Even masons are starting to realize masonry is an evil practice. This tends to confirm the idea that the Masonic institutions are dangerous in a free government, hostile to political equality, and subversive to the impartial administration of justice.
Question: Why the human race can’t live in peace and enjoy the bounties and blessing God provides for our use and benefit in such abundance?
For those who think the world is overpopulated and food and energy shortages are likely to occur, you need to understand that multi-national corporations create these shortages by forcing farmers not to grow, limiting development of new technologies and clean water, all to manipulate prices for their own gain.
God never advocated depopulation but the devil who wants to play God wants to enforce depopulation. Just because they have more money, because they exploited the masses, they think they are allowed to decide who's permitted to live.
They who control the Illuminati at the top, planned to use wars and revolutions to bring about the establishment of one world government, the powers of which they intend to use in an evil manner against ordinary people.
NO mason for public office, never ever again because they are evil. Supporters are determined to create a party to counter the rising injustice and economic inequality. Because they controlled the courts and other offices, they thought they were capable of obstructing investigation and the formation of the Anti-Masonic Party. Still in 1828 this party was founded as the
first third party. The masons have tried to erase the historical importance of this party. Now, once again, we are back and we are here to stay, because the masons have been exposed for exactly who they are.
You know that the mainstream media is wholly owned and manipulated by the ruling elite. A dwindling number of people still actually believe what they hear coming from the establishment media as if it's gospel, even when they already accept that they are bought and paid for by the elite controllers. Yet, recognizing that they are nothing more than a propaganda machine and a form of mind control are the first steps in being able to critically think beyond the deceitful messaging they broadcast.
Masonry is deceptive and fraudulent. They try to avoid every law and convention. When politicians are complicit with the ruling class and with masonic lodges, they prevent people worldwide from having a fair and peaceful life. It's all about greed and power.
When we try to distinguish good from evil, we get silenced, with-held information, or often mocked. The people are starting to feel there is no longer an option of choosing the lesser of the two evils, they are both corrupt and bought by corporations or masons; republicans and democrats it does not matter. Masonry should be abolished forever: It is wrong! It is evil, which eventually produces misery.
In our world, which is kept hostage by the greed of masonry and their craving for power, 3 rules we must always apply: 1. Distinguish good from evil 2. Question the media 3. Punish politicians' complicity with masonic lodges.
Citizens should organize themselves because we have the moral responsibility to prevent such immoral acts committed by the masons/witches and we must create and support mechanisms to punish these evil perpetrators.
STATE ORGANIZED OR STATE SPONSORED HARASSMENT
For instance, the government is NOT allowed to restrict, press assembly or the citizens' ability to protest and correct government wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the government continues to prosecute whistleblowers, persecute journalists, cage protesters, criminalize ACTIVISTS, crack down on large gatherings of citizens mobilizing to voice their discontent with government policies, and insulate itself and its agents from any charges of wrongdoing BY GRANTING ITSELF THE RIGHT OF VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT. The government may NOT infringe on a citizen’s right to defend himself. Nevertheless, in many states, it’s against the law to carry a concealed weapon (gun, knife or even pepper spray), and the average citizen is permitted little self-defense against militarized police officers who shoot first and ask questions later. The government may NOT enter or occupy a citizen’s house without his consent (the quartering of soldiers). The government may NOT carry out unreasonable searches and seizures on the citizens or their possessions. NOR can government officials issue warrants without some evidence of wrongdoing (probable cause). Unfortunately, what is unreasonable to the average American is completely reasonable to a government agent, for whom the ends justify the means. In such a climate, we have no protection against roadside strip searches, blood draws, DNA collection, SWAT team raids, surveillance or any other privacy-stripping indignity to which the government chooses to subject us. The government should NOT deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process. Nevertheless, the government continues to incarcerate tens of thousands of Americans whose greatest crime is being poor and brown-skinned. The same goes for those who are put to death, some erroneously, by a system weighted in favor of class and wealth. The government may NOT take private property for public use without just compensation. Nevertheless, under the guise of the “greater public interest,” the government often hides behind eminent domain laws in order to allow large corporations to tear down homes occupied by less prosperous citizens in order to build high-priced resorts and shopping malls. Government agents may NOT force a citizen to testify against himself. Yet what is the government’s extensive surveillance network that spies on all of our communications but a thinly veiled attempt at using our own words against us? The government is NOT allowed to impose excessive fines on the citizens or inflict cruel and unusual punishments upon them. Nevertheless Americans are subjected to high fines and outrageous punishments for minor traffic violations, student tardiness and absence from school, and generally having the misfortune of being warm bodies capable of filling privatized, profit-driven jails.
