The White House is “Judge, Jury and Executioner” of Both Drone and Cyber-Attacks

Posted on February 6, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/the-white-house-is-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-both-drone-and-cyber-attacks.html

Bush and Obama Have Set Us Back 800 Years

NBC News reports:

Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida — with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”
“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.
“This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done,” she added.
***
Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer who writes about security and liberty for the British newspaper The Guardian, described the memo as “fundamentally misleading,” with a clinical tone that disguises “the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.”
“If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable,” he wrote.

Senator Wyden said:

Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

Given that drones are being deployed in the American homeland, some fear that the war is coming home.

Indeed, the military now considers the U.S. homeland to be a battlefield.  The U.S. is already allowing military operations within the United States.    The Army is already being deployed on U.S. soil, and the military is conducting numerous training exercises on American streets.  (For more background, see this, this, this, this, and this.)

Similarly, the White House has claimed the unilateral power to launch pre-emptive cyber-strikes against foreign nations.  As FireDogLake notes:

Like with the drone program, President Barack Obama is presiding over the creation and development of a power that previous presidents never imagined having. The national security state is effectively appointing him and all future presidents the proverbial judge, jury and executioner when it comes to cyber warfare.

As Greenwald makes clear, virtually all of the U.S. efforts regarding so-called “cyber-security” are actually efforts to create offensive attack capabilities.
And given that the government may consider normal Americans who criticize any government policy to be terrorists – and that the military is fighting against dissent on the Internet  – it is obvious that the cyber-attack capabilities are coming home to roost.
Of course, indiscriminate drone strikes are war crimes (and here and here) , and cyber-attacks are a form of terrorism. But that won’t stop the U.S. … because it’s only terrorism when other people do what we do.
As Greenwald noted last year:

We supposedly learned important lessons from the abuses of power of the Nixon administration, and then of the Bush administration: namely, that we don’t trust government officials to exercise power in the dark, with no judicial oversight, with no obligation to prove their accusations. Yet now we hear exactly this same mentality issuing from Obama, his officials and defenders to justify a far more extreme power than either Nixon or Bush dreamed of asserting: he’s only killing The Bad Citizens, so there’s no reason to object!

Greenwald notes in an article today:

The core distortion of the War on Terror under both Bush and Obama is the Orwellian practice of equating government accusations of terrorism with proof of guilt. One constantly hears US government defenders referring to “terrorists” when what they actually mean is: those accused by the government of terrorism. This entire memo is grounded in this deceit.
Time and again, it emphasizes that the authorized assassinations are carried out “against a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or its associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.” Undoubtedly fearing that this document would one day be public, Obama lawyers made certain to incorporate this deceit into the title itself: “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida or An Associated Force.”
This ensures that huge numbers of citizens – those who spend little time thinking about such things and/or authoritarians who assume all government claims are true – will instinctively justify what is being done here on the ground that we must kill the Terrorists or joining al-Qaida means you should be killed. That’s the “reasoning” process that has driven the War on Terror since it commenced: if the US government simply asserts without evidence or trial that someone is a terrorist, then they are assumed to be, and they can then be punished as such – with indefinite imprisonment or death.
But of course, when this memo refers to “a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida”, what it actually means is this: someone whom the President – in total secrecy and with no due process – has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when “an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US”.
This is the crucial point: the memo isn’t justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo – and those who defend Obama’s assassination power – willfully ignore it.
Those who justify all of this by arguing that Obama can and should kill al-Qaida leaders who are trying to kill Americans are engaged in supreme question-begging. Without any due process, transparency or oversight, there is no way to know who is a “senior al-Qaida leader” and who is posing an “imminent threat” to Americans. All that can be known is who Obama, in total secrecy, accuses of this.
(Indeed, membership in al-Qaida is not even required to be assassinated, as one can be a member of a group deemed to be an “associated force” of al-Qaida, whatever that might mean: a formulation so broad and ill-defined that, as Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller argues, it means the memo “authorizes the use of lethal force against individuals whose targeting is, without more, prohibited by international law”.)
The definition of an extreme authoritarian is one who is willing blindly to assume that government accusations are true without any evidence presented or opportunity to contest those accusations. This memo – and the entire theory justifying Obama’s kill list – centrally relies on this authoritarian conflation of government accusations and valid proof of guilt.
They are not the same and never have been. Political leaders who decree guilt in secret and with no oversight inevitably succumb to error and/or abuse of power. Such unchecked accusatory decrees are inherently untrustworthy (indeed, Yemen experts have vehemently contested the claim that Awlaki himself was a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat to the US). That’s why due process is guaranteed in the Constitution and why judicial review of government accusations has been a staple of western justice since the Magna Carta: because leaders can’t be trusted to decree guilt and punish citizens without evidence and an adversarial process. That is the age-old basic right on which this memo, and the Obama presidency, is waging war.

We’ve previously pointed out the absurdity of the government’s circular reasoning in the context of indefinite detention:

The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., this is the actual policy:

• If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain you indefinitely until the war is over

• It is a perpetual war, which will never be over

• Neither you or your lawyers have a right to see the evidence against you, nor to face your accusers

• But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security

• We may torture you (and try to cover up the fact that you were tortured), because you are an enemy combatant, and so basic rights of a prisoner guaranteed by the Geneva Convention don’t apply to you

• Since you admitted that you’re a bad guy (while trying to tell us whatever you think we want to hear to make the torture stop), it proves that we should hold you in indefinite detention

See how that works?

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves, as the separation of powers they fought and died for is being destroyed.  We’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of powerful men making laws in secret, where Congressional leaders themselves    aren’t even allow to see the laws, or to learn about covert programs.  A nation where Congressmen are threatened with martial law if they don’t approve radical programs.
Indeed, Bush and Obama have literally set the clock back 800 years … to before the signing of the Magna Carta.

:)          hehe                                 

Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Yesterday, Tim Cushing wrote a post about Teri Buhl, a journalist who claimed via her Twitter profile that her tweets were "not publishable." When questioned on this, she threatened to sue if someone republished her tweets. Some knowledgeable lawyers gave their opinion on this (that it was all hogwash), and at least one had a short email exchange with Buhl. Hilarity ensued. You can read that whole thing for yourself.

This is the followup. A little over an hour after the post went live, we received an email from Teri Buhl demanding a "correction" (without explanation) and saying that we needed to call her about Tim's story:

I would like an editor to please call about the story Tim just wrote on me. Like now

We have no obligation to call her, and given her previous engagements with others, we felt that there was no reason to discuss this with her. She later posted a comment on the post itself, asking Tim to contact her. He did, and she sent over a statement, and a series of other emails, partly (declared by her) "on the record" and partly "off the record." To be 100% clear: we have zero obligation to not publish her "off the record" comments. We made no arrangements with her to honor her requests that certain comments be "off the record."

