Your Excellency:
Our organization is working to introduce a plan for an international government, and each year we are introducing a government proposal for Iraq.
One proposal ends the conflict in Iraq, and the other helps to rebuild Iraq.
At this point in time, we recommend that your government seriously consider our plan because it allows Iraq to be equal to all the other nations, and it solves your problems. Before you make any decision, I would like to warn you about reliance on the United Nations for securing loans from other nations to rebuild Iraq.
May I give you an old example of why we are making this recommendation, and then allow you to apply the information to more recent circumstances?
Many people have considered Saddam Hussein to be oppressive to the people of Iraq, and he was, but in many ways he defended Iraq. Prior to the Gulf War, he discovered that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. (This information can be found on the Wikipedia website.) Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to stop them from taking Iraq's oil reserves. He was backed into the proverbial corner, because he could not allow the theft to continue, nor fight a stronger and more unified force. After the war, Iraq had to pay for the damages that were caused, but because the oil industry and infrastructure was destroyed, Iraq was offered loans.
This was not fair. Why should you pay for another nation taking your oil?
Then there were the sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and Saddam Hussein protested. There was the preemptive strike on Iraq, and the Iraq War, and Saddam Hussein protested but was assassinated, and then ISIS, and now you are being offered loans to rebuild.
How is Iraq responsible for the damages that have been done?
Our organization is working to create the international government, and we have stated that we will help to rebuild Iraq and it won't leave you poorer in the process. The proceeds from one of our books can go to rebuild Iraq. Our contracts cost only $2.5 million, and we help set up programs that make it possible even for the poorest nations to be able to afford to hire us. We function only as advisers to governments. We don't contract to do any work. Our goal is to enable every nation to be able to function as equal to all other nations in the international government. Step by step, we are working to overcome the problems mankind is facing.
A plan for an international government based on two proven concepts: the U.S. Constitution and the cooperation of nature.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Letter to Senator Wyden: Protecting the US Election Process from Russian Interference
Senator Wyden:
Our organization is working to create an international government, and one issue that we must address is fair elections. Interference by Russians will continue on for the foreseeable future, and something must be done to protect our election process.
David Brooks wrote in his column this week that he believes we have come to the end of the two-party system. This may be the perfect time to address changes in our election process, including changes that allow anyone to run for president of the United States so long as they can offer plans that can solve the problems we are facing as a nation.
If anyone can run for president, candidates will start on the local level, then progress to state, regional and finally national levels. Instead of campaign financing by donations, the solution is for organizations to sponsor debates and the media to offer space for the candidates to offer their platforms. It would be impossible for Russians to interfere in these elections, and it would motivate them to faces changes in their own election process.
The plan for the international government requires an Article V amendment convention, and this is one topic we must address as we gather signatures on petitions to state the legislatures.
Is this idea of running for president without party support "constitutional"? What would our founding fathers say about his idea?
Information from Wikipedia about first US presidential elections, candidates and their parties:
Our organization is working to create an international government, and one issue that we must address is fair elections. Interference by Russians will continue on for the foreseeable future, and something must be done to protect our election process.
David Brooks wrote in his column this week that he believes we have come to the end of the two-party system. This may be the perfect time to address changes in our election process, including changes that allow anyone to run for president of the United States so long as they can offer plans that can solve the problems we are facing as a nation.
If anyone can run for president, candidates will start on the local level, then progress to state, regional and finally national levels. Instead of campaign financing by donations, the solution is for organizations to sponsor debates and the media to offer space for the candidates to offer their platforms. It would be impossible for Russians to interfere in these elections, and it would motivate them to faces changes in their own election process.
The plan for the international government requires an Article V amendment convention, and this is one topic we must address as we gather signatures on petitions to state the legislatures.
Is this idea of running for president without party support "constitutional"? What would our founding fathers say about his idea?
Information from Wikipedia about first US presidential elections, candidates and their parties:
| Year | Winning Candidate (party) | Vice President (party) | Losing Candidate(s) (party) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1789 | George Washington (no party) | John Adams (no party) | John Rutledge, John Hancock, Samuel Huntington, Benjamin Lincoln, John Jay (Federalist); George Clinton (no party) |
| 1792 | George Washington (no party) | John Adams (no party) | George Clinton (no party), Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican), Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican) |
| 1796 | John Adams (Federalist) | Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) | Federalists: Oliver Ellsworth, John Jay, James Iredell, Samuel Johnston, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney; Democratic-Republicans: Aaron Burr, Thomas Pinckney |
| 1800 | Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) | Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican) | John Adams, Charles Pinckney, John Jay |
Friday, February 9, 2018
North Korea Sets the Stage for World Peace
After the plan for the international government was opened to debate, a period of conflict followed. Now North Korea has chosen to walk away from the conflict and to embrace peace. What motivated them to do so? Will coming together at the Olympics under a unified flag lead to a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula?
North Korea has been backed into the proverbial corner by sanctions, and by six party talks that have led to joint military operations.
When you are backed into the corner, you see only two options, and both are untenable. One is to continue to be squeezed and the other is to come out over the top of a larger and possibly force. Mankind always has three options, but when you are in a crisis, you see only these two. What is unseen is the choice to go up, and that is to do what is in everyone's best interest. Because you are 180 degrees from where you think you are, you turn around and go through what can be considered a little door in the corner. You let go of what is dragging you into the abyss, but that is not your children, your resources or anything that is rightfully yours.
This is what North Korea appears to be doing. They are letting go of their nuclear weapons, turning around and joining the debate on the plan for the international government, which treats them as equals to all the other nations, which is what the Olympics also does. They are choosing to go up, and to do what is in everyone's best interest.
Those who have relied on the existing structure for their life and livelihood have resisted the creation of the proposed international government, and as the plan has progressed, they have gone through what can be considered their end of life crisis. The plan has gone through the planning stages on the mental level, and the resistance to the plan pushed mankind to the brink of nuclear war. The existing structure, based on power games, has proved it cannot end or prevent wars. Can they offer a better plan? Can they offer a plan that benefits everyone?
Mankind now has three options. We can ignore the crises and pass them on to future generations, and it will take seven generations--based on the planning process--to undo the damage that has been done. We can allow those who rely on the existing structure to start a nuclear war. We can all let go of the old structure based on power grabs and come into the new, and work together to create the international government, which will treat everyone fairly and equally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)