Category Archives: World

Offering solutions to the world’s judicial and political systems

One World

Seven categories grabbed my attention when I started this website. They were

  • Spirituality
  • Future
  • Finance
  • United States
  • World
  • Leisure
  • Opinion

I had a certain perspective about each category and I had questions too. Over the past two years, I have thought about, researched, and written about each of these categories. As a final ceremony to closing this chapter of my writing, I am looking at each of these seven categories and reflecting upon what I learned during these two years.


As I wrote about the United States during the past two years, a recurring theme continued to come to the surface. This theme applies to the United States and the entire world.

One World FlagThere appears to be an organized plan, what some would call a conspiracy, to take the world in a direction of a one-world government and economy.

Advocates of this conspiracy claim that the technology available at the beginning of the 21st Century now makes a one-world system possible. In fact, this technology, unleashed on almost seven billion people, demands an infrastructure tailored for unity. Lines of nationalism, patriotism, race, and religion become blurry as our society recognizes we are all part of a greater whole.

Those who purport the one-world theory claim that this technology gives institutions the power to maintain religious, judicial, and political control. They say that politicians and religious officials do this when they pass laws that give them the power to control those who disagree with them. Judges do this when they make rulings that strip away what many would call “God-given individual freedoms and rights.” Law enforcement and military do this when they enforce their will with complete disregard for the basic rights of others.

Moreover, with the information revealed by Edward Snowden and company that the American government is spying on individuals at home and abroad, we see that those who wish to remain in control are indeed using technology to do so.

As I encountered these conspiracy theories, I heard the groups attempting to create the one-world systems were The Fed, The Illuminati, The Catholic Church, The New World Order, and another dozen or so organizations of a similar type. The theories blamed these groups and their cronies for every war, disaster, and financial collapse for the past several hundred years.

Some of the conspiracies went back as far as King Solomon of Israel.

During my research, I discovered that these groups exist and they certainly wielded their power and influence throughout history.

In addition, they continue to wield their power and influence today.

However, because there are multiple groups with different agendas, things don’t move forward in a linear fashion towards a one-world system.

Moreover, a one-world system isn’t their goal.

Bankers need multiple currencies to manipulate the economy.

Defense contractors need multiple countries to continue the profitable business of war.

Governments need multiple political parties to justify fundraising.

Therefore, these groups continue to fund the polarization of our world because it is good for business. They create two-sided dramas so they can fund and profit from both of them.

From their perspective, a one-world system doesn’t have to be their goal because they already have a one-world system that consists of at least two opposing forces.

This raises the question, how can opposing forces contribute to a one-world system? I’ll answer that question in my next article when I’ll review the Leisure category.

A Path for Greatness

Tuesday morning’s announcement that Syria had accepted Russia’s proposal to turn over its chemical weapon cache to international control surprised the world.

And, it disrupted President Obama’s and Secretary of State Kerry’s plans for the next war in the Middle East.

By Tuesday night, when President Obama had planned to announce the next step in punishing the regime of Syrian President Assad, he could only deliver a muddied speech that both made the case for attacking Syria and explained how Russian President Putin had delayed the conflict by brokering a chemical weapons deal with Syria.

The criticism couldn’t come fast enough.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus immediately said, “The administration’s handling of the U.S. response to Syria has been so haphazard it’s disappointed even the president’s most ardent supporters. This rudderless diplomacy has embarrassed America on the world stage.”

While political pundits made cases for Obama’s lack of leadership skills, I considered what had happened.

path to greatnessI remembered that some spiritual sources claim Obama is a being of light, playing a role to bring peace to earth.

I recalled the Alternative Media rumors that there is a power shift currently happening in the Matrix.

I thought back to the Obama 2016 movie and wondered if Obama really is attempting to weaken America.

I wondered if Obama had made his decision as part of a peaceful response.

I noticed that Obama’s unwillingness to pull the trigger came through a transparent process. The U.S. has not traditionally done things this way.

Therefore, Obama’s actions appear to lack leadership.

However, in spite of his lack of military bearing, Obama made a strong transparent decision.

Yes, it appears Russia, Congress, and the American people forced it upon him.

However, he still had to make a decision for himself.

I remember when these decisions were not openly debated.

Americans would only hear about the attacks afterwards, often in a presidential speech from the Oval Office.

Then, Russia, China, the UN, or all of the above would criticize and condemn the American attack on Grenada or Libya or Panama or Nicaragua.

Obama’s decision and subsequent speech were not business as usual in America.

In Tuesday evening’s speech, Obama asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force only eleven hours after Kerry said, “We’re not asking Congress not to vote.”