Buhl appears to be under the false impression that merely claiming something is "off the record" leads to an obligation that she not be quoted, and that it provides her some sort of legal status, even when others quote her. This applies both to the original story about her tweets and to her follow up emails. Separately, she asked Tim to provide my phone number, and she called our corporate line multiple times this morning, telling him that she "always" calls a subject for comment before publishing a story about them. That may be her decision as a reporter, but there is no such requirement. That's not how freedom of the press or freedom of expression works. Finally, Jim Romenesko picked up on our story in his "Morning Report" on his super popular media blog, leading Teri to send Jim the same basic statement she sent us ("on the record") along with a separate statement suggesting that we had some sort of obligation to contact her before running our story. Let's deal with that one first, and then we'll get into her other claims.

"Techdirt did not call me for comment about that story you followed this am [in the Morning Report]," writes Teri Buhl....

"I finally reached the reporter early this am who says he is working at his day job and can't update the story until he gets home. Then he won't give me the info to directly reach a techdirt editor."

Again, to be clear: we have no obligation to contact her before writing a story about information that was made public. For her to imply that we needed to do so is simply incorrect. Tim correctly noted to her that he was not at his computer, but that he had forwarded her emails to me. He did not, as she implies, promise to update the story. He also did send her to the contact page at Techdirt, which is the best way to reach those of us here.

Moving on to the statement. We will break this down, sentence by sentence, leaving typos and grammatical oddities in place.

On Record Comment:

Again, we made no agreement to keep certain comments on or off the record. Yes, it is a journalistic convention that journalists respect such requests when the people are sources, but it is standard that both sides first agree to that convention. It is not a unilateral thing that you can just declare. When talking to sources we generally offer to keep certain comments off the record. Sometimes sources approach us and ask us to keep certain comments off the record, and we then consider the situation and decide whether or not to accept. It is then that the source chooses whether or not to share.

In this case, none of that is happening. First off, Teri Buhl is not a "source." She is the subject of the story, and we wrote about her comments and discussions with others that made their way into the public record. We have no obligation to keep anything "off the record" nor did we ever agree to any such thing.

My tweets were protected for a long time because I always looked at twitter as a conversation with my readers, not quotes, I'm not reporting news there. I can say silly things some times and I'd like to apologized for my knee jerk reaction to Gideon.

Protecting your tweets is a good idea if you want to keep them mostly quiet, but that is no guarantee that others won't share them. It is quite common for people to retweet the "protected" tweets of others, often not realizing that the original person had protected their tweets. That said, Buhl here implies that her tweets have been protected "for a long time," implying that Gideon only saw her tweet as a follower of hers, and that you could make the argument that the tweets were not, in fact, "public." I would have been willing to concede that perhaps her tweets were for followers only... except that there's evidence that this is simply not true at all. If you look at Buhl's Muck Rack page it does not currently show her tweets. Muck Rack is a site for journalists that creates profiles for those journalists and often pulls together their social media presence. Yet, a simple Google cache search for the feed turns up that, as of at least January 23rd, Buhl's tweets were clearly public on MuckRack. Here's a screenshot: Could it be that Muck Rack has a way to display protected tweets? No. The site directly states that it can only accept public Twitter feeds. And, even if Muck Rack was magically reposting her tweets from a "protected" feed, it would still be a case that her tweets were still being made public, thus depriving her of any claim that the tweets were ever private. In other words, despite her suggestion that her Twitter stream was protected for "a long time," there is substantial evidence that this is not true. If she would like to present evidence to the contrary, we are open to reviewing it. Update: Buhl told Poynter's Jeff Sonderman that she had unprotected her account "a few months ago," directly contradicting her suggestion to us that her tweets were protected during this whole thing.

Of course I can't sue him/her because I don't even know the person's real name.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you can sue someone. Has she honestly never heard of a John Doe lawsuit?

Not publishing my tweets is about a copyright issue for me.

For Teri Buhl, perhaps, but not for copyright law for the most part. We've actually covered some of the issues about the ability to copyright tweets in the past. There may be some elements that are copyrightable, and many that are not. Even so, whether or not someone then quotes you from your tweets is not likely to be "a copyright issue." If, as is the case, we were quoting statements made by her (and repeated by others), and adding plenty of additional commentary to it, there is no copyright issue at all. We are quoting her, not "publishing" her work. Furthermore, even if she went so far as to claim copyright over it, the fair use claims are obvious and quite strong.

I make money off my words, research, and analysis as a journalist.

That may be true, but it has no bearing on anything here.

I never print someone's tweet in a story because 1) I didn't get that comment from them directly

That is her choice, but it has no bearing on whether or not someone else can do so.

2) tweets can be changed and manipulated.

Original tweets can be deleted, but not changed. So, that's wrong. Could a third party change someone else's tweet in the process of retweeting and/or taking a screenshot? Possibly, though that would be quite a bit of effort, and no one seems to suggest that happened here. Buhl's issue here seems to be that she would not quote a tweet, and therefore, when she declares her tweets not quotable, everyone needs to respect that. That is not how things work.

I 've never had another jurno ignore that request. I think it's ironic that lawyer choose to do it.

It is surprising that she's never seen journalists ignore requests to keep her tweets private, though perhaps it's because there's never been any reason to quote her prior to this. And, of course, it's not true. A quick search on Twitter finds people retweeting Buhl's tweets publicly prior to all of this happening. Either way, as stated above, there is no obligation not to quote her just because she says so. Also, it is not, at all, "ironic" that a lawyer chose to do so. He did so because he understands the law and knows that the original claim is bogus.

Twitter says I own my tweets and I'm giving them license to use them but I simply don't think that means I am giving others license. Of course it also depends on what the tweet is to proven I own the copyright.

This is true, but if you are quoting someone and relying on fair use, then we do not need a "license" from either Buhl or Twitter. And, yes, there is also the missing step of proving that what is in the tweets is copyrightable and owned -- but also that our use is not fair use, de minimis use, or any other of a long list of defenses.

As far as Mark Bennett - I would like to sue him and see how copyright law relating to tweets and photos in tweets wuld be tested. If can afford to do it I will. There is not a lot of case law for this in the U.S. I am not fan of aggregater sites who take journalist original work, screen grab it, and don't link or credit back to the original reporting. It think that's stealing page views and intellectual content.

As a site that reports on all sorts of nutty copyright cases, including quite a few claims from people believing, incorrectly, that aggregation is "stealing," it is possible that if she did sue Bennett, it would make for an interesting story for us to cover, though the crux of that coverage would most likely concern how ridiculous the case would be and the fact that it has about as close to zero a chance of succeeding as possible. Contrary to her claims, there is an awful lot of case law in the US concerning most of the key issues here, and all of it goes against her arguments.

Tim - please publish this in the story and write at the top there is an update.

I have taken over this story, and am publishing her statement right here in this post (along with our response, obviously). I will, however, add an update to the original post pointing people to this post.