The government is NOT permitted to claim any powers that are not expressly granted to them by the Constitution. Still the government continues to claim for itself every authority that serves their interest, manifests its power, and expand its reach on citizens.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. – Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. And they concluded:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Confused about what the heck is going on out there with money in politics? Look no further! Your speed guide to the issue of money in politics is here! For more questions, check out our FAQ.
Are corporations people? No. Corporations are not people. “A corporation is a government-defined legal structure for doing business. A corporation is created and defined by state legislatures to advance what the state deems to be in the public interest.� For more information, see Jeff Clements' book, Corporations Are Not People: Reclaiming Democracy from Big Money and Global Corporations. How do we fix it? We need a constitutional amendment declaring: 1) Money is not free speech; and 2) Corporations are not people. We also need tough anti-corruption legislation that will plug the holes in our political system that an amendment might not catch. How is that supposed to happen?
An amendment has to be passed by either a ⅔ vote of both houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention convened by the request of ⅔ of state legislatures. The amendment then has to be approved by ¾ of states. So far, 16 states have acted in support of a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics and 160 members of Congress support it too. An amendment is no longer a reformer’s pipe dream; it’s a viable solution to the problem. What can I do? We’re building a movement. If Congress isn't going to do anything about this, we the people have to make them. Politicians still need people to vote for them to win, and when enough people care about an issue and are willing to do something about it, it’s impossible to ignore. That’s why it is so important to help us build the movement to get money out of politics and to get involved. Public polling shows massive support across party lines for an amendment and for limits on campaign spending, so this is a fight we know we can win. Together, we can send a message loud and clear to our elected representatives that we demand change. Get Campaign Updates The problem with Congress Money has always been a part of elections, but in recent years - and especially since the Citizens United decision in 2010 - campaign spending has exploded. The big problem, though, is that elections are now paid for by corporations and the super-rich, and politicians do what the people who pay them want. (“Sorry, taxpayers.”) Why? Because the candidate with the most money wins 94% of the time so politicians care a lot about getting their hands on the money. In 2012, over $7 billion dollars was spent in federal elections alone, and behind that spending was an army of 13,000 lobbyists and 90,000 Washington insiders in the business of influencing our government. When politicians have to pay more attention to them to get elected and stay in office, our government ceases to represent us. And that’s not how our democracy is supposed to work.
How money became free speech The ruling that money is free speech comes from Buckley v. Valeo, a 1976 Supreme Court decision. Although the court upheld limits on direct contributions to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, they conceded that spending money to influence elections is protected speech under the First Amendment. Over the next three decades, several other decisions gave corporations more and more “rights” to political spending in elections, culminating in 2010’s Citizens United decision. Citizens United overturned court precedent by ruling that corporations, specifically, also have a First Amendment right to free speech, eliminating many remaining barriers to political spending. More recently, McCutcheon v. F.E.C, in 2014, overturned aggregate contribution limits, opening the floodgates for corporations and wealthy individuals to infect elections with even more money.
Do you want a future in which we would have the freedom to make our own choices? Do you think you already have that freedom? What would you say if I told you that dream was a lie? That most brands you think you're picking and choosing between are just a few companies? For example: This year, IMDb (the online movie database) had approximately 3.3 million titles (includes episodes) and 6.5 million personalities in its database, most of them Hollywood-owned companies. These millionaires get government funds and subsidies! This is unfair competition by a too big and too powerful industry. Sometimes their movies have political and military implications Government directed #Sony's psyoperation on the North Korean President is just one of many. Some targeted individuals are normal citizens, ethnic minorities or any person that some demonic writer chooses to focus on. If only most movies were about something good and useful instead of reinforcing stereotypes and promoting amoral and violent behavior. The current Commissioner responsible for Competition Policy within the European Commission is Margrethe Vestager that should counter this harmful monopoly. The Directorate-General for Competition (COMP) is a Directorate-General of the European Commission, located in Brussels, Belgium. The DG Competition is responsible for establishing and implementing a coherent competition policy for the European Union. The DG Competition has a dual role in antitrust enforcement: an investigative role and a decision-making role. Here are some other agencies that counter harmful monopolies:CES ACM NMa JFTC TCA COMP and TFEU WHAT CAN WE DO?
