The Right to Life Movement is based on a misunderstanding.

Holding retired elected officials accountable

The Right to Have an Abortion

The Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law today that blocks abortions in that state. Abortion doctors, under that law, would have to be within 30 miles of a hospital, with the right to practice in that hospital, and that would shut down two of the three remaining abortion clinics in that state. Abortion doctors within the 30 miles of the hospitals were having trouble getting permission from the hospitals.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote on the decision. He looked at a previous law in the state of Texas for his justification. While many people are celebrating the decision, his dependence on federal law won't bring together the two extremes on this issue. The only thing that can bring the two extremes together to enable everyone to function on a higher level is to address the unalienable rights people have. Schisms start when people are denied our unalienable rights. The people who object to abortion believe the fetus has the right to life without considering that the mother has the unalienable right to get her life, too.

Our founders declared, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It is the definition of Life that is important. It is God's interpretation of Life that enables everyone to function on a higher level, and brings both extremes to the middle ground. Life, when interpreted as the right to breathe, makes abortion, police tactics of knee to the neck--the cause of the George Floyd protests around the world--waterboarding and capital punishment not only unconstitutional but a mortal sin.

The soul is one's purpose in life. Everyone has an individual purpose, and group purpose and a racial purpose. We get our purpose in life when we take our first breath. In astrology, the birth chart depicts  the time of birth, not conception. Conception is insignificant, and in fact, spontaneous abortions will occur when the woman is not ready to have a child.   Life, when interpreted as one's purpose in life, life creates a sense of principles of equality, liberty and freedom.

A Glitch in the Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump

There is a misunderstanding about the role the Chief Justice plays in the Senate trial of Donald Trump. The US Constitution gives the Senate the right to write rules for the trial, and the rules the majority leader is standing on are specious. They seem fair and impartial, but they un-empower the  presiding official, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts, and can potentially enable the Republican majority to obstruct justice.

This is the text of a form email I sent to the US Supreme  Court:

There is a general misconception about the role Chief Justice Roberts will play during the Senate impeachment trial. That he is subject to the rules of the Senate is ludicrous. Federal law cannot supersede constitutional law, or it causes chaos in the system.

The House represents the Will of the people in legislation, and the Senate addresses the Rights of the people, the Executive branch addresses whether laws and practices are executable, and courts decide whether something is legal, and the Supreme Court determines whether what they are doing is constitutional. The Constitution addresses the use of power and the abuse of power, and is evolutionary. It is where we are as a nation, like owning slaves. We evolved out of slavery, but human trafficking is still occurring, but it is now unlawful. Congress can write and rewrite the laws, but even then, is what they are doing constitutional? Are they using or abusing their power?

The  House's role in impeachment addresses whether what the president is doing is where we are as a nation, and what the people will tolerate. The people rise in protest when something is not fair. The Senate must address in the trial whether what President Trump did was to deny the people their rights to a fair election and a fair trial. The Senate rules cannot supersede the Constitution. 

Where we are at any point in time is based on what we believe. Then, we rise and fall in power by the choices we make. If we make our choices based on fear and a sense of lack, we fall in power. Imagine being on a battlefield during a war is based on what that  person believes, and whether he
 can overcome his  fears decides which direction he goes from that point. He moves forward out of courage, cowers in the trenches and passes on the crisis to future generations, or is overewhelmed by fear and deserts, and if he does, he will face his fears when he is (historically) shot for desertion. When we run from fear, its gets bigger.

If the opinion of the Republican senators that Chief Justice Roberts will be the master of ceremonies, subject to the will of the Senate Rules , he is not standing  on the  principles of his role to protect the Constitution. He must stand on the principles of the Constitution, and decide whether the rules of the Senate guarantee to the people the right of a fair trial.

The premise of the presumption of innocence became a part of our legal system because no one can defend himself from prejudice and ulterior motives. Are the Democrats treating Trump unfairly by impeaching him, as some Conservatives believe? Trump has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in court when no one else will defend Trump, it is up to the courts to do that, by ensuring the trial is not a sham.

How can the use of power and abuse of power be measured? By whether it stands on the principles of Universal Law, which stands on seven principles--equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance.  By standing on these principles of Universal Law, our nation evolves--we move forward with courage. There are seven power games that people play, and governments play five of them, and all five are related to revenge. For every power game, a principle counteracts the game. The first requirement for conflict resolution is that both sides must be considered equal, so if a trial can be considered conflict resolution, there must be equality under the law for a fair trial.

In a letter dated November 9, 2017, to the US Supreme Court, I explained how a misunderstanding about the three levels of the US legal system allows our government to constitutionally justify playing power games that are oppressive to the people. Many people see two levels--constitutional law and federal law--but leave out Universal Law, which stands on the seven principles. There are always three levels--the principles, the power and the project. Constitutional law is the power level.

Power comes from assuming responsibility, not from playing power games, because grabs for power demonstrate a lack of power.The games compensate for a fear of lack. Federal law must be a combination of both Universal Law and constitutional law or it causes chaos in our legal system. The Senate rules must address procedural rules, but cannot prevent a fair trial--or fair elections.