Of course, that was not the end of the exchange. She also provided an "off the record" statement, saying that the background photo on her Twitter profile is covered by copyright, and demanded that we take down the image of her Twitter profile because "as a tech blogger I hoping you will respect copyright laws." We are leaving that image up, because even if the image is covered by copyright, we are using it under fair use rules, as part of reporting on her story. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to show her profile which includes her ludicrous comment that "tweets are not publishable" (which kicked off this whole thing). Since the bio section of your Twitter profile is able to be changed, it makes extra sense to show a screenshot to prove its accuracy.

It is unclear whether or not Ms. Buhl is familiar with fair use. I would hope that she investigates the issue carefully before further commenting about it or seeking any sort of legal action.

Buhl sent another, separate, email complaining about Tim's coverage of her arrest, much of which was based on a report from Patch. Her main concern here was that she is disputing the allegations, and she demanded that he note that the charges are "alleged" and that she "denies" them. Of course, both of those things were abundantly clear in the original post. The post does mention that her actions were alleged, and that a trial is upcoming. If she weren't fighting the charges, there wouldn't be any such trial. She further claims that "I am actually not charged with invasion or privacy or theft of anyone's personal information." Nowhere did we say that she was charged with any of those things, so there is nothing to correct on that front. Either way, in this post, we will note, again, that she is going to court over these issues, and thus, clearly, denies the "alleged" charges against her.

In the end, we're not at all clear on what she thinks she is accomplishing here, other than calling more attention to her initial claim that her tweets are "not publishable," and then calling more attention to her overall actions. We continue to stand by our reporting on this matter.

More Prenda Insanity: Lawyer Claims Defendant Erased Infringing Activity Using A Registry Cleaner, Citing A Single EHow Submission

from the BREAKING...-Gibbs-has-filed-a-motion-for-a-'bad-court-thingy' dept

Are you ready for some more fun courtesy of Prenda Law? While there are many copyright trolls wandering the judicial system, few have proven more entertaining than Prenda Law and its partners in unintentional levity, including AF Holdings, John Steele and superlawyer Brett Gibbs.

Brett Gibbs takes center stage (again) in an ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit that has been winding its way through the courts since May of last year. Once again, Gibbs felt he had found something resembling evidence on the defendant's (Joe Navasca) hard drive, and brought in some outside "expertise" to back up his claim of "spoliation." Specifically, Gibbs felt that a registry cleaner found on Navasca's hard drive was evidence that he had removed all traces of UTorrent and any downloaded files.

Navasca's lawyer fired a letter back challenging Gibbs' emergency motion to compel on the grounds that everything about the motion was severely ignorant.

The instant discovery dispute ultimately centers around a particular bit of software that the defendant had running on his computer – C-Cleaner. Plaintiff alleges, without any support other than an “EHow.com” user submission, that using C-Cleaner is “proof” that Defendant was destroying evidence.

Let's just pause for a moment in appreciation Gibbs' technical source, EHow. While it is generally a vast improvement over Yahoo! Answers, it's hardly the sort of place a lawyer should turn to for technical advice, especially when already over his head in a farcical legal battle, but especially when it's a single user's submission. I guess there's just no time to search for a second opinion when you're in Prenda Law. These holes won't dig themselves!

Navasca's lawyer, on the other hand, decided to quote an actual expert.

As described in the annexed declaration of a Certified Computer Examiner, C-Cleaner’s default functions (the only ones used by Defendant) do not permanently delete data, and only affect data that the average user does not even know exists.

CCleaner's own website describes what the utility does:

It removes unused files from your system - allowing Windows to run faster and freeing up valuable hard disk space. It also cleans traces of your online activities such as your Internet history. Additionally it contains a fully featured registry cleaner.

And here's how the actual Certified Computer Examiner describes CCleaner's functions under the penalty of perjury in a federal civil action, which Navasca's lawyer attached as Exhibit A.

9. CCleaner is not a “wiping program” and is not designed to “permanently remove information from a computer.” By default, CCleaner removes temporary internet files and other system files.

10. ...For the most part, these are files that the average user does not even know exist and cannot even be viewed by most users. None of the files CCleaner deletes would be within the scope of discovery requests or be considered ‘reasonably accessible’ under FRCP 26.

24. The mere existence of a program such as CCleaner is not sufficient to support an allegation that a party has engaged in inappropriate conduct or deliberately attempted to destroy information. I have examined hundreds of hard drives and many of those contained the CCleaner program...it can be considered a useful program.

25. ...I have worked on many other cases where different programs were used to eliminate data – programs specifically designed for this purpose such as “Evidence Eliminator”. Unlike CCleaner, Evidence Eliminator wipes the free space of the hard drive by default. And in all such cases, the programs had been uninstalled before I imaged the hard drive for examination.”

So, on the "strength" of a single EHow submission, Gibbs hoped to bypass any concerns about privilege or privacy, singling out Navasca as a copyright infringer covering his tracks with a program that a.) doesn't even perform that specific function and b.) that he had downloaded years before this suit was filed.

There's more, though. When asked for the name of someone impartial to perform the hard drive inspection, the plaintiff named Peter Hansmeier, an "individual with familial ties to Prenda Law and its predecessor in interest, Steele Hansmeier." Not only that, but Hansmeier has "ties to instant litigation." So much for "impartial."

Navasca's representative also pointed out that while the defendant was willing to have his drive inspected, he could hardly grant that same permission for everyone else in his household. As is pointed out in this rather scathing letter, most (if not all) e-discovery vendors require certification that the owner, or the court itself (via a subpoena) has granted this permission.

Three days later, Judge Vadas added to Prenda's woes, delivering a terse denial of Gibbs' motion to compel. After instructing Navasca to stop running CCleaner on his computer(s), Vadas delivers this bit of advice to Gibbs.

Furthermore, allegations of spoliation are extremely serious, and the court urges Plaintiff to review the facts very carefully before pursuing this avenue based solely on an eHow.com article. In particular, Plaintiff should review the expert declaration that Navasca filed with his letter brief, to fully understand the purpose and effect of CCleaner.

As if it weren't completely apparent by now, AF Holdings, Prenda Law and their personnel are grasping at straws, somehow hoping to fumble their way into a payday while simultaneously burning their collective reputations to the ground, salting the earth and setting fire to the salt.

HACKED STRATFOR EMAILS: Analysts Didn't Believe Bin Laden Was Buried At Sea

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-emails-stratfor-analysts-didnt-believe-laden-was-buried-at-sea-2012-3#ixzz2K4vuO5kN

Ray Lewis Gave A Bizarre Answer When CBS Asked Him About A Double Murder Before The Super Bowl

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ray-lewis-talks-murders-in-cbs-super-bowl-interview-2013-2#ixzz2K4vCEfbO

Beyonce’s Superbowl Illuminati Hand Sign Inspires Debate, Sarcasm, HuffPost Disinfo

Monday, February 4, 2013 17:36

inShare

0

(Before It's News)
| WTF News |

Officially on #occult & #newworldorder watch for @nfl @superbowl. #nwo... #Superbowl47 #Superbowl #nfl @49ers @ravens
— WTFRLY.COM (@WTFRLY) February 3, 2013

Two things are being widely talked about after Superbowl XLVII, the blackout and Beyonce giving what is said to be an "Illuminati" hand sign.

