Was it a war, a genocide or a genocide?

Memo fever is epidemic in Washington DC, and today there is a question of whether Donald Trump will use the memo as the justification for firing Rod Rosenstein. As the president of the United States, he has the right to fire the the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, who is responsible for the special prosecutor, but it must be for cause. Does the newly declassified memo show cause? If it doesn't, Donald Trump can be impeached by Congress.

As this drama unfolds in Washington DC, let's all step back to another time, and compare this time period to the run-up to the Iraq War. According to our Light Source Invention, this is the third cycle, and the power games that are being played have reached their most extreme levels. North Korea has unified with South Korea for the Olympics, but can it last once the Olympics has ended? If Kim Jong Un is innocent now of the charges against him, it will collapse Donald Trump's justification to go to Congress for authorization to use military force.

President Bush went to Congress and received authorization to use military force against Saddam Hussein. Congress had voted to put sanctions on Iraq, and was monitoring whether the sanctions were working, so it should have come as a shock to them to hear that Saddam Hussein was working on his nuclear power program. Bush also went to the United Nations to draw together the support he needed to wage war on Iraq. He justified it with the vial of yellowcake from Niger.

It was a vial of yellowcake, a vial of yellowcake, and a vial of yellowcake, but did that vial of yellowcake prove that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear power program, and had the intent to use his "newly manufactured nuclear weapons" against the United States? Was it the justification to preemptively strike Iraq?

George W. Bush declared Saddam Hussein to be "Axis of Evil," and he said "After all, he tried to kill my father." No one has the right to judge another, and this was an act of revenge for what he supposedly did to his father, George HW Bush. The judgment and revenge against Saddam Hussein means that the conflict devolved not as a war, but as a genocide, and it drew in his father, who believed he had the right to put Saddam Hussein down, which led to the Gulf War.

Genocides are based on weaving an illusion. The truth doesn't overcome the lie. It just reaches the point where no one knows who to trust. It created the schism between the Republicans and Democrats that is tearing apart Congress today. When no one knows who to trust, and only thing you can trust is Universal Law. It brings the swinging pendulum back to the straight and narrow.

Iraq and North Korea have not been treated equally in the United Nations, nor in U.S. foreign policy. Both The UN and US foreign policy have proven they cannot end or prevent wars, but have dragged mankind to the edge of the abyss that is nuclear war. The next step is to deny Iraq and North Korea  their unalienable rights, which are to be able to create their lives without interference, to be treated fairly and equally,  and to have a voice in their government. By doing that, under Universal Law, the people of the United States are facing the backlashes by losing our unalienable rights.

We are being backed into the corner by Russian interference in our elections. We cannot continue to be squeezed and we cannot come out of the corner fighting a greater force, which includes Russia and China. At this point, we are in a dilemma, and the solution to every dilemma is to turn around and go through the little door at the back of the corner. That is to do what is in everyone's best interest.

It is time for the people of the United States to join the debate on the plan for the international government. Today, we launch our U.S. Constitutional Amendment drive and will start gathering names on petitions for Congress to convene a Convention of States--an Article V amendment convention.

Next month, we will focus on Iraq, and we will assume responsibility for undoing the damage that was done when the United States invaded Iraq. 

Is it a memo, a memo or a memo?

This is the text of one of our posts on our organization Facebook page this morning. It is in response to an article about President Trump's tweet about the memo that Congressman Nunes wrote about the FBI's investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 president election. 

Our organization recently sent a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court as part of our purifying the U.S. legal system aspect. It addresses a misunderstanding in our legal system that is based on the three levels of the Universe, which are the Principles, the Power and the Project--or the Potential, the Drive, and the Plan.

In regards to our federal legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law.

There are seven principles of Universal Law that bring a swinging pendulum back to the "straight and narrow": Equality, Liberty, Freedom, Compassion, Abundance, Capacity and Tolerance. For example, intolerance leads to the believe that you have the right to put others down, and that belief leads to wars. The principle that is lacking in wars is equality, and that is what brings the pendulum back to the straight and narrow. Any court must treat both sides equally to end the conflict. Universal Law is fixed and applies to every atom in the Universe.

Constitutional Law is the power perspective, and it is not fixed. it is evolutionary. It is the application of Universal Law in the United States, but when Universal Law is not regarded, and the President of the United States is playing power games rather than standing on the principles, the United States devolves. Religion is a cultural interpretation of Universal Law, and each of the seven major religion teaches one segment of the information necessary to create the life we want, but each also plays a favorite power games, so imagine this leads to wars and acts of terrorism. The application of Universal Law is not fixed.

Here we have an example of two interpretations of the same document. Donald Trump is saying it vindicates"Trump" in the probe, and the memo is a disgrace. But, when he says the memo is a disgrace, which level of the memo is he referring to? Is it the principles, the power or the project level of the memo? Is it a disgrace because it doesn't stand on the principles of all memos, is it a power grab by Nunes, or is the memo written poorly and with bad grammar?

The headline of this article says Donald Trump believes this memo will vindicate him, and implies he will take the next step to target the FBI. If that is the case, what will the courts decide?

This same crisis is going on in regards to our organization and the first step in the creation of the proposed international government. The first step of our Track Our Progress planning for each proposal involves bringing in the people, and for each, we must unravel the obfuscation that traps people in the illusion. We have been dealing with a character defamation campaign, which is an individual form of genocide, and genocides are based on weaving an illusion. The Iraq War devolved as a genocide, not a war, and genocides are based on weaving an illusion. The principle that brings the swinging pendulum back to the straight and narrow is Liberty--our unalienable rights. When governments can justify taking away anyone's unalienable rights, then the power game that is being played is genocide--based on the game of Envy.

When the illusion reaches the point where everyone is compromised and backed into the corner, the truth doesn't overcome the lie. The only thing you can trust at that point is Universal Law. That is the reason our organization sent the letter to the Supreme Court.