Purifying the election process

This U.S. presidential election has been all about two powerful individuals who have high unfavorable ratings, and they have come into the election process with high hopes that they can convince enough American voters to make one president of the United States.

Generally speaking, they have drawn in support from members of their own party, but independent voters sway the election process, and the perception among independents is that the choice has come down to the lessor of two evils. Any power games or scandals by the candidates or political parties leave independent voters searching for other options, but there is such a schism within our government that the two main parties are using scare tactics to prevent independents from voting for the other candidate.  

This election is not politics as usual, but this crisis has been devolving step by step for many years, and this year is the ultimate conclusion of the power games that have been played, when to vote for anyone other than someone you consider to be "evil" is a wasted vote, and if you vote for the other candidate, you are voting for global war.

Several issues must be addressed, which together set the stage for a call for comprehensive reform. These issues have caused chaos in the U.S. legal system-- campaign financing, the electoral college and term limits. Attempts to reform the system have failed. Rather than statesmen and women being elected to solve the problems, term limits have led to vast power bases being formed that have led to resistance to reform.

The intent of campaign finance laws has been to limit the size of donations to prevent people from being able to buy influence with elected officials, or to be able to buy their way into the Whitehouse. The president of the United States must represent the people, because in our nation and in every nation, the power the government has is derived from the people. Citizens United has changed that, making it possible for individuals or corporations to donate large amounts of money to the candidates. Donald Trump has declared that he is funding his own campaign, while Hillary Clinton has accepted millions of dollars from wealthy donors.

A candidate must get 270 electoral college votes to become president of the United States. Strong third party candidates make it harder for the candidate of a major party to hit that magic number, and if no one succeeds, Congress decides who will become president. This year, with such high unfavorable ratings of the two front-runners, the election could be kicked into Congress, but the power bases in Congress limit third party candidates potential to be considered. Congress has its own unfavorable ratings issues, with a 20%, approval rating which means that Congress is also not addressing the issues, and once again America is facing the option between the lessor of two evils.

This election is actually about where true power comes from. True power comes from assuming responsibility to undo the damage that has been done. Americans have turned responsibility for solving problems over to the government, and the government is not capable of solving the problems. The solution to this crisis is for the people to take back the power, no matter who becomes president of the United States.

America's founding fathers included a path for amending our Constitution, called an Article V amendment convention, and the president of the United States has no more say than any other American. This path is also called a Convention of States, so the people must go to the state legislatures and petition the states to send a resolution to Congress to hold the convention, and each state will send delegates. This is how our Founding Fathers convened to solve the issues America was facing.

Fears of a run-away convention have been the justification for denying the resolutions for amendments that address campaign financing, electoral college and term limits, among others, so the only amendment that will be accepted is the overview plan that benefits everyone, which is the plan for the international government.

Evolution

We are approaching the process to purify the legal system by looking at the highest good for all people. Laws that don't do so create cycles, and our goal is to straighten out the path mankind is taking into the future. The international legal system must be based on Universal Law, or rather than to straighten the path we will just create more cycles.

The only way that everyone will agree to the plan is if it allows mankind to evolve to the higher level. For example, if a caliphate is established on Earth, which is the goal of ISIS, and every person on the planet must live until Sharia Law, it will create a huge cycle, where people stand in protest, and the planet will devolve into a global conflict.

As I write this, many people are aware of the plan for the international government, and that it is based on the U.S. Constitution and the cooperation of nature, and are trying to bring it about without purifying our legal system first. They believe the United States functions on a very high level. That idea won't work. At this time, there is a schism within the United States, and many people still believe the Iraq War was justified, and that waging war to protect the interests of the United States is in our best interests. We cannot force an agenda on the rest of the planet. We must address conflict resolution and unification first to end the schism that has been created. To unify everyone, we must look first at Universal Law as the basis for the international legal system. It applies to every atom in the Universe. To create an international government based on our own legal system, which is proving in need of reform, will force everyone on the planet to go along with our agenda, and will only lead to resistance, and to creating more cycles.

The first row of the World Peace Marketing Strategy is for those who stand on the principles, and who are being invited into a project that must stand on the principles of Universal Law. This row is part of the Getting Out of the Abyss classes, and the first question new students are asked is, "Are you willing to stand on the principles of Universal Law?" If the student is not, then it is not yet time for him or her to join the project that allows the student to rise out of the abyss.

The Sixth Amendment Right to a Fair Trial

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Exit Strategy for Iraq proposal leads to the creation of an international court system so that disputes between nations are resolved in court rather than the battlefield. The Iraq War devolved as a genocide, a character defamation campaign against Saddam Hussein. He was tried in an Iraqi court for a crime against his own people, and executed, but by being tried for a lesser crime, he never stood trial for the crimes that were brought against him that justified the preemptive strike. With the power of the United States behind the lesser court case, did he receive a fair trial?

The Sixth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and the question is, can America have a double standard in the world by guaranteeing the inalienable rights to American citizens and by denying them to others? What makes them inalienable? They are based on Universal Law, which treats every nation and every individual fairly and equally. Under the Universal Law of Cause and Effect, or karma, or the Golden Rule, by denying another his or her, or their, inalienable rights, we are losing our rights.  Universal Law is immutable. They apply to every atom in the Universe. 