Letter to Senator Wyden: Reforming Elections

The United States must start to address election reforms, first to protect our elections from Russian interference, and second, due to a sociological process known as Armageddon, it may be difficult for any major party candidate to get a  majority of the votes. The Republicans are facing this now with Trump's approval ratings hovering in the 30's, but the same thing is occurring in the Democratic Party.  In the last election, independent voters were warned not to vote for a third party candidate, and independents and moderate Conservatives were told they had to vote for a candidate who they didn't necessarily want and trust because they had to protect the US Supreme Court. 

My organization is working to create an international government based on the US Constitution, and one thing that we must address on the international government is how to hold elections, a plan that functions on a far higher level than the existing structure of any nation. With such a diversity of existing ways that officials are elected to office, what is the highest form?

We believe the highest form of elections is when anyone can run for president, and no donations or contributions are allowed. Nonprofits can hold debates and media can offer free space to candidates. Presidential elections will be held similar to tournaments--first on the local level, where candidates must offer plans that benefit everyone, and then state, regional and national levels, and candidates will progress by offering plans for each of the levels. The international government will have two presidents, and they will stand back to back, with one addressing the national level and the other, the international level. The international candidate must also solve the problems, because the same crises occur on every level.

The preemptive strike on Iraq triggered a schism around the world. It started the World Peace Movement, and every movement divides the people  into four segments--those who stands on the principles, those who have been financially affected, those whose lives have been affected and those who function for their own interests. This occurred on a global basis first, and then within nations, then within parties, and this continues to separate the people down to the individual level. As it separates, there may be some crossovers, but eventually, all candidates will hover around 25%. Any elected official knows the independents sway the election. That final 25%--the ult-rights and ult-lefts--can start rebellions.

No elected official has ever been able to get enough support to reform campaign financing to be more fair, or term limits, or a balanced budget. Attempts to go the Article V constitutional amendment route have failed. The only way that successful campaign reform can be enacted is by turning responsibility over to the States and the People through Article V, but limit the debate to the proposed international government. Everyone on the planet will be included in the debate.

Our founding fathers used a tool during debates that allowed them to reach a very high level. They "stormed the mountain." One would make a statement, and others would build and improve on it to the point where everyone agreed and was willing to carry the idea forward. Compromise doesn't work because no one fully supports the outcome, and neither does being backed into the corner. Imagine how high the proposed international government will reach if everyone is invited into the debate, and we storm the mountain.

I have kept your office informed of our progress in the creation of the proposed international government. It is normal to have active resistance to any plan from those who are in the second segment, and when they work with the fourth group, the resistance can become rebellious. The resistance ends when they see how they can get their financial support. Trump promised his supporters he would make America great (meaning prosperous) but the backbone of any economy is small business, and his plans only make the crisis worse. Our Lift the Public Plan, and economic stimulus plan that benefits everyone, can draw everyone into the plan for the international government. I gave a copy of our Lift the Public handout to Congressman DeFazio, originally in 2007, but also at his last townhall meeting in Brookings. 

My organization is hoping to start our Article V constitutional amendment drive in 2019. If you and Congressman DeFazio would like to overcome the coming economic crisis triggered by Trump's failed policy, please consider the Lift the Public Plan. It benefits everyone, including the lowest economic classes--the homeless and people on fixed incomes.

The Principle of Tolerance in US Law

This month, students of the Faith of the Pure Ray are focusing on the principles of Islam, and celebrating Ramadan, a time for setting aside the cares of the world and focusing on introspection on the principles of equality, and also tolerance and empowerment, and then creativity.

The favorite power game associated with Islam is terrorism, which is lashing out in anger when the Muslim sees someone who is not standing on the principles. Mankind always has three choices, and one is to stand on the principles, then another is to ignore the crisis and pass it on to future generations, and then one is to go down into the power games, which is the case of Muslims is terrorism--lashing out in anger. Ramadan, when observed based on its highest level, helps to clarify which option is the best.

Our Light Source Invention helps to clarify the importance of tolerance, which is on the opposite side of the planning circle from Islam. When people rise in protest, tolerance brings together everyone to come up with a plan that benefits everyone, and then the plan must stand on the principles of Christianity, which teaches creativity. Zero tolerance leads to more oppression--plans that benefit no one. 

(Our Tolerance brochure)

This month, the Trump administration has announced their policy of zero tolerance for illegal immigrants that are coming across the border asking for refuge. It has finally been revealed that Trump is using his policy, not to stand on the laws, but to back Congress into a corner to approve his immigration plan which includes the border wall. Previous attempts to introduce an immigration reform included a Muslim ban. 

Tolerance is the principle that brings the swinging pendulum back to the midpoint when there are acts of terrorism. The root cause of terrorism is that the people are denied a voice in their government, which is one of our unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator. Trump's policy of zero tolerance and a border wall won't solve the problem of terrorism. 

