demanding that the factions stand up and quit their game-playing, they ran away to Cyprus and declared they weren’t coming in to do something until people started to behave themselves. Well, imagine that by running away from the crisis... A far higher solution would have been to assume responsibility for ending the crisis.
Suzeranda, the head of our organization—also known as Karen Holmes—understands, and uses the analogy, that the United Nations has become like a schoolteacher on a playground when the children are fighting, and instead of wading into the fight to end it, the teacher is siding with one faction, and putting the other side down. Well, imagine that those children on the playground who have been put down consider the others to be bullies, and the teacher to be siding with the bullies. It is not your perspective that is important, it is the perspective of the people who have been put down because this is what leads to terrorism. When people feel they have been treated unfairly, and have no voice, they raise their voice to be heard, oftentimes to the point of violence. This is the root cause of terrorism, and why the United Nations, or the Bush administration, have not been able to end the crisis, or end terrorism, but their actions seem to have fomented the crisis, and put it into a deeper state.
The point of no return came, you could say, with the execution of Saddam Hussein, or from the opposite perspective, the assassination of Saddam Hussein. In this paper we will draw different perspectives, and bounce back and forth between the perspectives, not with the idea that we are putting anyone down, but because you have to understand what your enemy is thinking. If you were a general or an admiral coming up with a battle strategy, it does no good to address only your own perspective. “We are going to do this. We are going to stand on this field...” You have to understand where the enemy is coming from and to address the contingencies, or your strategy will fail. By not taking into consideration the other side’s perspective, you are not looking at all the contingencies of your plan. To address this and to come up with a solution, there has to be a way for everyone to agree to that solution because there is no way in the world the United States can fight the entire world.
You see, each time you topple one country, it creates a sense of fear in the others because they don’t want to be toppled. Until the point of the execution— assassination— of Saddam Hussein, people were willing to address the idea that the United States would “come to its senses” and resolve the issue based on international law. But at this point in time, as I said, the international structure does not address this idea, so the United States, by doing this, has, instead of just playing on a government level, is also playing on an individual level. This affects individuals. Imagine that people across the world—who have the power... It is not the governments, it is the people who have the power. The people are standing up and saying, “Enough is enough.” Initially, it was, “We will allow the governments to sort this out. We will allow them to come up with some treaty and it will solve the crisis.” But, as sovereign governments are being toppled, at this point in time, the people are standing up.
We will address the idea of a movement, and we will call this “Evolution to the Revolution,” not that it is a revolution against the United States, but it is a revolution where the people are standing up and saying, “Enough is enough. The governments are not addressing our needs. This was a power play. Enough is enough.” You could say the initial people coming into a movement, or a revolution, you could call it... We will look at this as a movement to take out the the sting of a revolution. We will look at this as if it were a movement against the governments now. The people are standing up and saying, “The governments are no longer addressing our needs. It is a power play.”
The first group that are drawn in are those who understand the principles. Those were the people who saw the ultimate conclusion of this based on the principles. They were the peace protesters. They were the nations like France, for example, or Russia, those who didn’t go along with the Coalition countries. They were the ones you couldn’t convince to understand your point of view because they already understood your point of view was not going to function. At some point, people would stand up in protest because it wasn’t standing on the principles.
The next group to be brought into a movement are those who are financially affected. To take this out of the sting even further, I will draw a parallel with the American Revolution against England, because many people understand the ramifications of the Stamp Act. Originally, the average citizen was not affected by the Stamp Act, because it was only a few pennies and they were willing to pay. But those individuals who were in business, who made many transactions in one day, and as they were being taxed by the Act, saw it was an unfair tax. At first the principles of the American Revolution were looked at by John Adams and Sam Adams because they understood the principles. The business people, from a business perspective, were saying, “We don’t want war because war will destabilize our country.” You see, when George Bush made the statement that we will fight the war outside of our country, the business people were saying, “Yes! I stand for this.” The Republican party supported it because they would be able to get more business. But the American Revolution was more aligned with what the Iraqi people or those countries were saying; “They will allow us to be blown to bits by terrorists because they don’t want it in their country, but it is our economies that are being affected.”
