Natural News Store

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Bill Gates' $100 million database to track students

Corporations gaining access to grades, addresses, hobbies, attitudes, and more 

By Michael F. Haverluck


Over the past 18 months, a massive $100 million public-school database spearheaded by the $36.4 billion-strong Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been in the making that freely shares student information with private companies. 
The system has been in operation for several months and already contains millions of K-12 students’ personal identification ‒ ranging from name, address, Social Security number, attendance, test scores, homework completion, career goals, learning disabilities, and even hobbies and attitudes about school.
Claiming that the national database will enhance education, the main funder of the project, the Gates Foundation, entered the joint venture with the Carnegie Corporation of New York and school officials from a number of states. After Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify Education (a division of News Corp) spent more than a year developing the system’s infrastructure, the Gates Foundation delivered it to inBloom ‒ a nonprofit corporation recently established to run the database.
School officials and private companies doing business with districts might have plenty to be happy about with this information-sharing system, but President Michael P. Farris says parents have plenty to worry about when it comes to inBloom’s national database.
“The greatest immediate threat to children is the threat to their privacy,” Farris told WND in an exclusive interview. “The Supreme Court has recognized a sphere of privacy within the family, but this project would take personal information about each child, apart from any considerations of parental consent, and put it into a database being managed and monitored solely by the government agencies and private corporations that use it.”
And with globalists like Bill Gates (the world’s second richest man with a net worth of $61 billion) and big government joining hands in the project, could children’s information be abused for ulterior motives?
“I cannot speak to Mr. Gates’ personal motivations, [but] the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been connected with human rights organizations that promote the internationalist mindset, and this project clearly fits with that agenda,” Farris explained. “The Convention on the Rights of the Child committee has repeatedly browbeat nations to create a national database just like this that will allow the government to track children, purportedly to make sure their human rights are being protected ‒ different declared purpose, same kind of system, same invasion of privacy for government purposes.” 
When contacted for comment about the benefits and potential dangers of the database, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did not respond.
Breach of privacy?
Holding the legal right to control student information, local education officials reportedly have the authority under federal law to share database files with private companies ‒ such as Gates’ Microsoft ‒ that sell educational products and services so that they can mine the info to create new tailored products.
But Farris believes the digital information distribution system violates the constitutional rights of parents to protect their children.
“We believe parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education and care of their children,” asserts Farris, who was named one of the “Top 100 Faces in Education of the 20th Century” by Education Week. “Historically, the Supreme Court has supported that right. That means parents are the primary guardians of a child’s privacy.”
He notes the hypocrisy of many globalist billionaires (such as Gates, whose 11-, 14- and 17-year-old children enjoy the extra security of private schools and for their own protection, have had to wait until the age of 13 to get a cell phone).
“This is just one more example of the elite internationalist double standard,” contends Farris, who also is the founder and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). “They are perfectly content to share your child’s personal information, while keeping their own children in private schools or under private tutors.”
Farris, who is also the founding president and current chancellor of Patrick Henry College, sees corporate leaders as using those of lesser means to benefit their own interests.
“They protect their own privacy at any cost, but you need to surrender yours for the good of their ideal society,” Farris adds. “Ultimately, it doesn’t seem so ideal for the rest of us.”
Farris insists that schools giving in to the corporate interests of billionaires, such as Gates and Murdoch, is a major breach of parental rights.
“Now the government is sharing private student information with other organizations without parental consent,” Farris points out. “We believe that infringes a child’s right to privacy, and it infringes the parents’ right to be the first line of defense for that child.”
Many parents concur and feel uneasy with school administrators having full control over their children’s files, especially with states and school districts having full discretion over whether student records are entered into the database.
“Once this information gets out there, it’s going to be abused,” parent Jason France told Reuters in Louisiana, which, along with New York, is slated to input virtually all student records statewide. “There’s no doubt in my mind.”