The Trump administration argues that they are just following the law, and this argument could stand in court, except that there is a misunderstanding in our legal system that is creating chaos.


Form email to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan on immigration June 17, 2018

There is a misunderstanding in our legal system that is causing chaos. Many people see two levels, when there are three (Principles, Power and Project) or Universal Law, constitutional law and federal law. 

Universal Law applies to every atom in the Universe, and that is where we get our unalienable rights. It stands on seven principles: equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance. When our government stands on only constitutional law and federal law, it can justify, even in court, oppressive power games. For example, the first requirement for conflict resolution is that both sides must be considered equal. If a court case is a mini-war, how can our government guarantee fairs trials if there is no equality under the law?

The Constitution is the Power aspect, and it is not fixed, but evolutionary and it evolves and devolves as Americans do. It addresses use of power when it delineates the duties and rights and privileges of elected officials, and when to remove them from power when they abuse their power.

Impeachment must be considered one of the Checks and Balances. When people are saying, "This is not America," then it is time to consider that what our elected officials are doing is an abuse of constitutional power, and that is an impeachable offense, because the House represents and will of the people and the Senate addresses the rights of the people. 

Tolerance is necessary to bring together everyone to create a plan that benefits everyone. Zero tolerance is unlawful, and an abuse of power. 

Why is Impeachment Such a Threat?

Impeachment has become a threat, something to be avoided at any cost, but when our founding fathers included "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution, they intended it to be one of the checks and balances. Impeachment doesn't have to lead to indictment. It can lead to a proverbial slap on the hand, and should be used anytime there is a question of whether an elected official has abused the power of the office. The Constitution delineates the rights, duties and privileges of the position, and also when to remove the elected official from office for abuse of power. 

It is not up to Congress to decide whether a law or practice is legal. The House of Representatives addresses the will of the people and the Senate addresses the rights of the people, and must stand on the rule of law, but it is up to the Judicial Branch to decide what is lawful. The US Supreme Court decides what they believe is Constitutional. The Executive Branch addresses whether laws and practices are executable. For example, the House of Representatives may vote to allow Americans to travel to the moon, that it is the will of the People, and the Senate votes on the rights to travel to the moon. The president decides whether that is something that is possible to accomplish, and if it is, signs it into law, or if not, vetoes the bill. If the law is protested, it will go into the courts to decide whether it is legal, and can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Checks and balances between the Branches keep a sense of balance. 

All members of Congress and elected members of the Executive Branch swear an oath of office to the Constitution. Our Constitution is evolutionary, because it can be amended. Some of what was considered lawful in the 1700s, like slavery, is no longer lawful now. We evolved out of slavery in the 1860s. 

Slavery has always been against Universal Law, but slavery is more than just racism. The same crises occur on every level. It is a power game that is based on one of the five power games related to revenge. (We go deeper into the power games related to revenge in our Exit Strategy for Iraq proposal.) 

There are always three levels in the Universe--the principles, the power and the project--and three levels of the US legal system there are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law. The US Constitution is the Power level, so it address the use of power and the abuse of power. 

Universal Law is where every person on the planet gets our unalienable rights. Our founding fathers declared, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Our unalienable rights are to be able to live our lives without interference, to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government.

Congress functions based on the will and the rights of the people, but the people are oftentimes left out of consideration. Governments deny the people a voice in matters of grave concern, and this leads to acts of terrorism as people raise their voices to be heard, oftentimes to the point of violence. When a nation is facing acts of massacres, such as school shootings, or terrorism, such as bombings or vehicles running down crowds of people on the streets, or wars, the power games are being played within the society. 

The preemptive strike on Iraq started an unlawful conflict that devolved as a genocide, but our Congress has yet to recognize the power grab that is still taking lives around the world. Ripples of effects went out from the grand lie that there were WMD in Iraq and Saddam Hussein could attack the United States with one with a half an hour notice. That war went against Universal Law, and it set the stage for the Trump administration to use the same failed policies. 

When the president of the United States talks about "fake news," he is telling us that a genocide is devolving within our nation. Genocides are also related to revenge, one of the two power games based on weaving an illusion. People who have been dragged into a genocide lack their liberty--their rights. President Trump's promise to undo everything Obama did while in office can be considered character defamation, an individual form of genocide, and an abuse of his power, and is therefore an impeachable offense. 

Wars are started by people who believe they are more important than others, and therefore they have the right to put others down. Trump's policy of maximum pressure is a businessman's tactic to take over other businesses that are floundering, but don't belong in the White House because this leads to wars, not peace. People who have been dragged into a war lack the principle of equality. The first requirement for conflict resolution is that both sides must be considered equal. If you consider a court case to be a mini-war, for a fair trial, both sides must be equal under the law. Trump's policy of maximum pressure is an abuse of power that will lead to perpetual war, and is an abuse of power, and is therefore an impeachable offense.

