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.

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. Even so, 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.

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. Even so, 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 causes me great pleasure 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.