Illinois, Massachusetts, Colorado, Georgia, Delaware, Kentucky and North Carolina have pledged to contribute student records from various school districts.
Because federal officials claim that the national database does not violate privacy laws, the Department of Education maintains that no parental consent is needed by schools to share student records with any “school official” with a “legitimate educational interest” ‒ which includes school-contracted private companies.
Gates’ real take on security
Being in the business of contributing to educational technologies for decades, 57-year-old Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has much vested interest in education, and in years past, he has had much to say about the privacy of electronic information.
“Trustworthy Computing is the highest priority for all the work we are doing,” Gates stated a decade ago in a famous company-wide memo at Microsoft. “We must lead the industry to a whole new level of Trustworthiness in computing.”
And by “trustworthy,” Gates was referring to not letting people’s information get into the wrong hands.
“Users should be in control of how their data is used,” explained Gates ‒ who believes that his customers’ information should not be freely distributed, but does not hold that view when it comes to parents and the records of their children.
“Policies for information use should be clear to the user. Users should be in control … it should be easy for users to specify appropriate use of their information …”
In fact, when it comes to protecting and courting customers, Gates has spared no cost.
“So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security,” states the memo from Gates, whose $150 million, 66,000-square-foot home on Lake Washington has a 2,500-square-foot gym, a 1,000 square-foot living room and a 60-foot swimming pool complete with an underwater music system. “Our products should emphasize security right out of the box, and we must constantly refine and improve that security as threats evolve.”
Despite his endorsement of the school database, Gates ‒ who gave up first place in global net worth to Mexico’s Carlos Slim Helu ($69 billion) after giving away $28 billion through his foundation ‒ is a strong backer of International Data Privacy Day, which has this to say about protecting people’s information:
“In this networked world, in which we are thoroughly digitized, with our identities, locations, actions, purchases, associations, movements, and histories stored as so many bits and bytes, we have to ask – who is collecting all of this data – what are they doing with it – with whom are they sharing it? Most of all, individuals are asking ‘How can I protect my information from being misused?’ These are reasonable questions to ask – we should all want to know the answers.”
Officials of the annual event proclaim endorsement of the very principles that Gates’ new public school database evidently tramples.
“Data Privacy Day promotes awareness about the many ways personal information is collected, stored, used, and shared, and education about privacy practices that will enable individuals to protect their personal information,” the events’ organizers declare.
Student security not a priority
Even though the facilitator of the public school database promises that it will keep a tight rein on students’ information, a closer look into inBloom’s privacy policy shows another stance.
“[inBloom] cannot guarantee the security of the information stored … or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted,” the company’s documentation states.
Unlike most software and Internet users, parents have little recourse when it comes to protecting their children’s information on the database. Voicing their concerns with state officials via written protests, parents of public schoolers from Louisiana and New York are up-in-arms. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) in Massachusetts, as well as attorneys in New York, are following suit.
But according to Farris, public education is just fanning the flames of parental fears that “Big Brother” is tightening its grip on the masses by treating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as a “living and breathing document” to undermine its original intent.
“We know the Department of Education quietly modified their understanding of FERPA law in the last two years to allow for a system like this,” Farris argues. “Homeschool Legal Defense Association, of which I am chairman, filed a letter with the Department opposing their intended changes, but like all such letters in this particular instance, our input was ignored.”
And has Bill Gates’ personal information been as freely accessible as he would public schoolers’ to be? Not exactly.
Just earlier this month, the now part-timer from Microsoft (since 2008) has been made the latest victim of celebrity data exposure, with his Social Security number, birthdate, credit card number and full credit report being posted online. No comment has been made whether Gates believes the dissemination of his SSN is a breach of privacy, but his heavy involvement in the school database indicates that sharing such information of public school students isn’t a breach.
And just how important is privacy to Gates?
In 1994, when he married Melinda in a private ceremony on the Hawaiian island of Lanai, he bought out every unoccupied room of all nearby hotels and booked every helicopter in the surrounding area to ensure privacy from photographers.