It may seem like the right thing to do to avoid impeaching the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but where would our country to today if our government had listened to the hundreds of thousands of peace protesters all over the world who protested the preemptive strike on Iraq? Why place our complete trust in the hands of one individual who is human, like the rest of us, and plays compensatory games that always backlash on us because they go against Universal Law? 

Our letter to the NRA (the National Rifle Association)

My organization is working to create an international government based on the US Constitution, and as of today, people in 85 nations support the plan for the international government. In 2011, the plan was leveraged to the world leaders through the diplomatic community in Washington DC. Before the Constitution can be used as the basis for the international government, certain laws and practices that create chaos in our legal system must be purified to prevent the chaos from spreading onto the international level. This is one of my organization's exempt purposes.

The international government will treat all nations the way the states are treated in the United States, and so disputes between nations will be resolved in court rather than the battlefield, and the monies wasted on war will go to the people instead. The only acceptable basis for an international court system is Universal law, because every atom in the Universe is subject to Universal Law, and every major religion is a cultural interpretation of Universal Law. No one would accept Sharia law, for example, as the basis of an international court system.

There is a misunderstanding in our legal system that we are addressing now, and it affects how our Constitutional Rights are interpreted. This misunderstanding has made it to the Supreme Court.

Most people see two levels to our legal system when there are actually three. The Universe always has three levels--the Principles, the Power and the Project. In religion, they are known as the Father, the Mother and the Son. In our legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law. Most people see only Constitutional Law and federal law, and this is what is leading to the chaos.

Universal law is immutable, and is based on seven principles: equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity, and tolerance. These principles bring a swinging pendulum back to the straight and narrow. For example, people who have been dragged into a war lack equality, and the first requirement for conflict resolution is that everyone must be considered equal. If you consider a court case to be a mini-war, for a fair trial, both sides must be considered equal. People who have been dragged into a genocide, lack their liberty, and people who have been dragged into a massacre, based on covert and overt actions--like the school shootings--lack their freedoms.

Constitutional law is not fixed. It is evolutionary, and it is the power level, so it involves the use of power and the abuse of power. If you see only two levels, and the principles are left out, it swings the pendulum further out and people can justify playing power games that go against Universal Law. An act can be considered constitutional, but it is not lawful based on Universal Law. That is when an oppressive government can justify taking from the people our unalienable rights, to be able to live our lives without interference, to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government.

Federal law must be based on a combination of both Universal Law and Constitutional law or it creates chaos in our legal system.

Your organization is working to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights bear arms to protect American freedoms, but there are some legal glitches in your justifications because they are based on this misunderstanding.

You are running an ad, for example, where a woman is about to burn a copy of the New York Times, but stops and calls what it prints to be fake news. Two power games are based on weaving an illusion--genocide and slavery. Once the grand lie has been told, the truth doesn't overcome the lie. It just reaches the point where no one knows who to trust. By undermining the New York Times, you are playing the power game of genocide, and denying others their liberty and taking away the Freedom of the Press, which can lead to massacres. You are breaking Universal Law of Cause and Effect, and that will lead to backlashes to your power games. 

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.

Your Power Base

In previous posts, I discussed the Light Source Invention, which demonstrates how the major crises around the world devolve from intolerance. Today, I would like to take that idea forward to how it affects one's power base.

This is a jpeg drawing, and so it cannot be translated. I will offer a narrative below that can be translated.

Your Power Base

Based on being:good, intelligent, attractive, etc...

Diagram #1  

You will eventually be backed into the corner.

"I am good," leads to the justification to put others down (genocide).

"I am intelligent" leads to slavery.

"I am successful," leads to massacres.

"I am powerful" leads to wars.

Diagram#2

Based on everyone getting their life on a higher level and two principles, 

such s compassion and freedom...

It takes a great force to stop you.

Diagram#3

Based on everyone getting their life on a higher level and seven principles....

You are unbeatable!

In regards to Today's Supreme Court Decision on Travel Ban

Mr Chin is the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii:

Insights on your Travel Ban Case:

Mr. Chin:

I am the founder and principal of a nonprofit organization that is working to create an international government based on the US Constitution, and before our constitution can be used as the basis for the proposed international government, we must purify the US legal system to keep laws and practices that create chaos within our legal system from spreading the chaos onto the international level.

May I offer you some insights on your travel ban case?

We believe misunderstandings have been introduced that create chaos, and one of the most important is that there are three levels of the Universe [not two]—the Principles, the Power and the Projects—and in our legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law. In religion, they are the Father, the Mother and the Son.

Universal Law fixes our legal system on a very high level because it is based on seven principles of equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance. Universal Law is immutable, and every atom in the Universe is subject to Universal Law. If this level is omitted from the laws and practices, the laws become contradictory, on either the letter of the law, which is a narrower perspective, or the intent of the law, which is wider.

Constitutional law is evolutionary, and it is the Power level, so it can be abused when people rely on power games, and in that case, our nation devolves.

Federal Law is the combination of both Universal Law and Constitutional law, so imagine what occurs when Universal Law is omitted and Constitutional Law is based on power games.

