The Rules of The Illuminati, How They Operate & What We Can Do To Stop Them



Next Story

The Illuminati, never before has one word been so popular among youth and pop culture. Everybody seems to think a number of celebrities, and more, are in a secret society plotting to take over the world. If you are a student of philosophy and the occult (quest for truth), you would probably agree that, most likely, our most famous celebrities, like Madonna, and politicians like Barack Obama are not in the ‘Illuminati,’ or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps they are? What are we really talking about here? The Rockefeller’s? The Rothschild’s? The Bilderbergs and the Trilaterals, the Royal Families? Perhaps all are at various levels of the pyramid, and we can never quite know who’s at the top?

When it comes to “famous” people, most of them seem to belong to some sort of society, where they are showered with riches. Perhaps they themselves have been made to believe that they are important and part of some special clique? The point is, these people are used as distractions, used to sell products and capture our attention to the point where we idolize them. In my opinion, nearly none of them hold any sort of importance among the powerful group who seem to control the entertainment industry, among many others.

I remember reading a passage within a book written by Manly P. Hall, titled “The Secret Teachings of All Ages,” and in it he described how even in ancient societies, these practices were used by the very powerful with, for example, the goddess ISIS, to basically have them worshiped, used as a giant distraction, and if necessary, a scape goat.

That being said, secret societies have existed for thousands of years, and according to various scholars within the field, like Manly P. Hall, who is a legend in these areas, ancient magical practices that are ritualistic in nature were taken, used, and perverted for ‘dark’ purposes long ago. Plato also gives this account with regards to the destruction of Atlantis. You can read more about that in more detail in the article linked below.


How Some of The World’s Elite Use Black Magic Rituals To Conjure Up Entities For More Power & Control


I think these are important points to keep in mind when discussing such things. There are two articles which have been written on the subject here at CE that I’d like to bring attention to. The first is titled “The Perceived Power of The Illuminati.” You can read the full article here, below is an excerpt taken from it, it was written by CE contributor Mark Denicola:

“Whether you don’t believe in their existence, hate their guts, couldn’t care less, or support their cause, you are a contributing factor, just as I am.

The elite rely upon us to maintain the level of control that they have. Think about it even in terms of numbers.  Are they the majority, and therefore hold their power by sheer numbers? Not even close! Realistically we probably outnumber them at a figure that I dare say is close to a million to one.

The Illuminati maintain their power primarily through something we all play with… fear. And not just a fear of what they are capable of. But more so a fear of what the world would be like without them. Not them individually, but what they have created. So many of us can’t imagine a world without a financial system to govern trade, a world without religion to give us faith in a new tomorrow, a world without a police force/ military to keep peace. We can’t imagine it to such a strong degree, that we actually fear it!

This is the key tool the controlling elite uses to keep the wheel spinning. They have made us afraid of ourselves and each other. We have become so disconnected from each other that we feel that without some form of regulation in place, we would steal, murder, and destroy the planet leisurely.

But where did this disconnection come from? From nowhere but the system that we are afraid to not uphold.

Do you truly feel that we, in our purest state, would want to harm one another or the planet that we live on?  No. Do you truly feel we were naturally designed to have enemies that we must fear? Goods that we must fight over? Tiers of power that dictate our experience? No, no, and no.

In our purest state, we are all loving individuals, naturally designed to co-exist and be harmonious with one another. Look at the way we come together in times of need, assisting our brother or sister when they need our help.  Look at the way we develop friendships and experience love. Look at the way we can all smile and share a laugh. For some, these examples may seem pointless, but I have put them here to remind us of the simplicity to who we are, in hopes of inspiring you to not only remember these moments, but to also realize how wonderful it would be to openly share them with all of humanity.” 

The second article was written by Founder Joe Martino, and it makes a lot of strong points.

“There is certainly a great deal of disinformation,

David Wilcock Explains The Rules of The Illuminati & How They Operate

You can watch that full interview in our members area. Below is a brief clip of it.


Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/1cpPiE1kV20/

US leaving Iran nuclear deal is ‘veiled protectionism’ & violation of WTO rules – Kremlin

“As you know, several European capitals, including Paris, have already publicly expressed their extreme concern over the undermining of the interests of French or European companies that operate in Iran, who may face sanctions from the United States,” Peskov said on Thursday. “In fact, we are talking about veiled protectionism, and we are talking about steps that are certainly absolutely contrary to the norms and rules of the World Trade Organization.”