It has gotten enough buzz to earn a response from the disinformation producing media sources. Yahoo's Shutdown Corner added their own sarcasm, but the "disinfo" award of the day goes to HuffPost.

As far as the internet is concerned, the star flashed an unmistakable symbol during her sexy half-time show. Yep, Beyonce's in the Illuminati.
It's all over, people. We're toast. (Or, maybe she was just doing the Roc-A-Fella records sign that pretty much everyone else does... but Illuminati is more fun.)

Yea, great story HuffPo. Since they are so "enlightened", why couldn't they cover the real origin of the hand sign? Maybe it is just laziness.

Sure, Jay-Z and Roc-a-Fella records started it.

Given that the word can be best described as meaning "enlightened", maybe that was Hova's (Jehovah?) inspiration for the light in the middle.

These old Hebrew symbols mean nothing then.

The one eye model with the pyramid on the back of the dollar means nothing either.

It's just a big joke, right HuffPo?

GTFO...

The word "Illuminati" gets misused in many ways, but the hand sign is hundreds of years old, guaranteed. Prove it wrong, HuffPo.
US News did a brief article before the game about a "Super PAC" called Elect a New Congress which said before the game that the halftime show would be Illuminati propaganda.

The libertarian-leaning super PAC that announced Friday that America should boycott the Super Bowl halftime performance because it would be the work of the "Illuminati" said Beyonce confirmed their worst expectations. Though Elect a New Congress didn't actually watch the show due to the boycott, its founder, Bill Fawell, tells Whispers he was informed of a hand signal Beyonce made near the end of her performance that he says is a symbol of the Illuminati.

Discovery had a longer piece on the history of the Illuminati and the many head games played using the information. To maintain a cult-like aura of mystery of its existence works to help the rumor (fear?) endure while giving it sound evidence of denial. It also serves to keep people fighting over anecodotal coincidences and stop debating whether it does exist and for what purpose.

Secret societies have always intrigued people, partly because of their claims to esoteric knowledge. The Illuminati was a group founded in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, a law professor in Bavaria. Weishaupt claimed to have been given mysterious, arcane knowledge by a “higher source,” which presumably could have been anything from God to extraterrestrials to voices in his head. The Illuminati organization resembled a pyramid scheme cult, with new initiates required to pledge total obedience to Weishaupt, and promises of greater revealed wisdom the more invested a member became. Weishaupt shared his philosophical insights with others who joined his group, telling them for example that “Man is not bad, except as he is made so by arbitrary morality. He is bad because religion, the state, and bad examples pervert him. When at last reason becomes the religion of men, then will the problem be solved.” Weishaupt outlined his plans to change the world so that all would accept his teachings. Until that could happen, secrecy was a key tenet of the group’s philosophy: “Let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Freemasonry,” Weishaupt wrote, and thus many members also became Freemasons, another secret society. This, by itself, was not unusual; throughout history members of groups who shared unorthodox or unpopular beliefs had to meet in secrecy and lead double lives. However this virtually guaranteed that conspiracy theories would forever be attached to the Illuminati name. Since any real member would deny involvement, the Illuminati could theoretically be anywhere and everywhere (even the Superbowl) — and no one could prove otherwise. The Illuminati was outlawed in Bavaria in 1783, and by 1800 the group was all but defunct in Germany but its ideas had spread to America, Europe and elsewhere. According to Mark Booth’s New York Times bestseller “The Secret History of the World,” the real truth about the Illuminati was revealed when a high-ranking member was suddenly killed, and Illuminati documents were found among his effects: “The seized writings revealed that the ancient wisdom and the secret supernatural powers promulgated within the Illuminati had always been a cynical invention and a fraud. An aspirant progressed through the grades only to discover that the spiritual elements in the teachings were merely a smokescreen.” It was all a cynical spiritual con game done for power and prestige, playing on the very human desire to be part of something secret and powerful. Still some remained unconvinced, believing that the exposure of the scam was itself a conspiracy to discredit Weishaupt and the Illuminati. After all, if the government feared their secret wisdom it had to do everything in their power to stop them (no one ever explained why those in power weren’t already Illuminati, or wouldn’t be eager to embrace the hidden knowledge it offered, instead of trying to destroy it). Though the Illuminati only existed for less than two decades over two centuries ago, many conspiracy theorists believe that it remains active and powerful, often associated with New World Order and anti-Jewish conspiracies. So what about that Illuminati sign that Beyonce made with her hands? Could it be that she was letting the world know about her involvement with the Illuminati (in direct defiance to its core tenets)? Or could it be that she was making a diamond symbol with her hands as a plug for her husband Jay-Z’s record company, which uses a diamond as its symbol? Or could it be that conspiracy theorists don’t realize that there are only so many symbols that can be formed with four fingers and a thumb, and that by random chance many of them will look similar? Assuming that the Illuminati still exist as a secret and powerful organization (and not a discredited cult scam), how will we know that they are active? Apparently when reason and rationality overwhelm “the public mind.”

The amazing thing about disinformation and influencing the mind is that it can be all smoke and mirrors. The Illuminati's dubious history is derived from the occult which means hidden, secret or clandestine, knowledge of the hidden. Hence the symbolism about light and dark and "occulting" the light which is referring to knowledge. Ask yourself again why the Superbowl blackout happened after reading about the occult signs within. The awareness of occultism has skyrocketed in recent years because of the internet allowing for real time debate. Last year, Madonna's performance with Nikki Minaj and M.I.A. raised eyebrows, with pyramid and occult imagery everywhere.

After last year's Super Bowl halftime show, conspiracy theorists similarly said Madonna's performance was the work of the Illuminati, in part because she was surrounded by male dancers who formed in the shape of a pyramid. US News

Pyramid imagery has been a part of controversy for a long time, not just in music. For more on the occult, symbols, entertainment and politics, see our article on Ke$ha's "Die Young" video, you know, that song radio stations pulled after Sandy Hook.

As for Beyonce, to Sasha Fierce or not?