The seven principles Universal Law is based on bring disputes back to what religions call “the straight and narrow.” For example, when one individual, culture or nation is intolerant to others, the proverbial pendulum starts to swing, and a series of crises starts to devolve, leading to the extremes of wars, genocides and terrorism. The principles bring the pendulum back to the center point. Another way to look at it is the principle that ends a war is equality—or for a fair trial, both sides must be considered equal.

The knee-jerk reaction that ends a war makes a genocide worse. People who have been dragged into a genocide lack their unalienable rights.

In the case of the president’s travel ban, his attorneys are relying on Constitutional law to support his case, and your case is based on federal law, which makes the Supreme Court more likely to rule in the favor of the president. But, his travel ban is not based on Universal Law, which supersedes constitutional law, especially in cases that are international in nature. Every major religion is based on Universal Law, and Muslims stand in protest when they see someone who is not being treated fairly and equally, so this travel can that affect Muslims is making the United States less safe rather than more safe. They are not being treated fairly and equally, and are being denied their unalienable rights.

I cannot say how average Muslims will respond to the travel ban,  but the director of the CIA  has stated that there are ISIS sleeper cells in every nation, and the director of the FBI has stated that there are ISIS sleeper cells in very state, so banning Muslims from any nation will not stop them from waking up. As I said, people who have been dragged into a genocide, lack their unalienable rights, and it comes from a sense of judgment. By denying Muslims their unalienable rights, that can trigger a genocide.

Genocides are based on the power game known as Envy, which comes from a sense of judgment, and it is based on weaving an illusion. Once the Grand Lie is told, the truth doesn’t overcome the lie, it just reaches the point where no one knows who to trust, so fair trials are difficult to achieve when no one knows who is telling the truth. When the president of the United States talks about fake news, that is an indication that there is either a genocide devolving, or slavery—the other power game based on weaving an illusion. Character defamation is an individual form of genocide.  

By standing on Constitutional law, laws can be  determined to be legal by the Supreme Court, as part of the responsibility of the president, but are not necessarily lawful, based on Universal Law because no one has the right to deny others their unalienable rights. Under Universal Law what you do to another will be done to you, so there is always a backlash to the games. The president of the United States can “legally” set foreign policy practices that lead to genocide. They can be used to deny the people our unalienable rights to be able to live our lives without interference, to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government.

Yours for peace,

Karen Holmes

Principal

The requirements for a fair trial

The US Constitution has evolved from when our founding fathers first opened debates on writing a document that established a new nation, when federal rights and States rights discussed. The majority of them were ready to sign the document until Patrick Henry stood up and raised the question of individual rights. That debate led to the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments of the US Constitution.

The sixth amendment covers our rights to a fair trial. It lists the criteria for a fair trial, such as it must be speedy, and conducted by impartial "judges," but what is missing from the list of criteria are the principles that ends the dispute and allows everyone involved to function on a higher level,

Universal Law has been forgotten within our legal system as laws are written to benefit the few over the whole nation. The focus is on our Constitution, not Universal Law, as what fixes America on a very high level, and the constitution evolves based on where our nation is at the time. Nations can evolve or devolve based on fears, and on the compensatory power games that arise from the fears. The squeezing forces are not bad, it is how you react to them that is important.

Universal Law is based on seven principles that allow mankind to walk the straight and narrow--that bring the proverbial pendulum back to the midpoint where dilemmas are resolved. They are equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance.

The world is facing the worst case scenario. A global genocide has started, and genocides are based on weaving an illusion. The truth is being twisted and turned to the point where no one knows who to trust. Even the most honorable and truthful people can be twisted and turned to the point of mental illness and lost in the illusion. Under the circumstances, how can anyone have a fair trial?

Our Exit Strategy for Iraq establishes the protocol that is based on all seven principles and allows for a fair trail so that everyone can function on a higher level. This proposal has associated books and booklets that address the principles and the application of the principles, and in "A Manual for Peace" and in "A Manual for the One World Government," Seth addresses these issues. Then, he empowers those who are interested in going deeper into the issue to do so.

Our project to purify the US legal system will include dinner parties with group channeling sessions to senators, Supreme Court justices and even the president of the United States can ask past kings, queens and presidents, including our original founding fathers about how to purify our legal system, and they can speak from personal experience, and then turn responsibility back onto the shoulders of the people in office today to apply what they have learned.

I am not an attorney or very knowledgeable about our legal system. I am a channel, and my gift from our Creator is to be able to channel anyone "on the other side." My guides are the past kings, queens and presidents, and we all share the goal of world peace by taking their creation to the global level.

Letter to the U.S. Supreme Court

Text of our November 8, 2017 letter to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Your Honors:

Our organization is working to create an international government based on the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the cooperation of nature. Before our Constitution can be used as the basis for the international government, laws and practices that have caused chaos in our legal system must be purified to prevent the chaos from spreading onto the international level. One of our exempt purposes is to purify the U.S. legal system.