Reports also indicate that First Lady Michelle Obama was also a recent victim of having her SSN and credit report posted online. She and a couple dozen celebrities were impersonated by hackers who entered some of their basic personal information into a website ‒ the same type of information (of students) school officials are entering into their system by the millions.
President Barack Obama recently expressed his concern over electronic information being exploited by others, and when it comes to info being dispersed about his wife, he is dispatching U.S. authorities to investigate.
“We should not be surprised that if we’ve got hackers that want to dig in and have a lot of resources, that they can access this information,” Obama told ABC News. “Again, not sure how accurate but … you’ve got websites out there that tell people’s credit card info. That’s how sophisticated they are.”
And to make it easy for companies to tap in, inBloom has made its service free, but is likely to begin charging for its use by 2015.
Opening the Gates agenda?
Much concern has been expressed over the years as to the driving force behind Gates and his organizations, which have demonstrated unflagging support of many leftist agendas over the years.
Just last week, the richest man in America renewed his contempt for capitalism while decrying that Obama’s powers are too restricted under America’s free system of government.
“Some days, I wish we had a system like the U.K. where, you know, the party in power could do a lot and you know, you’d see how it went and then fine, you could un-elect them,” Gates proclaimed at a Politico event when asked about Obama’s performance as president, according to The Daily Caller.
Gates joins other billionaires such as William Buffet, George Soros and George Lucas in their rants against capitalism ‒ the very system that made them rich.
“[Capitalism] means male baldness research gets more funding than malaria,” Gates proclaimed just over a week ago in a speech the Global Grand Challenges Summit put on by the Royal Academy of Engineering, according to Wired Magazine.
Since the inception of the Gates Foundation in 1994, the same year Gates spent $30.8 million at an auction for a collection of Leonardo da Vinci’s writings called the Codex Leicester, he has been a staunch supporter of population control through vaccines and other methods.
Last summer, Gates and his wife represented their foundation at a “family planning” summit in London hosted by the U.K. Department of International Development, which included Planned Parenthood and the United Nations Populations Fund, along with other prominent pro-abortion advocates.
And at the exclusive Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference in Long Beach, Calif., Gates presented this population-control formula: P (people) x S (services per persons) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy) = CO2 (total CO2 emitted by population per year).
He had this to say about keeping the world population from peaking at 9.3 billion (official projected peak) during his speech titled “Innovating to Zero!”
“First we got population,” Gates explained. “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Even though Gates suggested at the invitation-only event that using vaccines is one means to reduce world population, his foundation focuses media attention on other goals, such as eradicating measles and polio.
But the foundation’s extreme measures taken to administer their shots to undeveloped nations are often underreported.
In 2011, few people knew about partners of the Gates foundation forcing 131 Malawian children against their religious convictions to receive measles vaccinations at gunpoint as part of achieving the goal of vaccinating every child on earth, as reported by Natural News.
Gates, an ex-Boy Scout, is also an advocate of homosexual behavior, stating at last week’s Politico event that the youth organization should “absolutely” lift its ban on “gay” members when asked about his take on the issue.
Standing side-by-side with Planned Parenthood ‒ which has documented that promoting homosexuality is one of its tactics behind population control ‒ Gates’ Microsoft was a major contributors to last year’s successful election campaign that worked to legalize same-sex “marriage” in his native Washington State.
The future of Gates’ database?
It is uncertain how much influence Gates can have on society as the new school database continues to be implemented, but it is not moving forward without legal resistance.
Law firms are doing their best to try and stop the national public school database in its tracks.
“It’s a lot of smoke and mirrors,” contended Electronic Privacy Law Center Administrative Counsel Khaliah Barnes in a statement to the Daily News. “What happens if a company using the data is compromised? What happens if the company goes out of business? We don’t know the answers.”
The issue over the database is being brought to the forefront as a major civil rights issue.
“Turning massive amounts of personal data about public school students to a private corporation without any public input is profoundly disturbing and irresponsible,” New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna told the Daily News.
The NYCLU is castigating New York State officials for denying parents the choice to opt out of the controversial program and for failing to warn parents of its implementation.
To counter Gates’ school database project, urges Americans to sign a petition supporting the Parental Rights Amendment, which will codify the fundamental right of parents in the U.S. Constitution to direct the upbringing, education and care of their children.