Critics say this division within the administration indicates a lack of leadership because the President and his team members are not on the same page.

Maybe it indicates something else.

Kerry is obviously pushing the agenda of the warmongers.

Obama is listening, responding, and waiting. He is doing everything he can to prevent military action.

This is consistent with the description of peacemaker from those spiritually channeled messages.

This is consistent with what would happen if there were a power shift in the Matrix. Instead of going to war for oil and increasing profits of the defense and petroleum industries, Obama is waiting.

This is consistent with what someone would do if symbolically attempting to weaken the U.S. through giving Russia the controlling hand in this situation.

Moreover, this is consistent with a peaceful response.

And, rather than demonstrating a lack of leadership, we may look back at Obama’s response to this situation in Syria and see that it is, as I said yesterday, the obstacle upon which greatness  builds its path.

Controlling the Debate

An array of sponsoring thoughts hinders a peaceful response to Syria.

Regarding justice, we think:

  • We must use war to obtain peace.
  • We must punish wrongdoers to rid our world of evil.

Regarding prosperity, we think:

  • We must control the marketplace to assure fairness.
  • We must tear apart the current financial system to experience prosperity.

When we look closer, we see these thoughts are deeply flawed.

  • The idea that war leads to peace is unproven and unsubstantiated. Every war that has produced a peace treaty has laid the foundation for the next war.
  • Punishing a wrongdoer perpetuates wrongdoing. All wrongdoing begins in the desire to control another. Every act of punishment is an act where one person controls another.
  • Fairness does not arrive when we attempt to control the marketplace. Instead, those who control the marketplace gain revenue disproportionate to those being controlled.
  • Prosperity, what I call abundance, is not dependent upon the current financial system. It is a universal law that an individual may experience in any environment.

syrian war protestWithin the misunderstanding of these thoughts resides the twisted logic for a violent response to Syria.

The underlying thoughts that war can obtain peace and that punishment eradicates evil are the basis for the debates over whether to send tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria.

Rather than point out these flawed ideas, the discussions on Capitol Hill and in meetings of international leaders are about uncovering the evidence of who used chemicals weapons.

Minus this questioning, the debates pull the general public into arguing about whether it is appropriate to punish Syria for using chemical weapons. This blinds us from looking underneath the surface to see who benefits the most from war in Syria and possibly throughout the world.

Critics of President Obama say the threat to bomb Syria only benefits Al Qaida.

They don’t look far enough.

They fail to see that the United States doesn’t care about the success or failure of Al Qaida.

Al Qaida is just a tool in the process.

When we look deeper, we see that this war isn’t about our misconceived ideas regarding justice.

It is about our misconceived ideas regarding prosperity.

If the information John Kerry gave the American public is true, the evidence regarding whether Syria’s military used chemical weapons on its citizens is clear.

There is little room for debate.

In spite of this, we see American political leaders openly posturing and planning for next week’s Congressional session. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already approved the resolution to attack Syria so the full Senate may vote on it next week.

They make speeches about the necessity of enforcing international law and build the façade of international justice.

In the meantime, they are involved in serious backroom negotiations over financial control.

Secretary of State Kerry has already admitted that Arab countries have offered to foot the bill for the war.

The reason is simple.

These countries seek to control the oil marketplace.

The U.S. has a vested interest in them doing so.

These same countries have an agreement in place regarding the petrodollar.

Therefore, I fully expect the United States to march straight into this Syrian conflict.

And, they will do so with the full support of those who generally call themselves lovers of peace.

I’ll explain why in tomorrow’s writing.

Seven Days to Go

Countdown 7A week from today, the lights will go up, the curtains will rise, and a drama with more plot twists than Tom Clancy and Dan Brown combined can create will unfold upon the American capital.

Let’s preview this drama by reviewing what we know.

Numerous groups plan to protest in Washington DC starting September 9. Several of those groups intend to call for the impeachment of President Obama.

Others plan to show up on 9/11 to commemorate the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil and to march for various other reasons.

I’ve speculated that these protests may be part of Obama’s script or the script of whomever pulls his strings. They may become an opportunity for instigating violence in the nation’s capital as a catalyst for martial law.

When we overlay this scene with Obama’s efforts to seek Congressional authorization for a military strike in Syria, we have what at least one writer has called, “The most dangerous time in modern history.”

The danger of this situation comes from a combination of events that have built a perfect political storm.

Protesters gathering on September 9 have informally charged President Obama with numerous illegal and unconstitutional acts. They intend to push Congress to start the impeachment process.