Via Vigilant Citizen (May 2009)

Along with her new album, Beyonce has presented her fans to a new alter-ego named Sasha Fierce. The singer affirms that this new persona is the fun, more sexual and more aggressive side of her. This is however the “general public” version of the story. The esoteric meaning revealed by the  symbols surrounding this new persona is much deeper: Sasha Fierce is a symbolic representation of an artist taken over by evil to obtain success.
“I have someone else that takes over when it’s time for me to work and when I’m on stage, this alter ego that I’ve created that kind of protects me and who I really am”.
-Beyonce

Good Beyonce with cross

Evil Sasha Fierce mimicking devil horns

The theme of the album “I am…Sasha Fierce” revolves around the duality between the godly Beyonce and the evil Sasha Fierce. This spiritual duality is fought in the songs, the pictures and the videos. Notice on the above images the Christian cross of the good and pure Beyonce  versus Sasha Fierce who is mimicking devil horns with her hands. Songs like “Ave Maria” and “Halo” on her album contain obvious spiritual connotations and can be interpreted as either religious songs or odes to her satanic possessor. The persona of Sasha Fierce – who is presented as a separate entity- always wears heavy makeup on her eyes, if not sunglasses which represent her deceptive nature.

Website Pictures

Before we get into an in depth analysis, let’s look at the main picture displayed at beyonce.com, which sums ups perfectly the purpose of this article.

Baphomet’s vehicule

Sasha Fierce is wearing a metal plate featuring prominently the face of Baphomet, who is also featured on the sigil of the Church of Satan: (For more information on Baphomet, read the article entitled Who is Baphomet?)

Sigil of Church of Satan

Baphomet’s head is the only part of the picture that is in color, which shows the importance of this symbol. Another head of Baphomet sits right on top of the first making things even more significant. Sasha’s “dress” is adorned with stylish rear-view mirrors and motorcycle handles, which makes Sasha Fierce the vehicle of Baphomet. This exact outfit was used for a George Michael video…someone, somewhere thought it would be a perfect fit for Sasha Fierce. In her interviews, Beyonce describes her performances as Sasha Fierce like an experience coming right out of The Exorcist.

“When I’m onstage I’m aggressive and strong and not afraid of my sexuality. The tone of my voice gets different, and I’m fearless. I’m just a different person.”

Another way to put this is that she has allowed herself to become possessed…

The Birth of Sasha Fierce

Sasha Fierce was born when I did ‘Crazy in Love.’ People, when they meet me, expect that all the time, but that person is strictly for the stage.”
Beyonce, People Magazine, November 18th, 2008

Why did Beyonce say that? How can a character be born during a song like “Crazy in Love”, which doesn’t have anything to do with Sasha Fierce? The answer lies in the video.
The video tells the story of the birth of Sasha Fierce by depicting the steps towards Beyonce’s transformation. Through symbolic scenes, we first see Beyonce walking towards a speeding car (wih Jay-z in the backseat). The driver is the entity that already took over Jay-Z. Beyonce loosens up her hair to prepare herself and gets on a stage to begin initiation, symbolized by sexual dance moves. She then reaps the rewards of the selling of her soul with fame and fortune. Next, she is emulated by young girls who copy her dancing style. In the final scene, the good Beyonce gets literally blown up while sitting in the backseat of a car by Jay-Z – who calls himself “Young” in the song. As you know, Jay-Z isn’t young, but, in this song, he is considered “Young” after his recent rebirth on the dark side. After the explosion, Sasha Fierce magically appears next to Jay-Z, looking sexy yet devilish. In his verse, Jay-Z  refers to Beyonce as “Young B” because she was just reborn.

1- Beyonce goes up on a symbolic stage and mimicks ritual sex for initiation 2- The flashes represent celebrity and success 3- Surrounded by girls who emulate her 4- Stuck in the backseat of a car 5- Explosion of the car, representing the death of the old Beyonce (who was still stuck in the backseat) 6- Sasha Fierce appears out of nowhere The video of “Diva” uses the exact same allegory of the car exploding.
Video of  “Diva”
“Diva” starts with a shot of dummies in the trunk of a car who represent the ”dummies” that idolized and imitated Sasha Fierce.  Sasha Fierce is walking away, wearing glasses who are literally shades hiding her eyes, representing the fact that we are not dealing with Beyonce but a deceiver. After going into a warehouse to dance frenetically, act bitchy and sing about vain subjects like materialism, she comes out and lights the car on fire. The same way Jay-Z blew up the car in “Crazy in Love” (which killed the old Beyonce and gave birth to Sasha Fierce), she blows up the car filled with the mindless dummies who were seduced by her deceitful ways.

Why is Sasha Fierce Often Dressed Like a Robot?

Beyonce’s performance at the 2007 BET Awards carried heavy symbolism. Dressed in a robot suit, she wakes up after being electrically charged . Here’s the performance (you just need to watch the first couple of minutes).

This performance is inspired by a scene of the 1927 movie “Metropolis” where a female robot becomes alive.

The recreation of this scene from Metropolis is quite significant. The movie depicts a society divided between two rigid social classes, the  ”thinkers” and the “workers”, who can’t communicate with each other. Maria, a young female worker who has some influence among her exploited colleagues gets kidnapped by the ruling class. She is taken to the laboratory of a mad scientist who created a robot that could take her physical likeness. The scene above depicts the transformation of the robot into Maria, who will then be controlled by the scientist to incite revolt among the workers. The inverted pentagram behind the robot symbolises the initiation of Maria into the evil side. She is designed to bring out the worst in men, causing violence, lust, passion and corruption among them.  The robot is a devilish and sexually provocative version of Maria and ends up performing in a decadent nightclub of the metropolis. Her mesmerizing dance caused such excitement that it caused a widespread fight among the men present.

Satanic robot with inverted pentagram in the back

Is this why we chose to portray Beyonce as Maria from Metropolis? To use her physical likeness to propagate evil messages to the “working class”?

Good Beyonce vs disturbing looking Sasha Fierce

In Conclusion

I’m pretty sure I’ll get messages from confused people, wondering why I “see evil” everywhere or something. Those people do not understand a couple of fundamental truths, who aren’t based on wild beliefs but on facts: Record companies like Columbia Records own the image of pop stars like Beyonce or Rihanna. These conglomerates are owned by a handful of powerful people who, more often than not, are initiated into occult secret societies.  They believe in the powers of the mind, channeling spirits, Black and White Magick, demon possession, sacred rituals and entities populating the ethereal spheres.  In other words, if you don’t believe in the spiritual realm, THEY DO. So the analysis here makes perfect sense to them and they know that the average Joe doesn’t think in those terms…mostly because he was educated since childhood to be blind to those things.
As in anything in life, esoteric teachings range from the sublimely good to the infernal evil. They can elevate your consciousness to a godly level or they make you a slave of malignant spirits. That being said, there appears to be a conscious effort to subject the population to negative imagery through the different outlets of mass media. Plato, the Greek philosopher believed that music had such far reaching effects on the hearts of men that popular songs should be carefully chosen:

“Music which ennobled the mind was of a far higher kind than that which merely appealed
to the senses, and he strongly insisted that it was the paramount duty of the Legislature to suppress all music of an effeminate and
lascivious character, and to encourage only that which was pure and dignified”
-Manly P. Hall, Secret Teachings of All Ages

If Plato, one of the brightest minds of the Western world believed that music played a vital part in the creation of a perfect nation, can you imagine the effects of negative messages on our modern society? Even if the general population only gets the first level of interpretation of songs or videos,  it is believed that the hidden meanings and symbols still affect the collective subconscious. The result is people leading vain existences, trying to fill the gaping void of their lives by continually satisfying their lowest impulses. In other words, lost souls that can be easily controlled and manipulated.