Racketeer: some who commits crimes for profit especially one who obtains money by fraud or extortion or illegal business activities involving crime. RICO-laws permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise; or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above. In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers. A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court. Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2013 [on the report of the Third Committee (A/68/456/Add.2)]
68/167. The right to privacy in the digital age The General Assembly , Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Reaffirming also the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1 and relevant international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2 Reaffirming further the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, 3 Noting that the rapid pace of technological development enables individuals all over the world to use new information and communication technologies and at the same time enhances the capacity of governments, companies and individuals to undertake surveillance, interception and data collection, which may violate or abuse human rights, in particular the right to privacy, as set out in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is therefore an issue of increasing concern, Reaffirming the human right to privacy, according to which no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law against such interference, and recognizing that the exercise of the right to privacy is important for the realization of the right to freedom of expression and to hold opinions without interference, and is one of the foundations of a democratic society, Stressing the importance of the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, including the fundamental importance of access to information and democratic participation, _______________ 1 Resolution 217 A (III). Welcoming the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 4 submitted to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-third session, on the implications of State surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and
to freedom of opinion and expression, Emphasizing that unlawful or arbitrary surveillance and/or interception of communications, as well as unlawful or arbitrary collection of personal data, as highly intrusive acts, violate the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression and may contradict the tenets of a democratic society, Noting that while concerns about public security may justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information, States must ensure full compliance with their obligations under international human rights law, Deeply concerned at the negative impact that surveillance and/or interception of communications, including extraterritorial surveillance and/ or interception of communications, as well as the collection of personal data, in particular when carried out on a mass scale, may have on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights, Reaffirming that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism are in compliance with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, 1. Reaffirms the right to privacy, according to which no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interfer ence with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law against such interference, as set out in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1 and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 2 2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet and the rapid advancement in information and communications technologies as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms; 3. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy; 4. Calls upon all States: ( a ) To respect and protect the right to privacy, including in the context of
digital communication; ( b ) To take measures to put an end to violations of those rights and to create the conditions to prevent such violations , including by ensuring that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international human rights law; ( c ) To review their procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and the collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all their obligations under international human rights law; _______________ 4 ) To establish or maintain existing independent, effective domestic oversight mechanisms capable of ensuring transparency, as appropriate, and accountability for State surveillance of communications, their interception and the collection of personal data; 5. Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance and/or the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data, including on a mass scale, to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh session and to the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session, with views and recommendations, to be considered by Member States; 6. Decides to examine the question at its sixty-ninth session, under the sub-item entitled “Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms” of the item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights”. 70th plenary meeting 18 December 2013
George Green- "The plan is to get a war started in the Middle East. Today they figure that biological (weapons ie: Ebola, swine flu, toxic vaccines, chemtrails, toxins in food and water) are much cheaper (than neutron bomb). Those who direct the New World Order do not change their long term plans — they simply adapt their policies to suit modern conditions and adjust their plans to take full advantage of the advancement of modern science and technology. http://youtu.be/sG3Gsi_ivqU
Bearing the above observations in mind, there is a clear and pressing need for vigilance in ensuring the compliance of any surveillance policy or practice with international human rights law, including the right to privacy, through the development of effective safeguards against abuses. As an immediate measure, States should review their own national laws, policies and practices to ensure full conformity with international human rights law. Where there are shortcomings, States should take steps to address them, including through the adoption of a clear, precise, accessible, comprehensive and non-discriminatory legislative framework. Steps should be taken to ensure that effective and independent oversight regimes and practices are in place, with attention to the right of victims to an effective remedy.
Sorcery as means of oppression
Racism, unemployment and causing family or partner break-ups are a few examples of the ways psyoperators are torturing in slow-motion some individuals. Sorcery is a very common tool in this obscure way of controlling citizens. The media is used as amplifier. And your contacts are manipulated too. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT), purposefully heightened the responsibility of State Parties to prevent such acts as well as to create and support mechanisms to punish the perpetrators. Citizens should organize themselves. This is a call to action Social media regularly manipulates how user posts appear; the abuse of socially (online) shared information has become a collective problem that requires a collective response. We should work together to demand that companies promise not to make us involuntary accomplices in corporate activities and governments refrain from using our data for psychological warfare that compromise other people’s autonomy, health, well-being and trust. Clear international binding rules of conduct should be formulated by an independent committee.