Imagine that the U.S. government, in this crisis, is standing on the side of King George, and establishing the concept. We will introduce the solution of this based on on how the Americans understood this, battling King George. You are looking at a flip-flop idea now. Looking at it from this perspective, you don’t stand a chance of winning this war. The war, basically is over, and you have lost. At this point, by executing Saddam Hussein, you have lost.
The business people have now been affected. You have drawn in the idea that the contracts no longer stand. You weren’t able to stabilize the country to enable the businesspeople to be able to get their life. You have lost the Republican power base because they weren’t able to get their business, also. Not only do you have against you the countries that fear they will be toppled, because of standing on the principles and their economies have been toppled, and they see the fear of their own economies being affected, but you also have lost the Republican power base because the economy was not based on sound business principles.
The practices of downsizing and outsourcing to Asia the foundation of your company—based on stockholders—you have turned over the power of a corporation because they are observing the concepts now. You could say the Pacific Rim countries now are rising in power because they understand the principles of how the United States functions on a business level. You could say you have turned over responsibility for all your businesses to Asian countries now. You have lost your Republican power base. You have lost Congress. The Democrats have no clue how to solve the crisis because all of the other people are, you could say, a mob mentality coming at you, and the terrorists have drawn people to their side.
The final group of people to be drawn into a movement are those who have lost their lives. As the companies have been downsized, and their jobs have been outsourced, the intellectual property has been sent over seas, you could say, with the retro-engineering of technology, the United States at the present is actually a third world country.
But all is not lost, because it is possible to gain back the power, and this is where we are standing now, is addressing how to gain back the power and the glory of the United States.
The power of the United States does not come from a strong military, and it is also not based on its economic strength, because there are other countries that have strong militaries and other countries with strong economies. The niche the United States has, that other countries don’t have, is the basis of the Constitution. What we will do is to draw back the power by standing on the principles of the freedom for “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” We will go back to stand on the principles of what made the United States strong in the first place.
You know how to do this because you understand the American Revolution. You understand where other people are coming from, and you understand the principles of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” But, instead of saying we will outsource our strengths... we will downsize our people... we will tax our people to the point they can’t get their life anymore, we are not going to oppress our people anymore. We will uphold our people and we will stand on a firm economic basis—of firm business practices—and we will enable everyone to get their life. Instead of saying, “ We are going to get our life, and”—excuse the expression— “screw everyone else,” instead we will enable everyone to be able to get their life, and that is the basis for our plan for world peace. We will introduce the plan for world peace, and with the modicum of power the United States has left, we will draw that together with all the practices that no longer function and didn’t get us the power, and we will turn that around. We will let go of the security of Iraq, and being able to gain natural resources by plundering other countries and toppling other regimes—we will let go of those games—and we will establish a protocol for functioning on a far higher level, which is to market the principles of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” to all the countries of the world.
That is the basis of our plan for world peace, and the U.S. perspective for doing so. In the remaining part of this paper we will address all of these principles on a far deeper level, based on the contingency that the U. S. government will accept our initial plan based on the exit strategy for Iraq. The United States is at the point of no return now, once more, related for this plan for world peace. If the contingency for the plan for Iraq is not accepted, and the United States goes into deeper war in Iraq, and sends in more troops, then this plan is null and void because the United States at that point will be in a world war, and it will literally be “us versus them.”
Up, Down or Straight Ahead?
To this point in our “investigation” in how to create a plan for world peace, we have addressed the idea that certain principles are involved, and those principles relate to spiritual concepts on which the Constitution is based. You could say the time of the American Revolution was based on similar concepts to what the United States and the world is going through at the present time. Imagine, that once they understood how to achieve a sense of unity between the colonies, they were able to stand up. President Bush has declared, “United We Stand” as his rally call. Imagine how close to the truth he is by that, but extend it to include the entire world in that “United We Stand” concept, because under the spiritual hierarchy, no country is given greater esteem than another country. This is the principle of Universal Law the Constitution rests on.
