This states explicitly that the powers of the President to revoke such privileges only apply to those organizations which were instigated by EO:
and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter.
The word "and" is very important there. The organizations this presidential power of revocation applies to are the ones that were passed by law AND were initiated by EO.
It has a list on that page of which organizations this power applies to. It includes things like the United Nations, the WHO, the IMF, WTO, etc. all of which were started by EO. They are all big dogs to be sure, and agents of the Cabal, but they are no where near as big as the BIS, or even its underling, The Fed. The trick here is, neither the BIS nor The Fed was started by an EO. In the case of the BIS, it self-declared itself the ruler of the world. No other country had authority to incorporate it. In the exact same way as the people of the United States in 1776 self-declared their sovereignty, so did the BIS. In both cases, everyone else agreed. In the case of the U.S., it took a war before everyone else agreed. The BIS just did it, and there was no contest, because by that time (1931ish), all countries were already ruled by the same people who started the BIS.
Pretty sure that could be challenged by SOCTUS on a constitutional basis.
Maybe, I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's a violation of the constitution since the legislative branch has the right to take care of such treaties. SCOTUS revoking the treaty with the BIS would amount to an act of war, and SCOTUS doesn't have the power to effect that.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice. Since they never have before when such cases against The Fed (an agent of the BIS) have been brought before them, I doubt it would happen. And why would they? This is just the legal stuff. It's just dressing on top of the real way they control the world (coercion, complicity, bribery, religious beliefs, etc.).
Again, not trying to be a dick here
There is no "you must agree" going on here. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It is essential that you dissent if you have reason to do so (or just want to). If the goal is the Truth, it is also essential that you bring what you find to the debate table. This isn't about me (or anyone else) being "right." The need to "be right" is a demand of the ego, it has nothing to do with investigations into the Truth of things. We are here to find the Truth, we are not here to make ourselves feel better with lies and silencing dissension; that's what Facebook is for.
In this case you have brought your protest, you have clearly laid it out AND you have brought the evidence to support it. There could be no better path towards the goal of truth than that. In my book this dissention gets top marks (not that my book has any authority whatsover, just sayin'). It also makes me happy because it helps advance my sole intent (finding the truth). Whether I (or anyone else) agrees with your assessment of the evidence or not, this is absolutely the way. PLEASE keep it up.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice.
There is that...
There is no "you must agree" going on here.
Yeah, I'm kinda too confrontation-averse for my own good, and internet discussions have a bad habit of turning sour on a dime, so I get a little gun-shy sometimes, lol.
I suggest a few things to take care of "discussions turning sour":
First, more than anything else, people just want to be heard. While there are certainly exceptions, for the most part people just want to know that you have understood what they have said. It is generally more important than being agreed with. As long as you address what they have said in a way that signifies you have understood them, it usually works out OK in the end.
Second, when the above is not true, recognize that each person is going to come to the Truth (or get closer and closer to it) by their own path. Of course some will never make it, because they don't really want to, and that is another thing to consider. You certainly shouldn't work towards appeasement of them. They are stuck in their own hell by choice. You can't bring everyone along on the path towards the Truth. They will either start that journey or not as they choose. You can bring them information, or attempt to help them, but ultimately the choice is up to them, and there is nothing you can or should do about it. Don't let their "bad" decisions interfere with your efforts on your own path.
Third, efforts to investigate the Truth can only be made in earnest. It is only when we let go of the ego's need to be "right" that we can take on that endeavor honestly. As long as you are not trying to prove yourself right for your ego's case, then you are probably on the right path.
It's tricky, because we shouldn't give up our intuition, and we shouldn't "just agree" because someone makes sense. Don't ever give up your own critical thinking just because someone makes a good argument. It's just that you shouldn't hold on to your thoughts purely for the "need to be right". It's a perpetual self-monitoring thing, with many likely failures on the path towards mastery (I am far from that end myself, I'm just better than I was before).
So what I'm really saying is, be considerate, and respectful, but don't shy away from the effort to get closer to the truth. Recognize you are on your path, they are on theirs, and it's OK if you don't have Happy Happy Joy Joy interactions as you pass each other by.