After the Iranian nuclear deal was brokered by the UK, China, Russia, France, Germany and the US in 2015, many European companies rushed back to Iran’s lucrative market. France’s Airbus signed a $19 billion deal with Iran Air for 100 planes in late 2016, and has already begun delivering aircraft to Iran.

Trump’s move will lead to the re-imposition of American sanctions that were cancelled under the deal, including financial restrictions that had made it extremely difficult for global companies to do business with or in Iran.

For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section

Source Article from https://www.rt.com/business/426364-iran-sanctions-protectionism-peskov/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

Federal Court Proves Gov’t Loyalty To Big Pharma, Rules CBD Has No Medical Value

The United States hemp industry was dealt a major blow on Monday after the federal U.S.  9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the Drug Enforcement Agency to list cannabidiol, commonly referred to as CBD, which is a non-psychoactive cannabis derivative, as a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act.

The hemp industry brought a lawsuit against the government in 2016, when the DEA issued a “clarifying rule” that claimed CBD was an illicit drug, due to it being a byproduct of cannabis flowers. A report in the Denver Post explained:

Represented by Denver-based cannabis law firm Hoban Law Group, the Hemp Industries Association and other hemp businesses challenged the DEA’s rule and alleged the agency overstepped its bounds by essentially scheduling substances — notably cannabinoids — that were not classified as illicit in the Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, they argued, the hemp-derived extracts rich in CBD, or cannabinol, are protected under state laws and Farm Bill provisions.

The rule could be misinterpreted by other federal and local agencies, lead to unlawful product seizures and chill a booming multibillion-dollar hemp products industry, Hoban attorneys had said.

The DEA countered by claiming that they had simply provided clarification to existing law, stating that their move “makes no substantive change to the government’s control of any substance.”

Rather than acknowledge the distinct difference between industrial hemp, which contains virtually no psychoactive properties, and THC-laden marijuana that produce strong psychoactive effects, the DEA argued that CBD is made from the flowering parts of the cannabis plant, and cannabinoids “are found in the parts of the cannabis plant that fall within the … definition of marijuana, such as the flowering tops, resin, and leaves.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the DEA had the authority to clarify CBD as a “marijuana extract,” but CBD producers vowed to appeal the decision.

We will be appealing, and we will be funding that appeal,” said Michael Brubeck, CEO of Centuria Natural Foods and a plaintiff in the case. Centuria was joined in its challenge by the Hemp Industries Association.

In the decision, the three-judge panel said the plaintiffs had failed to take the opportunity to comment during the DEA’s rule-making process, thus nullifying the majority of their challenge to the classification.

Additionally, the court said the rule was not in violation of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill), which contained industrial hemp provisions that defined hemp as cannabis sativa L. plants with less than 0.3 percent concentration of psychoactive THC.

“The Agricultural Act contemplates potential conflict between the Controlled Substances Act and pre-empts it,”the judges wrote.

Attorney Bob Hoban, in a statement on Wednesday, said his clients are weighing whether to request a rehearing due to concerns about the safety and security of those who make and sell hemp extracts, including CBD.

“Though we appreciate the court’s finding in favor of the legitimacy of the Farm Bill’s hemp amendment, we are still disappointed with the court’s findings that the final rule does not interfere with lawful, hemp-related business activities, as even 29 members of Congress confirmed in their Amicus Brief to the Court,” Hoban wrote. “Given the pervasive confusion and irreconcilable conflicts of the law that have led to product seizures, arrests and criminal charges against those involved in the lawful hemp industry, the petitioners believe that the final rule must be invalidated, absent the court clarifying and further resolving these conflicts and their severe consequences.”

Interestingly, an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in mid-April approved the first pharmaceutical grade cannabidiol (CBD) medicine to treat severe epilepsy. In a unanimous decision, the committee voted to recommend GW Pharmaceuticals drug Epidiolex for approval.

There is a clear movement afoot to take a natural product like CBD oil and turn it into an FDA approved drug—something that clearly has the potential to limit the access people have to a natural medicine. Motherboard reported last year on the drug industry lobbying for legislation that would outlaw CBD oil by classifying it as a drug.