Look, then, that by standing on the principles, you can go back to a higher place than you are now. You could say the world, and the United States in particular at this time, is at a moment of choice. You can go down deeper into the crisis, pushing the pendulum further out, or denying the crisis by obfuscating the idea and standing on the premise that you know how to get out of it when everyone else clearly sees you don’t have a plan. Well, if you have a plan, it has to address the root cause of the crisis. In this segment of our paper, we will address the idea of the root cause of the crisis, and this will draw back to the point of the straight and narrow, where the pendulum no longer swings.
You must be very careful. If you choose to go down, and to swing this back, you can also choose to push the pendulum to the opposite side of the spectrum. An example of this... When 9/11 occurred, the United States was seen as victims of this catastrophic event, and people all over the world knew the horror of this event. There was a great deal of sympathy. But, by gaining sympathy, that does not give you carte blanche to go out and attack and to get revenge. You can see that revenge only creates a feud. The premise we are standing on to draw people out of this crisis is that the games are what cause the catastrophes, and we stand on the principles that the games have to end. This goes back to the concept that it is not people who are bad, it is the games that are bad.
Everyone has the capacity to get their life on a far higher level when they work together. There are hundreds and thousands and millions of examples across the planet of people working together and creating their life on a higher level. We will just draw up a few examples to look at, and direct you to the Nobel Peace Prize winners, and what they have managed to accomplish by doing that. Imagine that they came up with a plan where people were able to come out ahead in some way, and then they were honored for that. Let’s market this idea of everyone being able to create their life on a far higher level and then let’s allow George Bush to win the Nobel Prize for 2008 as he stands on the principles of this. He has been misguided to think that the games would work, when in effect, the games never worked.
In our books, and the Iraq exit strategy, we address the ideas of the games and how they lead to war and massacres and genocide. We will refer you to those books and the proposal and you can look at this in greater depth. For this aspect, we will take the concept of how to get out of the games, because you now know the games don’t work, but how to turn around and to function and to draw out of the crisis, you could say, is what your choice is for going up.
If you go straight ahead and deny the crisis and how the games function, you will just lose credibility. At some point in time, everyone will just walk away from you and you will not be re-elected into office. It is like Hillary Clinton standing with George Bush and saying the war needed to go on, that it was the right thing to do. That is seen as a power play so people walk away from you at a certain point in time. Power plays don’t work. It becomes ludicrous after a while when you stand on that premise. You are not standing on the principles; you are standing on the game. This is why the Republican base has walked away from President Bush. His stand has become ludicrous. It becomes a childish game, like “My big brother can beat you up.” After a while, you reach the point where you understand that you really don’t have a big brother because he never shows up. The stand becomes ludicrous.
To turn away from this is to start to function on a higher level. No games. No revenge. No attempts to gain sympathy or compassion from someone, because by trying to gain compassion, you just back yourself into a corner. If that becomes your strategy, at some point in time, people can no longer help you. You have painted yourself into a corner and there is no way out. An example of this would be someone who uses his or her illness to get compassion. Being sick is one thing when you are 12 years old and trying to get out of a math test, but being a nation and trying to get compassion... Your responsibility is to give compassion and to handle the requirements of maintaining the society, the aspects of society that an individual is not able to handle.
Let’s go to the root cause of a government. Why would a group of people create an agreement to form a government? That is because as each donates a certain percentage to that cause, it allows a larger amount for a higher level of functioning. But, when that government functions on a lower level, and creates a sense of war, and drags everyone into it, and there is no reason for it, and this is where rebellions come about. You could say the United States is open for rebellion at this time because it is no longer functioning. When the approval rating of Congress is below 20%, or the president’s is below 25 or 30%, at some point it is opening it up for rebellion, and the Republican—and the Democratic party, because they don’t have a plan, either—is facing this concept of “cleaning house.” You are about to prove you are expendable.
To temper this argument a bit, you have the capacity at this point, as you are being squeezed, to also function on a far higher level. That is to go back to stand on the principles of what made the United States strong in the first place. The issues you are facing, by extending the inalienable rights the people of the United States have...