Misunderstandings have led to laws and practices that are based on the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law. Our legal system has three levels, not two. The three levels are the Principles, the Power and the Project--or in the case of our legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law. When any law or practice is based on only the Power and the Projects levels, it leads to the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law, and it leads to chaos.

Universal Law is immutable, and fixes our nation's legal system on a very high level. It is where our unalienable rights come from, and it stands on the principles of Equality, Liberty, Freedom, Compassion, Abundance, Capacity, and Tolerance. It applies to every atom in the Universe, and so it will be the basis for the international legal system. It is the only legal basis that can unify the entire planet.

Constitutional Law is the application of Universal Law within the United States, and it is evolutionary, but when Universal Law is omitted, laws are based on power games rather than principles, and our nation devolves. Laws and practices can be considered constitutional, and therefore, lawful, but they are unlawful based on Universal Law. Foreign policy decisions that lead to war is a prime example of this because the unalienable rights of other nations are disregarded, and then we face the backlashes of Universal Law of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Federal Law must be based on both Universal Law and Constitutional Law or it leads to chaos. Federal Law cannot supersede Universal Law. It cannot be used to justify denying any citizen of the United States, or even the entire planet, our unalienable rights to be able to live out lives without interference--meaning to fulfill our purposes in life--and to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government.

We have two plans to purify the U.S. legal system, and we will introduce a government proposal through two senators in the near future.

Yours for peace,

Karen Holmes,
Principal

Donald Trump's plan to purify the US legal system

People all over the world are watching President Trump attempt to undo President Obama's legacy from his eight years in office. He declares an act, like the JCPoA--the Iran nuclear deal--or the ACA--the Affordable Care Act, is the worst deal ever, and announces he will "repeal and replace" it with something much better, but his plans have met resistance from Congress or through the courts. He doesn't have a viable alternative that addresses the root cause of the problem, so he turns the issue over to Congress to sort out. The Republican's efforts have failed, and so Donald Trump and Steve Bannon are now waging war on the Republican Party.

Under the US Constitution, legislation is passed by Congress, and signed into law by the president. While Congress is responsible for the legislation, the bills can be flawed, but it is not always possible to predict what problems will arise. When you create a plan, one step in the planning process is to resolve the glitches of the plan, and in "A Manual for the One World Government," Seth explains how bills can be clarified, purified and simplified to improve them.

One act that Trump intends to purify is NAFTA, which came into law before President Obama's administration. Trump wants to redo the trade agreement to greater benefit the United States. In our book, Seth addresses NAFTA, and says that the North American Free Trade Agreement was so huge that no one really understood what they were signing into law. Seth offers a solution for fair and equitable trade agreements through the economic departments of the One World government.

Today, let's consider an overview perspective of our way to purify the US legal system, which is one of our organization's exempt purposes.

We have looked at how laws may or may not stand on the three levels of the Universe, and how they can be based on the letter of the law or the intent of the law. When those laws that stand on the letter of the law are used in court, they can contradict the laws that stand on the intent of the law, which is the wider perspective. Judges know through experience which laws should come up for review, because they see the contradictions in court.

Then, who better to assume responsibility for purifying the laws than the legislators who wrote the legislation and then voted for it to become law? Our goal is to bring retired legislators back to address the glitches of their legislation. This sense of a future commitment to resolve the glitches may encourage the legislators to write better legislation.

Finally, who better to point out the actual flaws in any law than the people whose lives are affected by the law? They should have a voice in what changes must be made, and then once the changes are made, to once again have a voice in whether the changes had the desired effect. Our plan involves working with the students of five US law schools to review the laws that are up for review.

The US Constitution allows the United States to function on a very high level, but practices and laws based on misunderstandings have entered into our legal system and have created chaos, and before the Constitution can be used as the basis for the international legal system, we must purify these laws and practices. Each of our government proposals includes a stage in the planning process when we will focus on the failed practices. Our first proposal addresses what got us into the Iraq War, and what is now leading to conflicts with North Korea and Iran.

How many people believe the United States should wage a preemptive strike on North Korea? We are looking at the policy of preemption, which goes against the one of the basic premises of our legal system, that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That is our next topic.

The Importance of Understanding the Three Levels

The vast majority of the population of the planet believe the exiting structure is adequate to solve the problems, and are content to allow it to function as it is. When it becomes apparent the existing structure is not working to solve the problems-- when the proverbial dark cloud appears on the horizon-- those who know how to solve the problems, from their own area of expertise, will come up with a plan. Every plan goes through the glitches segment, where it is purified. The plan must evolve, or if the glitches are impossible to solve, then the plan collapses.

After the glitches--the Crisis in the Family segment, which relates to equality--comes the Conflict Resolution/Security segment of the planning process. For conflict resolution, the first requirement is that everyone must be considered equal.

At this time, the vast majority of the planet depends on the United Nations to be the hope for world peace, but the UN Charter has five main flaws, and attempts to reform it have failed. No nation will willing give up its power. The five permanent members of the Security Council will not agree to reform. With the conflict between North Korea and the United States, the United Nations is proving that it cannot end or prevent wars, and mankind is now on the edge of the abyss.