Genocides are based on weaving an illusion. To end a genocide, someone must defend the person who is being crucified, but  the Sixth Amendment right to "obtaining witnesses in his favor" can be very difficult to achieve.  The ultimate conclusion of a genocide is that the person who is being defamed is forced to flee for his or her life, or leaves by dying, because the resistance is so powerful hat no one will testify in his defense. Having the assistance of counsel for his defense can also be difficult to achieve because the life of the attorney can be threatened. In some cases, the judge can be swayed, also, and was demonstrated in Iraq. 

When you are being defamed, it is important to understand that someone will always defend you. The Sixth Amendment is still valid, but it must be extended to the higher level for the United States to protect our own rights. 

The U.S. legal system must be based on Universal Law because it treats everyone fairly and equally. The judge may be drawn into one of the ripples of effects that go out from the character defamation, but if the defendant cannot have a fair trial in the state or district where the crime was committed, the case can be appealed to an Appellate Court, and if not there, then to the Supreme Court where the laws themselves are addressed and the defendant is seen not as an individual, but as a example of a rationale for change in the legal system. 

The United States must address the Exit Strategy for Iraq, and the character defamation campaign against Saddam Hussein. The Grand Lie was told to justify the war, and it drew in every person on the planet in some way, but it went against the premise that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and with our two party political system, it created a schism within our country. 

The focus is now on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices have their opinions, but the schism has created an optical illusion effect within the United States, and both sides are valid. There are conservative and liberal justices, and under normal circumstances, the system works. 

But, we are reaching the point where one seat is vacant, and several justices are reaching the age where they may choose to retire, and who will replace them? The next president of the United States is responsible for nominating someone, but Congress must agree to the selection. There is a battle that is forming and both sides are fighting for their lives. This election is not politics as usual, but just like the justification for the preemptive strike on Iraq, it is one small step for the politicians, and one major leap for the rest of the planet. 

Until this time, there has been resistance to reforming the U.S. legal system. Attempts have been made to address issues like campaign finance, term limits and a balanced budget. Now, with the plan for the international government being opened to debate, and the entire world watching to see how we function, we must start to address reforming the U.S. legal system. By realizing that a thousand years of history is watching us, like we watch our founding fathers, it is in everyone's best interest for this to be resolved.

Now is the time for the United States to make its choice to go up, down or straight ahead. 

Our founding fathers had very different perspectives on how the government should function, and they even fought duels, but when they came to their conventions and opened the ideas to debate, they built on each others ideas to the point where they reached a very high level. 

Let's follow their example. 

The failed policy of waging a preemptive war

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. (Wikipedia)

The Iraq War was fought as a preemptive war,* but you cannot bring peace by waging a war. While it seemed like a small logical step for President George W. Bush to invade Irag, it went against the principle of presumption of innocence. The U.S. legal system is based on this principle because you cannot defend yourself from prejudice or ulterior motives. 

Prejudice is based on a sense of judgment, and no one has the right to judge another. Governments have the right to judge whether someone is breaking a law, but the government's power is derived from the people, and the people agree to abide by the laws to maintain a sense of peace. If a war is fought for ulterior motives, such as gaining control of natural sources, there are far superior ways to do so than to place people on both sides in harm's way.  

It is failed policy because it goes against the Universal Law of Cause and Effect, and the inalienable rights each person on the planet is granted by the Creator of us all, which are to be able to create our life without interference, to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government. 

Our Exit Strategy for Iraq proposal leads to the creation of an international government based on Universal Law, which is guarantee to every person on the planet our inalienable rights. 

This first proposal looks at the reasoning behind the principle of the presumption of innocence as one of the principles of the international legal system.

Let's start the debate on this principle. The question is whether it is failed foreign policy or justified but based on faulty proof. Please take a moment to reply to our survey in the left sidebar.

*A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war shortly before that attack materializes. It is a war which preemptively 'breaks the peace'. (Wikipedia)

Why start with U.C. Berkeley?

Our first proposal is our Exit Strategy for Iraq. The conflict in Iraq devolved as a genocide, not a war. The California Community Property Law enables families that are going through a hostile divorce, which devolve as family genocides, to be protected. The ripples of effects that go out from California genocides are tearing apart the state.

We can work to purify the California legal system and allow them to demonstrate the potential of our proposal to end genocides on every level, including the Iraq Genocide.

Now is the time!

Every year, there are attempts to purify the U.S. legal system, even from within Congress, but each attempt faces resistance to the change. The only time change comes easily is at the beginning or the end of a cycle. We have reached the end of the cycle and now change is possible.

Since the preemptive strike on Iraq, Congress has been gridlocked, and deeply divided. This presidential election has been the most chaotic for many years, with both major party candidates having high un-favorability ratings so that people are voting against them instead of for them. This is possibly the first time in American history that a standing president has declared one of the candidates, after their party convention, to be unfit for office, and there have even been talks of party candidates resigning.

As we reach the end of the cycle, people must realize that the old structure is no longer working, and then start to look for a new plan, but what plan will that be? It must already be in existence for it to be accepted, no matter how small.

The plan for the international government is being debated by people all over the world, and many people support the idea but don't know how to bring it about. Before the conference in Europe can occur, we must purify the U.S. legal system to prevent the chaos from spreading onto the international level. Everyone wants to see the One World Government conference come about, and are watching America now to see how we do things here, and maybe improve on our system.