Let’s look at the inalienable rights for a moment.
The inalienable rights are granted to every person on the planet by the Creator of all people. That is based on Universal Law. Let’s say the Constitution is an interpretation of Universal Law, just as a religion is an interpretation of Universal Law on a cultural basis. Consider that the Founding Fathers of the United States based their concept on the inalienable rights granted by the Creator. At that point, by blurring together this idea... Instead of looking at one religion, we will consider that all the religions are based on that concept. We are taking it to the higher level, not basing it on religion, but basing it on the inalienable rights, on Universal Law. If you consider only one religion, then you are only looking at one small segment again. That would be like saying Christians have a higher standing in God’s eyes than all the other religions—the Muslims, and such. This is what led to the protests. You could say that you are looking at things from a very narrow perspective. Well, if you say your country is better than another, then you are drawing people in who believe they have these inalienable rights, also, and those inalienable rights are that (1) everyone has the capacity to create the life they want without interference—this is an inalienable right from God—(2) that they have a voice in their government, and(3) they have to be treated fairly and equally. At that point, who can complain? You are drawing in the widest perspective possible.
This is what we will do when we look at purifying the legal system of the United States. As we introduce the plan for the international government, based on these three premises—that everyone has to be able to create the life they want without interference, that they have the right to be treated fairly and equally, and that they have to have a voice in their government—at that point in time, no one can complain, and what you are doing is establishing a structure that looks at the widest perspective possible. You are leaving no one out, so at that point, no one can complain. Your approval rating at that point is 100%, because they are sharing in the responsibility in the creation of what you are doing. It is like Patrick Henry standing up and protesting that the Bills of Rights had to be created, because it left out one segment—the rights of the people. If you have the rights of the federal government and the rights of the State, well, what happens to the rights of the people? You see, that silent segment has to be brought in, also.
You understand at this point, by looking back at the creation of our own government, that by establishing this to allow everyone to come out ahead, it allows everyone to come out ahead! That by denying someone a voice, they will raise their voice, and it will create a sense of terrorism. By denying people the right to create their life, other people who are afraid they will be denied their right to get their life will stand up and rebel.
Consider Osama bin Laden as standing up to say he has the right as a Muslim, and as a member of the Arab community, to defend his religion and his country. Which, as we look at the widest perspective possible now... Let’s say that terrorism doesn’t exist, but from the perspective of every person on the planet, they all see themselves as patriots. If you go back and consider what the colonists did when they came together and created the U.S. Constitution, imagine what would happen if you got all the countries together and created a constitutional convention, where they were all able to come together to debate these concepts.
Now, we are not going to absolve anyone of responsibility at this point. We will say under Universal Law, what you do to someone else will be done to you. The judgment against someone is God’s prerogative, and we will allow God to decide who is guilty and who is innocent. Under Universal Law, we will establish the court system to enable this to be played out. Because, one thing you have learned is that an illegitimate court, such as the kangaroo court that tried Saddam Hussein, only makes the person become a martyr. You could say that by executing—assassinating—Saddam Hussein, depending on your perspective, the United States went down, lost credibility, and Saddam Hussein became a martyr. That is all you accomplished. You created a sense of unity in the Arab countries against the United States. It backfired on you. That tactic seemed like it would work, but it backfired.
In the mediation aspect, we will establish the courts. For a moment, let’s look at the International Criminal Court, and that the United Nations does not require a country to be a signatory of that international body. The U.S. government is fully aware that if it signs that paper, it will open a pandora’s box of cases brought against it. You will be in a legal quagmire. At the same time, by drawing together everyone else, and saying we will allow you a voice in government, but under the principles, let’s agree that until this point, all of these issues were squeezing us to create something on a higher level. As the United States refuses to be a signatory, it is like not paying your bills. They keep building and building and building to the point that your creditors starts making demands on you.