How did we get there, and what can happen next?

If we step back and consider the three levels, mankind always has three choices. We can stand on the principles and function on a higher level, and we can evolve. We can ignore the crises and pass them on to future generations, and it will take seven generations to undo the damage we have done. We can choose to go down into the power games, and devolve as a planet--we can annihilate ourselves.

If we want our future to be one where wars are no longer tolerated, then we must all come together to ensure that everyone is considered equal, and no one is considered more important than another.

The three levels of the Universe are the Principles, the Power and the Project, and in religion, they are the Father, the Mother and the Son. In the US legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law.

If you have a family that has a father than stands on the principles and fixes the family on a high level, a mother who uses the power the family has to draw the family to a higher level, then the children will also function on higher level. If the father is not standing on the principles, the mother is getting revenge, then the children will not function on a higher level. The children cannot dictate to the parents, or it causes chaos in the family. If the father is unfairly judged by the mother, and driven out of the family...

Now consider that our Founding Fathers stood on the principles of Universal Law, and declared that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." They wrote a Constitution that is the application of Universal Law within the United States, but over the years, the Supreme Court has been packed, and laws have been written that are deemed constitutional but they do not stand on the principles of Universal law, and the unalienable rights of the people have been trampled. Foreign policy, such as waterboarding, has been declared to be legal, and most recently, the question of whether a nuclear preemptive strike on North Korea is constitutional. Does Donald Trump have the right to wage a preemptive strike on North Korea?

By standing on the principles of Universal Law, mankind is able to evolve. By relying on the existing structure, mankind climbs onto the slippery slope, and reaches the edge of the abyss when it becomes evident that it is no longer able to solve problems, and if it cannot be reformed, it passes the crises on to future generations unless a plan that allows mankind to function on a higher level replaces it. If those who rely on power games and function for their own interests have supreme power, then mankind devolves into conflict, and we are at the point where the conflict is existential for the entire planet. World peace is at stake.

The question remains, does a plan stand on the principles or on power games? Does it treat all fairly and equally?

As the UN demonstrates it cannot end or prevent wars, what will take its place? The plan must be in existence for it to be accepted, no matter how far along it is. The plan for the international government based on the US Constitution and the cooperation of nature, which is based on Universal Law, now has passed cultural review, because people in 85 nations support the plan. It is a viable plan.

People will stand in protest about the plan for the international government, out of fear and out of prejudice and ulterior motives. Our plan must enable everyone on the planet to function on a higher level, and leave no one out of its benefits, so once the plan is accepted, we must start to address how it benefits each segment of society, all the way down to the individual level.

The first global issue is that disputes between nations will be resolved in court rather than the battlefield. The three options that we have now is that the UN has its courts, but a nation does not have to be a signatory of the courts, and so disputes are not resolved, and they are passes on to future generations. That leaves mankind on the edge of the abyss, and the other two choices are to work together to create an international government whose legal system is based on Universal Law, and it treats all nations fairly and equally, and disputes are settled in court rather than the battlefield, and the monies wasted on war will go to the people instead. This option benefits everyone. The other option is for mankind to devolve into a global conflict, which will kill millions or even billions of people.

Let's assume that it is in everyone's best interest for disputes to be resolved in court, and come together to make it a reality.

The Three Levels or the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

I have been working to introduce the idea that there are three levels of the US legal system, but the Supremacy Clause in the Second Article may seem to contradict that idea. Which is right?

Both are right, and it is a matter of perspective, looking up or down. No nation functions alone. A constitutional creates a government. Our nation is sovereign, but also is equal to all other nations.

There are always three levels to the Universe, and everything that is in it. We can look at the three levels  of our legal system as Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law in regards to our unalienable rights and how we relate to our Creator and other nations, as a sovereign nation, or we can focus only on what is within our nation, with Constitutional Law, Federal Law and Treaties, which have supremacy over State law.

The three levels are the Principles, the Power and the Project, so in the case of the Supremacy Clause, the project level is the States. They went from being colonies to states when the Constitution was being voted into existence. At this time,  Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, and its people are voting to become the 51st State. They must petition Congress as part of the process, which makes them a project of the constitutional level and the federal level.

The Constitution grants individuals our unalienable rights, but also each level has rights, duties and privileges, but is subject to Universal Law.  No project-level entity can dictate terms to the principles level or the power level or it creates chaos. The principles are equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance. The power level cannot dictate principles to the principle levels or it creates chaos also. These principles allow mankind to walk the proverbial "straight and narrow" and to maintain peace.

No laws can be written to justify breaking Universal Law. This week, the Supreme Court focused on the Westfall Act, which declares that any federal employee is free from litigation that arises from acts that occurred as a part of their employment. That law was also used in Saleh v Bush to protect George W. Bush from being sued by an Iraqi woman for damages that occurred during the Iraq War. It is a federal law that superseded her constitutional right to redress Congress for grievances, and her (and mankind's) unalienable Universal rights to be able to live her life without interference, to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in her government. Universal law must be reintroduced into our legal system to prevent chaos within every level of our legal system.