Now, Congress has another, more pressing, issue to deal with.

President Obama believes American military should strike another country.

There is little public support for this act. A Reuters’ poll shows it is as low as nine percent.

The President, looking for someone to share the responsibility for bombarding Syria, is asking Congress for approval.

He is seeking this approval even though he has stated he has both the authority and justification for an attack.

Peace-lovers hope this is an opportunity to prevent the next war.

Critics of the President say this is an indication of his lack of leadership skills.

Others believe this is an opportunity for something much more nefarious to take place – something that would distract from impeachment while swaying public and Congressional support to attack Syria.

Mainstream media is reporting that a Syrian minister says Syria has the right to respond to American’s threat.

Numerous alternative media sources, including Infowar’s Alex Jones, have issued a false flag alert.

Many of these pundits believe a chemical or nuclear attack, on American soil, is a distinct possibility.

Prior to Obama’s Saturday speech, they were already saying those that run the matrix would blame Syria and its ally, Iran, for this attack.

They said the Boston Marathon bombing was a dress rehearsal.

Now, with the recent turn of events, there is an increased likelihood of such an event.

This script is obvious.

The players have been identified.

The stage is prepped.

The drama is starting to unfold.

Be safe everyone.

Prelude to History

The general mood of the Secretary of State’s speech communicated that the United States must immediately respond with military force against Syria.

As I reviewed the actual text, I saw other, not so obvious messages.

Kerry said the President’s administration had consulted with world leaders, security advisors, and Congress.

Except for a couple of world leaders, he didn’t mention names.

Within this statement is the implication that Congress approved of what he was saying. He failed to mention that Congress currently isn’t in session.

Kerry referenced “this morning’s release of our government’s unclassified intelligence.” Except he didn’t use the word “intelligence.”

The text says “this morning’s release of our government’s unclassified estimate of what took place in Syria.”

In spite of the fact that estimates are inexact, he moved forward with exact information.

Kerry said the actual number of dead from the chemical attacks was 1429, including 426 children.

This was one of his “we know” statements.

This number is high, too high.

It strains credibility.

Prior to Kerry’s speech, no one, including the Syrian rebels, had said the number of dead was higher than 1300.

Even that number was controversial.

Other sources listed the number of dead closer to 300.

Now, America’s intelligence “estimate” listed an exact number that was higher than any other source had previously reported.

As Kerry delivered his list of things we know, I found myself asking, “How do we know these things?”

The transcript of the speech didn’t hold the answer.

Kerry’s logic for following through on “If you do that, I will do this” appealed to hawks, Republicans, and warmongers who believe in peace through war.

He ignored the fact that the United States has a fifty-year history of military attacks conducted without the approval of Congress. If any other country or group did this, he would call these acts of terrorism.

Kerry criticized the United Nations for investigating for chemical weapons without determining the source for the weapons.

He ignored the democracy that is available to countries through the United Nations in favor of a unilateral move of the United States against Syria.

Then, instead of announcing military action against Syria, he concluded by saying the only solution would be a negotiated political solution.

Obama Syria speechLater than afternoon, Obama responded to Kerry’s speech by saying he hadn’t made up his mind about what he was going to do in Syria.

Did this mean that Obama and Kerry weren’t on the same page?

Did this mean that Obama was undecided about military action or that he hadn’t finished identifying targets?

Did this mean they had reached a decision but, since public opinion polls overwhelmingly showed opposition to military action, the administration wanted to start the action on a holiday weekend when fewer people would be paying attention?

I pondered these questions until yesterday afternoon when, during the first Saturday of college football season, President Obama announced that he had made a decision on Syria.

His decision is for the United States to take “military action against Syrian regime targets.”

Obama claims the assets are in place and he has the authority to act.

However, he is “also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Therefore, he is going to wait until Congress returns on September 9 and “seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”

The decision to garner authorization from Congress prior to taking military action in Syria is an unexpected act for a President that has ruled via executive order.

It brings even greater pressure to date of September 9.

Talking About Syria

John KerryAs I did my final review of yesterday’s article, my Twitter feed came alive with quotes from United States Secretary of State John Kerry.

He was making a statement on Syria.

I unmuted the TV tennis coverage, changed the channel to CNN, and listened as he confirmed what I had just written.

Government had painted themselves into a corner and was struggling with the best way to get out of it.

Kerry used every political skill he could muster in laying out the case for bombing Syria.

He delivered his rhetoric so strongly that I almost expected him to end the message in dramatic fashion by saying the first missile had just been launched.