‘Fat Butt Michelle Obama’ Remark Gets Teacher Suspended (Stunning Pics)

lib's ,kooks ..only  "they"   can have humor ? ...banner nit-wits :o       

‘Fat Butt Michelle Obama’ Remark Gets Teacher Suspended (Stunning Pics)

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:20

inShare

(Before It's News)

Look, I am 100% convinced if the powers that be declared Obama, ‘Supreme Dictator’ as early as tomorrow, our spineless Congress and pathetic GOP would roll-over and welcome the new overlord; not to mention the majority of MSM-raised Americans and weak-kneed Christians that default out of context to Romans 13 due to the softness of today’s trend-setting ‘church’.
Yes. The comments by the teacher were inappropriate considering his environment. But as Big Brother continues to provoke our nation to anger while sending offenders to ‘sensitivity training’ (Room 101) as punishment, well perhaps this slice of humor will help preserve what little sanity remains on U.S. soil.
Hat tip: Erik in Colorado!

‘Fat Butt Michelle Obama’ Remark Gets Teacher Suspended

(TODAY) Alabama high school psychology teacher Bob Grisham has been suspended for 10 days without pay for a rant that included calling the first lady “fat butt Michelle Obama.” A student in Grisham’s class made an audio recording of the remarks, which also included derogatory comments about gays.

Grisham’s suspension from Lauderdale County High School begins on Tuesday, and he has been barred from teaching his class for the rest of the school year and ordered to attend sensitivity training. Also the school’s head football coach, he will be assigned “other academic duties” for the rest of the year in place of teaching his class, according to Lauderdale County Superintendent Jennifer Gray.

Grisham will also have to meet monthly with Mark Butler, the school system’s personnel director, to make sure he is meeting his requirements. Grisham’s coaching job was not addressed at the Board of Education meeting on Monday night that decided his punishment for the remarks, Butler told TODAY.com.

During a debate-type discussion about current affairs in his class on Jan. 27, Grisham blamed the school’s low-calorie lunch offerings on “fat butt Michelle Obama.’’ He also added, “Look at her. She looks like she weighs 185 or 190. She’s overweight.’’

~snip~

Time (hamster nesting material) votes Michelle Obama, ‘Most Beautiful Woman’: HERE
Biggest Michelle Obama fan, ever: HERE
Windswept spawn of Michelle Obama: HERE
Michelle crashes Royal Wedding: HERE
Oprah denies Christ as only way to salvation: HERE
Weak-Kneed Christians: HERE

 

Compliments: Michelle’s Mirror (Visit them now!)

 

2013-02-05 12:17:37
Source: http://sadhillnews.com/2013/02/05/fat-butt-michelle-obama-remark-gets-teacher-suspended

Related Stories

Super Bowl 2013 Recap: The Illuminati Agenda Continues

mega rituals,  on a planetary   scale  ... &  right  before your  I's    :o               r   u  seeing   yet ?  

Super Bowl 2013 Recap: The Illuminati Agenda Continues

Feb 5th, 2013 | Category: Featured, Vigilant Reports |110 Comments
http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/super-bowl-2013-recap-the-illuminati-agenda-continues/

The 2013 Super Bowl featured the Sandy Hook chorus, Jennifer Hudson, Alicia Keys, Beyoncé, a whole bunch of advertisements and, oh yeah, a football game. While things were not as overt and in your face as last year’s half time show/celebration of Great Priestess Madonna, there were nevertheless a a lot of Illuminati Agenda-pushing going on. Here’s a recap of the noteworthy elements that occurred in the 2013 Super Bowl, the TV event of the year.

The Sandy Hook Chorus

Jennifer Hudson sings with the Sandy Hook Chorus … a group that was NOT created by the young kids that are part of it.

As described in my recent article, Sandy Hook Survivors Are Made to Sing “Over the Rainbow” to Commemorate the Shooting, children that survived the shooting are currently being used in all kinds of media events. A few weeks ago, they recorded Over the Rainbow (an MK-Ultra trigger song) and were made to perform on live television. For the Super Bowl, the Sandy Hook Chorus was sent to New Orleans to sing before 70,000 spectators and millions of TV viewers. Why? Why do we keep bringing this horrible shooting to the center stage? To remind people that “gun control is good”? Isn’t it very sad and ironic that these kids must sing America the Beautiful after witnessing a horrible massacre, one that might have been caused by a mind-controlled patsy? Why are these kids being booked and flown to all kinds of nerve-wrecking mass media events? Is this still part of their “healing process”? Why are they being mixed with the Illuminati entertainment industry? Shouldn’t they be home with their friends and families instead of being under the spotlight? The exploitation of their image is rather unsettling.
The performance was led by an industry-favorite, Jennifer Hudson -  aka the “new Whitney Houston” – who is always chosen to perform in important occasions. Hudson also survived a strange and terrible tragedy, with the triple-murder of her mother, brother and nephew in 2008.

The Half Time Show

The best word I can use to describe the half-time show is “Beyoncé-ish”. It was like, sooooo Beyoncé. After “singing” (kinda) at the Obama inauguration, Beyoncé was again the star of a major event. No need to say that she’s an industry favorite, a figure-head of the Illuminati music industry. As described in several articles on this site, the symbolism in her work clearly indicates who she is working for. While her half time show was not the big, pharaonic occult display of Madonna’s 2012 show, we still witnessed the mind-control symbolism that is usually part of Beyoncé’s material.
The entire show focused on duality and the multiplying of personalites, two concepts that are extremely important in Monarch mind control (read the article Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control if you don’t know what I’m talking about).
The first and most visible cue to the concept of duality and alter-personas is the stage itself which consists of two faces that somewhat look like Beyoncé.

The stage is made up of two faces mirroring each other, an image evoking duality and multiple personalities.

The first part of the show contained a combination of symbols and visual effects that refer to the concepts of duality and multiple personalities.

At the beginning of “Baby Boy”, Beyoncé dances in front of a black and white background (a representation of duality). Through video effects, she then “multiplies herself”.

Here we see one black silhouette (which is Beyoncé, the “core” personality) and two white silhouettes (alters personas?).

The two white silhouettes turn into real human Beyoncé look-a-likes who dance with her for a while. We then see a lot of lights flashing and confusing effects, making us wonder who is the real Beyoncé. The blurring between reality and illusion is a focal point of mind control and is aptly displayed here.

Even the saxophone girl, with her Masonic checkerboard pattern dress, conveys the concept of duality.