In the future, once the plan for the international government becomes a reality and mankind has passed the test of world peace, we will be invited to participate in a wider government. At this time, according to Seth in "A Manual for Peace," there are 80 alien species on the Earth, There is a galactic government, another layer of government, and its basis is also Universal Law, which applies to every atom in the Universe.

If we expand our awareness, we may even be able to imagine that there is a Universe within a Universe--just like was imagined in the ending scene of the movie, "Men in Black," as the camera continues to pan out. This "stretch of the imagination" concept will be addressed in our book, "The Prime Universe Speaks," which explains the final destination of mankind's evolution, and every level is based on the same Universal Law.

Imagine that one nation does not speak for the entire planet when it comes to the choice to join the galactic government. There are stories that aliens have gone to governments and powerful individuals around the world, but one nation and one individual does not have the right to dictate terms to any other nation or any other individual. Only when the international government based on Universal Law is in existence can we consider voting to join the galactic government.

Equality Under International Law

Our organization has an agenda, and each of the government

proposals is a point in our agenda. The first is Equality Under International Law.

The first requirement for conflict resolution is that all parts must be considered equal. There is conflict across the planet because the existing international structure doesn't treat all nations fairly and equally. Logically, the existing structure cannot bring peace.

If all nations are not considered equal within the existing structure, that sets the stage for wars, which are started by people who believe they are more important than others, and therefore have the right to put others down.. People who are dragged into wars lack equality, and it is the principle so that when instated, it ends the war.

Wars are based on the power game of Pride, which sets the first stage of revenge.

Mankind is therefore looking at the fact that for peace to come, all nations must be treated fairly and equally. That is one of the unalienable rights granted to us by the Creator of us all, who has created this planet based on Universal Law.

The legal system of the proposed international government is based on Universal Law, and therefore must treat all people fairly and equally, and leave no one out of the plan, or we leave ourselves out of the plan.

In our surveys, the first question is always, "is the existing structure adequate?" Is it solving the problems? Is there need for change or is what we already have working?

Does the existing structure treat all people fairly and equally? If not, what will? Is our plan better than other plans that are being debated? How many of the plans grant equality under international law?

Setting the basis for an international court system

Every plan goes through the same planning process, starting with a rationale for its existence. It must be able to solve the crises it was meant to solve, so when the existing structure has proven it cannot end the crisis, it must address the glitches that arise or be replaced by a new plan that functions on a higher level.

The existing international structure has proven it cannot end or prevent disputes between nations, or there would not be so many existing conflicts or disputes between nations that are potential and imminent wars.

The Iraq War started a genocide, but the accepted definition of a genocide is based on ethnic cleansing. How can the Iraq War fit that definition?

All of our government proposals have associated books that explain the principles, the application of the principles, and the planning stages and steps that allow mankind to find a middle ground and to move forward in our progress to create the international government and our evolution.

Each government proposal addresses a US government policy or practice that is being purified to prevent the same chaos that it has caused from spreading to the international government, starting with the Iraq Genocide caused by the policy of preemption, which went against Universal Law, constitutional law, federal law, and international law.

When the Grand Lie has been told, the Truth doesn't overcome the lie. It just reaches the point where no one knows who to trust. The only thing that you can trust under this point is Universal Law. That is the basis for our international court system. At this point, every person on the planet has been exposed to Universal Law, and therefore, it is possible to create an international court system based on it. Every atom in the Universe is subject to this law of Cause and Effect, and even the scientists understand it--"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Now it is possible to settle disputes that are based on genocides in court, and it explains why the existing structure cannot end or prevent disputes.

If you break Universal Law, what are the ramifications? That is the next step to address.

The Westfall Act: Storm the Mountain

The title of this post does not imply that we are storming the White House. Storming the mountain is a type of brain-storming technique our founding fathers used in their conventions to ensure the highest good came from their efforts.

We think of our founding fathers as statesmen, and they were in the highest sense, but they were humans with strong emotions, and they disagreed over every point, and some disagreements even devolved into duels. One duel was so illogical--between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr--that duels as a tool for conflict resolution fell out of favor.  They were liberals and conservatives when they quarreled over every point, but they were statesmen because they "stormed the mountain," and built on each other's ideas when a great idea was offered. They set politics and games of one-up-manship aside and spoke from the heart--from their own experiences. Imagine what you would say if you knew history was watching you.

The election process has become the lessor of two evils because of all the politics and power games. A choice like that is not based on the highest good for all people. The pendulum has swung so far off the midpoint that the American people are being denied our inalienable and constitutional rights.

It is time for change in our government. The ideas are going out and being debated, but when the time comes, America must storm the mountain.

Our founding fathers knew history was watching them, and they chose their words carefully. As America debates the creation of the international government, not only will history watch us for the next thousand years, but the entire planet is watching us, and they are storming the mountain to demonstrate that the international government will function on a higher level than the United States.