This states explicitly that the powers of the President to revoke such privileges only apply to those organizations which were instigated by EO:
The word "and" is very important there. The organizations this presidential power of revocation applies to are the ones that were passed by law AND were initiated by EO.
It has a list on that page of which organizations this power applies to. It includes things like the United Nations, the WHO, the IMF, WTO, etc. all of which were started by EO. They are all big dogs to be sure, and agents of the Cabal, but they are no where near as big as the BIS, or even its underling, The Fed. The trick here is, neither the BIS nor The Fed was started by an EO. In the case of the BIS, it self-declared itself the ruler of the world. No other country had authority to incorporate it. In the exact same way as the people of the United States in 1776 self-declared their sovereignty, so did the BIS. In both cases, everyone else agreed. In the case of the U.S., it took a war before everyone else agreed. The BIS just did it, and there was no contest, because by that time (1931ish), all countries were already ruled by the same people who started the BIS.
Maybe, I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's a violation of the constitution since the legislative branch has the right to take care of such treaties. SCOTUS revoking the treaty with the BIS would amount to an act of war, and SCOTUS doesn't have the power to effect that.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice. Since they never have before when such cases against The Fed (an agent of the BIS) have been brought before them, I doubt it would happen. And why would they? This is just the legal stuff. It's just dressing on top of the real way they control the world (coercion, complicity, bribery, religious beliefs, etc.).
There is no "you must agree" going on here. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It is essential that you dissent if you have reason to do so (or just want to). If the goal is the Truth, it is also essential that you bring what you find to the debate table. This isn't about me (or anyone else) being "right." The need to "be right" is a demand of the ego, it has nothing to do with investigations into the Truth of things. We are here to find the Truth, we are not here to make ourselves feel better with lies and silencing dissension; that's what Facebook is for.
In this case you have brought your protest, you have clearly laid it out AND you have brought the evidence to support it. There could be no better path towards the goal of truth than that. In my book this dissention gets top marks (not that my book has any authority whatsover, just sayin'). It also makes me happy because it helps advance my sole intent (finding the truth). Whether I (or anyone else) agrees with your assessment of the evidence or not, this is absolutely the way. PLEASE keep it up.
Even if my assessment is incorrect, it would have to be brought before SCOTUS and they would have to agree to take the case, which is a choice.
There is that...
Yeah, I'm kinda too confrontation-averse for my own good, and internet discussions have a bad habit of turning sour on a dime, so I get a little gun-shy sometimes, lol.
I suggest a few things to take care of "discussions turning sour":
First, more than anything else, people just want to be heard. While there are certainly exceptions, for the most part people just want to know that you have understood what they have said. It is generally more important than being agreed with. As long as you address what they have said in a way that signifies you have understood them, it usually works out OK in the end.
Second, when the above is not true, recognize that each person is going to come to the Truth (or get closer and closer to it) by their own path. Of course some will never make it, because they don't really want to, and that is another thing to consider. You certainly shouldn't work towards appeasement of them. They are stuck in their own hell by choice. You can't bring everyone along on the path towards the Truth. They will either start that journey or not as they choose. You can bring them information, or attempt to help them, but ultimately the choice is up to them, and there is nothing you can or should do about it. Don't let their "bad" decisions interfere with your efforts on your own path.
Third, efforts to investigate the Truth can only be made in earnest. It is only when we let go of the ego's need to be "right" that we can take on that endeavor honestly. As long as you are not trying to prove yourself right for your ego's case, then you are probably on the right path.
It's tricky, because we shouldn't give up our intuition, and we shouldn't "just agree" because someone makes sense. Don't ever give up your own critical thinking just because someone makes a good argument. It's just that you shouldn't hold on to your thoughts purely for the "need to be right". It's a perpetual self-monitoring thing, with many likely failures on the path towards mastery (I am far from that end myself, I'm just better than I was before).
So what I'm really saying is, be considerate, and respectful, but don't shy away from the effort to get closer to the truth. Recognize you are on your path, they are on theirs, and it's OK if you don't have Happy Happy Joy Joy interactions as you pass each other by.
I know it logically, but by my own hand I've set myself on a course of confrontation avoidance.
Maybe I'll get there someday, but it's just hard to break bad habits, you know? lol
I think everyone can appreciate that statement. Just don't let it interfere with such excellent rebuttals!