At one point, the screen behind Beyoncé displays the classic symbol representing the fracturing of personalities, one that is almost ALWAYS part of MK-themed narratives.

The screen that displayed alter personas and dualistic patterns shatters (emphasized with a loud sound effect), a symbol indicating the fracturing of persona in MK symbolism.

The first part of the show was therefore all about duality and multiple Beyoncés. Then, the group Destiny’s Child was randomly brought back from the late-90s to sing along with one of Beyoncé’s solo hits. During Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), Beyoncé briefly flashes a hand sign – one that readers of this site probably already know all too well. This gesture generated a lot of media attention.

Beyonce flashing the “ROC” hand sign.

Quite a few mainstream websites such as Yahoo! and Huffington Post published articles about this hand sign, asking if Beyoncé was “flashing an Illuminati symbol”. These articles however all come to the same conclusion: Beyoncé was doing the ROC sign to shout-out her husband’s label (duuuh) and everyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. Many of the articles then provide a quick, half-assed recap of what the Illuminati is, making sure to distort many facts to make the whole thing seem completely idiotic. This trend is becoming increasingly appearent on the web and mass media.
I admit that the mainstream sources are right: This hand sign is indeed the “ROC sign”. But here’s my question to these “journalists”: Where does the ROC sign come from? What does it represent? Why does a label named Roc-A-Fella (a nod to the Rockefellers, one of the most powerful Illuminati elite families) uses a triangle hand sign to represent itself? How about going a little further than the obvious superficial answer for a change, mainstream media?

The ROC hand sign refers to the All-Seeing Eye within a triangle, the ultimate Illuminati symbol.

In Judaism, the gesture is known as Kohanim hands Priestly Blessing. It is depicted here on 18th Century grave.

The hand sign is not random. It signifies something and flashing it during the Super Bowl tells a lot about who is running the show.
Also, to respond to the ridiculous claims of those mainstream articles: No, Beyoncé and Willow Smith are not IN the Illuminati. They are USED by the Illuminati-owned music industry to push an elite agenda. Pop artists are pawns who signed a contract binding them to the elite and requiring them to do their bidding. Most readers of this site know this already, but there is growing push in mainstream media to discredit “conspiracy theories” by writing stuff like “Look at these idiots who think that Beyonce is part of an 18th century secret society”.
Anyhow, let’s look at the rest of the Super Bowl.

Lights Out

During the 3rd quarter of the football game, half of the lights go out. It was caused by a mysterious “anomaly” that caused the system to shut down.

Considering the Illuminati sub-text of the event, I cannot help but think about the occult pseudo-meaning of having half of the stadium basking in light and having the other half being in darkness. I am not saying this happened on purpose, but it is still an interesting synchronicity. One thing is for sure, the “glitch” energized the 49ers, who scored a few touchdowns and got back in the game. All of a sudden, this lost cause became interesting and the fourth quarter was rather … thrilling. Apparently, Mercedes-Benz knew that would happen.

This Mercedes-Benz magazine ad was eerily correct.

While the ad seemingly refers to the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, the literal meaning of the ad is still perplexing, considering what happened at the game.
If we combine this ad with the one I described in The 2013 Mercedes Super Bowl Commercial and its Occult Message, one can at least say that Mercedes-Benz brought a lot of strangeness to the SuperBowl.

In Conclusion

While things were somewhat more subdued and abstract in this year’s SuperBowl (versus the 2012 edition), there were still many elements that went right along the Agendas described on this site. When we combine all of the elements together, we realize that there’s a common and reoccurring theme going on, one that points directly to the “hidden hand” of the Illuminati and its many Agendas.
The mass media coverage of Beyoncé’s Illuminati hand sign, also reflects a new trend: Mass media are now directly addressing, discrediting and ridiculing “conspiracy theories” (I hate that term) in order to make sure that people do not start thinking too much about the strange things they are witnessing on TV. Media coverage of Sandy Hook also followed that trend as several TV personalities went on air to “debunk” the theories. Fortunately for the powers that be, most people still teared up when they saw the Sandy Hook chorus standing in the middle of the SuperDome, singing about how America is beautiful. Yes, America is beautiful, but the elite that run it, and who exploit people’s lives and emotions to push their own Agenda, is most definitely not.
Oh yeah, and the Ravens won the game.

Who Controls The Money? An Unelected, Unaccountable Central Bank Of The World Secretly Does

By Michael, on February 5th, 2013

 

An immensely powerful international organization that most people have never even heard of secretly controls the money supply of the entire globe.  It is called the Bank for International Settlements, and it is the central bank of central banks.  It is located in Basel, Switzerland, but it also has branches in Hong Kong and Mexico City.  It is essentially an unelected, unaccountable central bank of the world that has complete immunity from taxation and from national laws.  Even Wikipedia admits that "it is not accountable to any single national government."  The Bank for International Settlements was used to launder money for the Nazis during World War II, but these days the main purpose of the BIS is to guide and direct the centrally-planned global financial system.  Today, 58 global central banks belong to the BIS, and it has far more power over how the U.S. economy (or any other economy for that matter) will perform over the course of the next year than any politician does.  Every two months, the central bankers of the world gather in Basel for another "Global Economy Meeting".  During those meetings, decisions are made which affect every man, woman and child on the planet, and yet none of us have any say in what goes on.  The Bank for International Settlements is an organization that was founded by the global elite and it operates for the benefit of the global elite, and it is intended to be one of the key cornerstones of the emerging one world economic system.  It is imperative that we get people educated about what this organization is and where it plans to take the global economy.
Sadly, only a very small percentage of people actually know what the Bank for International Settlements is, and even fewer people are aware of the Global Economy Meetings that take place in Basel on a bi-monthly basis.
These Global Economy Meetings were discussed in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal...

Every two months, more than a dozen bankers meet here on Sunday evenings to talk and dine on the 18th floor of a cylindrical building looking out on the Rhine.
The dinner discussions on money and economics are more than academic. At the table are the chiefs of the world's biggest central banks, representing countries that annually produce more than $51 trillion of gross domestic product, three-quarters of the world's economic output.

The article goes on to describe the room that these Global Economy Meetings are held in.  It sounds like something out of a novel...

The Bank of England's Mr. King leads the dinner discussions in a room decorated by the Swiss architectural firm Herzog & de Meuron, which designed the "Bird's Nest" stadium for the Beijing Olympics. The men have designated seats at a round table in a dining area scented by white orchids and framed by white walls, a black ceiling and panoramic views.

The central bankers that gather for these meetings are not there just to socialize.  No staff members are allowed into these meetings, and they are conducted in an atmosphere of absolute secrecy...

Serious matters follow appetizers, wine and small talk, according to people familiar with the dinners. Mr. King typically asks his colleagues to talk about the outlook in their respective countries. Others ask follow-up questions. The gatherings yield no transcripts or minutes. No staff is allowed.