How do you get out of this when you don’t have any funds? When you are a housewife and you can’t pay your bills? At that point in time, you have to get credit counseling, or draw someone in to help you, because there is no way you can function. You are continually being squeezed, and at some point in time, you have to declare bankruptcy. You could say declaring bankruptcy goes down. Not paying your bills is going straight ahead and denying that you have them, which becomes a legal crisis at some point in time. The final choice is to come out of that, and that, you could say, is to ask for help, or to start functioning on a higher level. Drawing that comparison, let’s consider that by functioning on a higher level, where everyone comes out ahead, they are willing to let go of frivolous lawsuits. Consider all of those law suits could have been brought up against Saddam Hussein, but by executing him, they will never be resolved. The Iraqi government, by executing him, also left a lot of angry Iraqi people who felt they were denied a voice by executing him too quickly.
Consider all of the parameters of this when you look at this, that by instituting an illegitimate government, by trying him in an illegitimate court, by refusing to allow people a voice, by looking at the economic crisis—which is what we will look at next— by saying we will turn over the power to the Iraqi government, but you are building major military bases and the world’s largest embassy, at the same time, everyone is looking at it and saying, “We know what you are doing.” You have a choice to function on a lower basis, go straight ahead, or function on a higher basis.
Our premise is the U. S. government has to start choosing to address all of these issues from the perspective of the people you are dealing with, that by denying these people a voice, you are denying yourself an opportunity to resolve the consequences of this. You are not functioning on a higher level; you are choosing to go straight ahead and into denial, which means that at some point in time, like Elisabeth Kubler Ross said, “Denial is the first stage of losing your life.” When you are told you have terminal cancer, for example, the first stage is the sense of denial. The second stage is when you start to negotiate. Well, what we will do is to say there is no reason to go into these stages, where you are about to lose your life completely, and to drop the United States into a situation where it has lost all its power, and it becomes a third world country, because the logical consequences of all of these actions are that the United States is becoming a third world country at this time.
In our next segment we will discuss the issue of the financial aspect, which is the logical consequences of the United States becoming bankrupted.
Consider that the United States hired Osama bin Laden to bankrupt Russia so it would have to leave Afghanistan. At that point in time, the United States moved in, but then Osama bin Laden turned the tables on the United States and decided he could use the same tactics on the United States, and bankrupt the United States. He doesn’t have to beat the United States in a war. It is a war of attrition. All he has to do is keep making threats and keep the United States at a level of readiness. You trained him to do that.
Imagine that as this is happening, and the United States is going down, the Asian countries have also learned our tactics by watching our country outsource and downsize, and give our intellectual property rights away. The United States has created a sense of training the Asian countries to function on the level of the United States. During World War II, Japan was a ruined economy. Now it is one of the strongest countries in the world. The Asian countries believe this is their century, that they are now rising. As the United States has outsourced and downsized its corporations, you have trained these countries to function on this level. What is now about to occur is they will take over control of the world. George Bush, through his act of creating a war he could not end, has bankrupted the United States. But all is not lost, because with the Asian countries, and as the United States pulls out of this crisis by standing on the principles, you have the capacity to rise out of that crisis, also. First you have to understand what didn’t work. That is what we will address in our next segment—why those tactics didn’t work.
You have many economists—the people who told “the Grand Lie”—that these ideas would work, and people believed them. You have to now start to allow people to be squeezed, because you will not be able to convince them what they have done isn’t working. It takes a time for mankind to evolve out of their crisis, just like it took time for Moses to wander in the wilderness for forty years with the Children of Israel before they could go on to the promised land—to draw in a religious story here.
What I will do is to look at all the ideas that have to be let go of, and then we will start to address in the next segment the economic structure. At that point we will also look at the social—such as the court aspect and mediation aspect, and even health issues, and such, because as the economic structure goes down within the United States, you are also leaving a society of people where the social programs will be cut shortly. You will run into wave after wave of crises that will come from this idea. It will follow wave after wave, where one crisis will lead to the next. Our final segment will address how to draw out onto the far higher level, so we ask that you bear with us as we discuss all of these parameters that have to be addressed. We have to first look at what didn’t work before you can start understanding the principles of what will work.
Karen Holmes, Principal
The World Peace Organization
for the One World Government