The report also noted that “corporate lobbyists in more than 20 states are currently pushing to make sure the pharmaceutical industry has the only legal supply of CBD.” Thus, it appears the Big Pharma takeover of CBD is well underway.

Last month Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced legislation that would legalize hemp as an agricultural product. The Hemp Farming Act of 2018 would also remove the product from the federal government’s schedule of controlled substances while authorizing it to be sold as an agricultural commodity. The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden and Rand Paul.

Forward-thinking lawmakers in cannabis-friendly Colorado have already passed a bill to regulate hemp products, including CBD, like food products. The bill currently awaits the signature of Gov. John Hickenlooper.

via:

thefreethoughtproject

Source Article from https://worldtruth.tv/federal-court-proves-govt-loyalty-to-big-pharma-rules-cbd-has-no-medical-value/

CIA Emails to Journalists Don’t Have to be Released to Public, Judge Rules






CIA Emails to Journalists Don’t Have to be Released to Public, Judge Rules


May 3rd, 2018

Via: McClatchy:

The CIA can selectively divulge classified information to selected reporters in emails yet withhold that information from other journalists or members of the public when they seek the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal judge in New York has ruled.

Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York ruled that the CIA does not have to release parts of five emails senior CIA officials sent to journalists from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and The Washington Post in 2012. At the time, the CIA was facing pressure over links it may have had to a Pakistani doctor who helped American forces hunt down Osama bin Laden.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Adam Johnson, a freelance reporter, who was represented by a first amendment lawyer in New York City, Daniel Novack.

“The Director of Central Intelligence is free to disclose classified information about CIA sources and methods selectively, if he concludes that it is necessary to do so in order to protect those intelligence sources and methods, and no court can second guess his decision,� McMahon ruled.















<!–

–>











<!– AD CAN GO HERE

Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices

END: AD CAN GO HERE –>

Leave a Reply


You must be logged in to post a comment.







Source Article from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=52723

New York Judge Rules Iran Must Pay $6 Billion to 9/11 Victims

Home » Injustice, North America, Terrorism » New York Judge Rules Iran Must Pay $6 Billion to 9/11 Victims



 


An US judge from New York ruled on Tuesday that Iran must pay $6 billion to victims or those affected by the 9/11 terror attacks.

Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District Court of New York ruled that “the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran liable for the deaths of more than 1,000 people as a result of the September 11 attacks.”

Court filings state that the payout equates to “$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per child, and $4,250,000 per sibling” to the families and estates of the deceased. The ruling also includes an annual 4.1 percent interest rate from the year the attacks took place.

Thomas Burnett Sr. filed the lawsuit in 2004, but it was only allowed to proceed in 2016 after Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) allowing individual citizens to file lawsuits against countries accused of financing terrorism.

Source











RELATED ARTICLES


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.













Leave a Reply











Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/mMBVhqjEY-c/

Italy: Supreme Court Rules that Fake Charity “Rescue” Ship Must Remain Impounded



 


The Italian Supreme Court has ruled that that the pro-invasion fake charity invader-“rescue” ship, the Iuventa—seized last year for criminal collusion with people smugglers in Libya must remain impounded pending charges to be brought against the crew.

The court has rejected an appeal against the seizure of the Iuventa, which was impounded in August 2017 following an investigation initiated by the Italian authorities.

The ship—run by the crypto-communist Jugend Rettet (“youth rescue”) organization in Germany—was impounded after evidence showed that the crew had actively colluded with invaders and organizers of small invader boats in Libya.

The collusion—mainly in the form of radio contact—allowed the Iuventa to sail to pre-determined spots off the Libyan coast, where it would load up hundreds of African invaders off rubber dinghies, claiming that they were being “rescued.”

This formal taxi service was a great boon to the smugglers, who then did not have to attempt to even cross the Mediterranean, but simply sail a few miles out to sea off the Libyan coast to discharge their cargo of Africans.

The Iuventa has been held in the port of Trapani since a judge in the western Sicilian city ruled in favor of the prosecution’s request for pre-emptive seizure, based on an anti-mafia law and done in order to prevent the alleged crimes from being committed again.

The investigation against the Iuventa included the use of an undercover agent, bugging devices, tapped phone calls as well as informant testimonies.

Aiding and abetting illegal migration can carry a prison sentence ranging from five to 15 years, and a fine of 15,000 euros (about $18,300) for each person who has been let in the country.

Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation will publish an explanatory statement in the coming weeks.

Source











RELATED ARTICLES


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/9rd93r7iVI8/

Lavrov– ‘US attack on Syria has changed the rules, and now Russia’s moral obligation to not sell air defense to Syria is over

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,910 other followers

Source Article from https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/lavrov-us-attack-on-syria-has-changed-the-rules-and-now-russias-moral-obligation-to-not-sell-air-defense-to-syria-is-over/

Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Kill Non-Threatening People As Long As They Say They Were Scared

supreme courtsupreme court

In a ruling that will be used to a reinforce a disturbing pattern practiced by police officers across the United States, the Supreme Court has determined that officers who shoot non-threatening citizens are completely justified and cannot face consequences for their actions—as long as they express to the court that they feared for their safety.

The case of Kisela v. Hughes originated from a police shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in 2010. Police Corporal Andrew Kisela heard a report over police radio about a woman using a kitchen knife to hack a tree and acting erratically in public. He responded to the scene with two other officers.

On the other side of a chainlink fence, the officers saw Sharon Chadwick standing next to her car. Her roommate, Amy Hughes, emerged from the house with a kitchen knife held at her side. Despite the fact that the two women were standing at least six feet apart, the blade of the knife was facing away from Chadwick, and Hughes did not appear to be threatening her roommate in any way, all three officers approached the fence with their guns drawn.

Less than 60 seconds after Kisela saw Chadwick, he opened fire and shot Hughes four times through the fence. After she fell to the ground, officers jumped over the fence, approached Hughes and placed her in handcuffs, and then called paramedics.

It took just seconds for Officer Kisela to choose to shoot Hughes multiple times, even though she had not broken any laws and she did not appear to be threatening anyone. Miraculously, Hughes did not die from the gunshot wounds she sustained and Chadwick was not injured during the reckless attack.

Hughes filed a lawsuit against Kisela, based on the claim that her civil rights were violated during the shooting. While a federal district judge ruled in favor of Kisela, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and argued that Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights were clearly violated.

The Supreme Court has now reversed the 9th Circuit court’s decision, and in its opinion on the case, the court argued that there should not be a debate over whether Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because Kisela should automatically be afforded “qualified immunity” as a police officer.

“The Court need not, and does not, decide whether Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment when he used deadly force against Hughes. For even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—a proposition that is not at all evident—on these facts Kisela was at least entitled to qualified immunity. ‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful, reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct.’”

As SCOTUS Blog noted, even if the Supreme Court judges believed that Kisela was guilty of violating Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights, “Kisela still could not be sued because any rights that he might have violated were not clearly established—a key factor in whether government officials enjoy immunity from lawsuits.”

Even though Chadwick testified that she did not feel threatened by Hughes or the knife in her hand at the time of the shooting, the Supreme Court has chosen to side with the police officer who chose to open fire within seconds, before taking the time to accurately assess the situation.

By supporting Kisela’s actions, the Supreme Court has essentially given all police officers a blank check, which says that if they see a person standing in the distance on her property, and she appears to be holding a weapon in her hand, the officer has the right to open fire and shoot her multiple times—as long as the officer maintains that he feared for his safety, even if he cannot prove that the person he targeted was threatening him.

In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that while the other two officers attempted to use verbal commands to convince Hughes to drop the knife, Kisela made no attempt to de-escalate the situation and opted to use deadly force instead. 

“Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, and did not raise the knife in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else. Faced with these facts, the two other responding officers held their fire, and one testified that he ‘wanted to continue trying verbal command[s] and see if that would work.’ But not Kisela. He thought it necessary to use deadly force, and so, without giving a warning that he would open fire, he shot Hughes four times, leaving her seriously injured. Kisela did not wait for Hughes to register, much less respond to, the officers’ rushed commands. Instead, Kisela immediately and unilaterally escalated the situation.”

It is no secret that police officers regularly get away with shooting and killing innocent citizens in the United States, and they do so by arguing that they opened fire because they feared for their safety.

By choosing to support a trigger-happy officer who chose to put lives at risk, the Supreme Court has made it clear that there will be no justice for the innocent woman who received life-threatening injuries as a result of the attack and that police will continue to get away with targeting the mentally ill, and will face no consequences for their actions.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-can-kill-non-threatening-people-without-warning-scared/