So the fate of the world economy is determined by unelected central bankers in secret meetings that nobody ever hears about?
That certainly does not sound very "democratic".
But this is the direction that "global governance" is taking us.  The elite believe that the "big decisions" are far too important to be left "to the people", and so most of the "international institutions" that have been established by the elite operate independently of the democratic process.
Sadly, the truth is that all of this has been planned for a very long time.
In a recent article entitled "Who Runs The World? Solid Proof That A Core Group Of Wealthy Elitists Is Pulling The Strings", I included a quote from Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley from a book that he wrote all the way back in 1966 in which he discussed the big plans that the elite had for the Bank for International Settlements...

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Back then, the Bank for International Settlements was only just starting to play a major role in global affairs.  But over the years the BIS began to become increasingly important.  The following is an excerpt from an article by Ellen Brown...

For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel.  It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates.  In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters.  The new building has been described as “an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor.”  It quickly became known as the “Tower of Basel.”  Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force.  It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.

Yes, it most definitely does bear a striking resemblance to the Tower of Babel as you can see from the photo in this article.  Once again the global elite are trying to unite humanity under a single system, and that is most definitely not a good thing.
But many of these elitists are entirely convinced that "global governance" is what humanity desperately needs.  They even publicly tell us what they plan to do, but most people are not listening.
For example, the following is an excerpt from a speech that former president of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet delivered to the Council On Foreign Relations in New York...

In the area of central bank cooperation, the main forum is the Global Economy Meeting (GEM), which gathers at the BIS headquarters in Basel. Over the past few years, this forum has included 31 governors as permanent members plus a number of other governors attending on a rotating basis. The GEM, in which all systemic emerging economies’ Central Bank governors are fully participating, has become the prime group for global governance among central banks.

The speech was entitled "Global Governance Today", and you can find the full transcript right here.  But most people have never even heard that such a thing as a "Global Economy Meeting" even exists because the mainstream media rarely discusses these sorts of things.  They are too busy focusing on the latest celebrity scandal or the latest cat fights between the Republicans and the Democrats.
If you go to the official BIS website, the purposes of the organization sound fairly innocent and quite boring...

The mission of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks.
In broad outline, the BIS pursues its mission by:

• promoting discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks;
• supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability;
• conducting research on policy issues confronting central banks and financial supervisory authorities;
• acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions; and
• serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations.

The head office is in Basel, Switzerland and there are two representative offices: in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and in Mexico City.

But when you start looking into the details, things get much more interesting.
So exactly how does the BIS achieve "monetary and financial stability"?  An article posted on investorsinsight.com described how this is accomplished...

It accomplishes this through control of currencies. It currently holds 7% of the world's available foreign exchange funds, whose unit of account was switched in March of 2003 from the Swiss gold franc to Special Drawing Rights (SDR), an artificial fiat "money" with a value based on a basket of currencies (44% U.S. dollar, 34% euro, 11% Japanese yen, 11% pound sterling).
The bank also controls a huge amount of gold, which it both stores and lends out, giving it great leverage over the metal's price and the marketplace power that brings, since gold is still the only universal currency. BIS gold reserves were listed on its 2005 annual report (the most recent) as 712 tons. How that breaks down into member banks' deposits and the BIS personal stash is unknown.
By controlling foreign exchange currency, plus gold, the BIS can go a long way toward determining the economic conditions in any given country. Remember that the next time Ben Bernanke or European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet announces an interest rate hike. You can bet it didn't happen without the concurrence of the BIS Board.

In recent years, it has become increasingly obvious who really has power over our economy.
When Barack Obama speaks, the markets usually move very little.
When Ben Bernanke speaks, the markets often respond with wild gyrations.
A recent CNBC article entitled "Central Banks: How They Are Ruling the Financial World" detailed the enormous impact that central banks had on the global financial system during 2012...

In all, 13 other central banks in the world have followed the Fed's lead and set interest rates at or near zero in an effort to keep the liquidity spigots open and prop up their ailing economies. Those 14 economies represent a staggering $65 trillion in combined equity and bond market capitalizations, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Later on in that same article, the author discussed the enormous amounts of money that global central banks were creating out of thin air...

"When you add up all the central banks in the world, it's going to be over $9 trillion," said Marc Doss, regional chief investment officer for Wells Fargo Private Bank. "That's like creating the second-largest economy in the world out of thin air."
Indeed, central banking has become an economy unto itself, a multi-trillion-dollar empire that massages and manipulates markets, which respond to the slightest news out of the respective entities' policy making committees.

So who controls the money?
The central banks of the world do.
And who controls those central banks?
The Bank for International Settlements does.
If we don't like what the Bank for International Settlements is doing, can we do anything about it?
Nope.  The Bank for International Settlements is above the law...

Maybe we'd feel better about the BIS if it were more transparent, but most everything about it, including its bi-monthly member and board meetings, is shrouded in secrecy. And perhaps more worrisome is that the BIS is free from oversight. By rights granted under its agreement with the Swiss Federal Council, all of the bank's archives, documents and "any data media" are "inviolable at all times and in all places." Furthermore, officers and employees of BIS "enjoy immunity from criminal and administrative jurisdiction, save to the extent that such immunity is formally waived . . . even after such persons have ceased to be Officials of the Bank." Finally, no claims against BIS or its deposits may be enforced "without the prior agreement of the Bank."
In other words they can do whatever they want, without consequences. How's that for a leak-proof legal umbrella?

If the BIS wants to "intervene" in the financial markets, they simply just do it.
If the BIS wants to bail out big banks or even entire nations, they simply just do it.
The BIS reminds me of this old joke...
Q: Where does an 800 pound gorilla sit?
A: Anywhere it wants to.
So what is next for the Bank for International Settlements?
Well, many have speculated that eventually the goal is to have just a single global currency which will be administered by a single global central bank.  The BIS is already using Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), which are considered to be a precursor to the coming global currency.  The BIS played a big role in the adoption of the euro, and more currency integration is almost certainly on the way in future years...

But in the end, how you feel about the BIS may come down to how you feel about a one-world currency. The bank was a major player promoting the adoption of the euro as Europe's common currency. There are rumors that its next project is persuading the U.S., Canada and Mexico to switch to a similar regional money, perhaps to be called the "amero," and it's logical to assume the bank's ultimate goal is a single world currency. That would simplify transactions and really solidify the bank's control of the planetary economy.

But if the United States ever did give up the U.S. dollar, it would be a massive blow to our national sovereignty.
When someone else controls your money, it doesn't really matter that much who makes the laws.
Unfortunately, the global elite seem absolutely obsessed with the idea of a global currency, a one world economic system and a global government.
None of those things will happen this year, but that is where we are moving.  With each new crisis that arises, the solutions that we will be given will always involve more centralization and more globalization.
So what do you think about all of this?
Please feel free to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below...

Be Sociable, Share!