He started the speech by listing those the President’s administration had consulted regarding Syria. By doing so, he was attempting to say that the decision to bomb Syria was more than the idea of a single man.

He went on and described unclassified intelligence information about the chemical weapons attack in Syria.

To do this, Kerry used a series of “we know” statements.

He said the U.S. intelligence community knows that chemicals weapons killed more than 1400 people last week when Syrian forces shot loaded missiles at its own people.

Then, he went on to explain the psychology behind why it is necessary to follow through on the “If you do that, I will do this” threat that Obama had used to establish a prerequisite red line for military attacks on Syria.

He said that if we didn’t punish Syria for its acts, we would strengthen the resolve of thugs around the world who are thinking about committing similar acts.

He explained that the information gleaned from United Nations inspections would never be adequate to make a decision about enforcing this red line. The intent of the UN inspections was only to determine if chemical weapons were used, not to determine who used them.

He implied that the United States will likely act on its own, with little more than moral support from its allies.

He said acting against Syria is necessary for America’s security.

He made some closing remarks about diplomacy and political solutions.

Immediately, the CNN pundits gave their opinions about the speech. They speculated that the shooting would begin as early as Saturday, after the UN inspectors beat a hasty retreat from Syria.

They said it is likely that Obama wants to complete any attack prior to leaving for the G-20 summit next Tuesday.

I turned down the TV, finished my review, and hit the publish button.

Within an hour or so, President Obama made a few remarks about Syria.

I listened as he said he had not yet reached a decision about what to do there.

I scratched my head and considered that.

Kerry had just justified military action in Syria.

Obama said he hadn’t decided what to do.

Did these two men not plan their remarks or did they carefully plan their remarks to communicate something that wasn’t as obvious as I had originally thought?

I switched the TV back to tennis and thought about what I had heard.

Painting Oneself into a Corner

Something remarkable happens as we watch President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and President Bashar Assad learn about knowing themselves.

We learn more about ourselves.

When Obama and Cameron tell the world they must enforce the law by punishing Syria for its chemical weapons, we see a version of the sentence commonly used by government, parents, and other authorities: “If you do that, I will do this.”

painting into cornerThose who make this statement paint themselves into a corner – especially if the promised response is destructive.

They must choose between going back on their word, and losing the trust of those around them, and carrying out the destructive act.

Some of the college classes I took in childhood education presented the idea of security within the context of “If you do that, I will do this.”

These classes taught the theory that a young student, first and foremost, wants to know where the boundaries are.

Therefore, that child will push against those boundaries to see which ones are important to the teacher.

If the teacher doesn’t enforce any of the boundaries, the student’s behavior will continue to deteriorate to see when the teacher will act.

Once the teacher acts, the student’s behavior continues to be an issue until the child is clear about the location of the boundaries.

From the outside, this looks like a power struggle.

From the inside, the student is simply looking for security and safety.

I’ve seen numerous relationships ebb and flow based upon the use of this technique.

In one exaggerated example, I was a member of a touring marching band that almost imploded because a leader didn’t keep his word.

A change in leadership was necessary to resolve the situation.

This week, we have seen President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron struggle with the complications of “If you do that, I will do this.”

Until Wednesday afternoon, it wasn’t much of a struggle.

It appeared that Western forces would spend the latter half of this week shooting cruise missiles into Syria.

Obama and Cameron had an agenda to fulfill and they were intent on fulfilling it, no matter what everyone else thought.

Conspiracy theorists outlined a series of forecasted events that included using Syria as an entrée into Iran.

Dave Hodges says this plan likely includes a nuclear or chemical false flag event in the United States, blamed on Iran.

He claims the Boston Marathon bombing was a dress rehearsal for this main production.

Iran rose to the occasion saying that, if the U.S. bombed Syria, Iran would attack Israel.

Then, something happened.

Media reports say political pressure caused Obama and Cameron to rethink their plans.

This is possible.

More likely, the delay is about the proper timing for an attack rather than a change in policy.

It is easy to see that the complications of intervention in Syria come with second thoughts.

Now, Obama and Cameron must choose between going back on their word and bombing Syria.

If they go back on their word, the use of chemical weapons will likely escalate. If Syria is actually using chemical weapons, they will behave like the young student attempting to find the boundaries. If American CIA agents are using the weapons, they will continue to do so because the script demands it.

Eventually, unless something remarkably unexpected happens, bombs will fall on Syria and the Western agenda will go forward

In the meantime, as Obama and Cameron decide on their next step, we get to learn about ourselves.

We get to see how our individual actions influence those around us – especially when we use our words to paint ourselves into a corner.