Monday, March 25, 2013

Just where does Israel's legitimacy stem from anyway?

"...Israel ignores UN Resolutions unless it suits its political and territorial ambitions..."
"...Israel ignores UN Resolutions unless it suits its political and territorial ambitions..."

Ibrahim Hewitt

Sunday, 24 March 2013 15:34

All of the major pro-Israel Lobbyists, including Barack Obama just a few days ago, have used the word "delegitimisation" to condemn critics of the State of Israel and its policies. Earlier this month, the British Labour Party leader Ed Miliband affirmed his status as a Zionist in a speech to the Board of Deputies of British Jews in which he equated odious anti-Semitism with "delegitimisation of Israel" as if the two are one and the same thing; they're not.
Almost everyone who has ever condemned Israel's illegal activities and abuses of international human rights legislation and conventions has been accused of trying to "delegitimise" the state. The pro-Israel Lobby cannot, and will not, accept that criticism of Israel's actions does not necessarily mean that you want to destroy the state; hate the deeds, not the people who do them is a motto I teach at school to young people confused when people like Obama and, in Britain, David Cameron and Miliband, claim to be advocates of peace and justice and yet routinely proclaim their support for a country which displays the characteristics of a rogue state in almost every sense.
A number of key documents are often cited as giving Israel legitimacy in its present form. The first is, of course, the Bible; God chose the Children of Israel and promised them the land. That's what Zionists use to justify the modern Israeli claim to the land of Palestine, although the "founding father of Zionism", Theodor Herzl, at whose grave Barack Obama paid homage last week, was famously an atheist. Moreover, "Israel" was originally neither a state nor a nation; the Children of Israel were the descendants of Prophet Jacob ("Israel"). The "promise", or covenant, was conditional on his descendants fulfilling Divine Commandments and upholding Divine Laws.
Shlomo Sand, in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, has debunked "the central myths about the primeval origin of a marvellous nation that emerged from the desert, conquered a spacious land and built a glorious kingdom". Such myths, claims Sand, "were a boon for rising Jewish nationalism and Zionist colonisation". The myths have been "undermined" but, "although Israeli society was... no longer in need of the historical legitimation that had supported its creation and its very existence, it still had difficulty accepting the new findings" at the end of the twentieth century. So, it would appear, have members of the pro-Israel Lobby. Jewish groups such as the Ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta who define themselves as "Torah Jews" write: "All the great rabbis who in accordance with Jewish Law opposed Zionism at its inception did not do so merely due to consideration of the secular lifestyles of the then Zionist leaders or even for their opposition to Torah heritage and rejection of its values and practices, but due to the fact that the entire concept of a Jewish state is in direct conflict with a number of Judaism's fundamentals upon which the State of Israel has been built."
Neturei Karta is usually dismissed by the Lobby as a "minority group" and "extremists" but rarely, if ever, is the Torah-based reasoning behind the group's position on Israel tackled by secular Jews who, paradoxically, despite their secularism and secular lifestyle use a religious text as the basis for the foundation of the State of Israel.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 is also cited by Lobbyists to "prove" the legitimacy of their claim to the land of Palestine. The Declaration was a statement made in a letter sent by the then British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Lord Rothschild; it was written before Britain had any responsibility for, or even authority over, Palestine during the First World War. "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object," wrote Balfour, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The latter clause is often overlooked by the Lobby and the government of Israel.
The text of the letter was "submitted to and approved by the Cabinet" but it was never put to the Houses of Parliament for debate. It may well have become government policy but it was never a legally-binding document. Indeed, it has been called "void, morally wicked and mischievous" because "the consent of the indigenous and sovereign inhabitants of the country... was never asked or obtained". Turkey, the legal sovereign over Palestine in 1917 "did not consent to it"; according to lawyer Henry Cattan, "This basic flaw did not escape the attention of Chaim Weizmann, the principal Zionist negotiator of the Balfour Declaration, because he stressed to the British government 'the importance of the Balfour Declaration being included in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey'."
The Declaration refers to the British government's support for a "Jewish National Home" not a Jewish state. Sir Herbert Samuel, the first British High Commissioner of Palestine whose views are said to have influenced the drafting of the letter, told the House of Lords in 1947 that "there was no promise of a Jewish state" intended by the Balfour Declaration. As Cattan said in The Palestine Question, at the time of writing the Declaration, "the British government, a foreign power in regard to Palestine, did not possess, nor had it ever possessed, any sovereignty, right of disposition, or jurisdiction over Palestine, that enabled it to grant any rights, be they political or territorial, to an alien people over the territory of Palestine".
When the House of Lords debated the League of Nations Palestine mandate in 1922, members opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the terms of the mandate. "Lord Islington," wrote Cattan, "said that the proposed mandate violated the pledges made by His Majesty's government to the people of Palestine." According to Lord Sydenham in the same debate, "the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country... may never be remedied... What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend."
That "sore" has, of course, been very obvious to the Palestinians, who could answer his Lordship very succinctly; it has destroyed their country, their lives and quite possibly their future.
The other major document used by supporters of Israel is the 1947 UN Resolution to partition Palestine; this was opposed by Samuel as well as, apparently, "the indigenous religious Jews in Palestine" who were "strongly opposed to political Zionism", among them Neturei Karta. Of course, the people of Palestine, represented at the UN by the Arab Higher Committee, for whom the spokesman was Henry Cattan, also opposed the partition of their land. Their fears were realised when General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) gave 57 per cent of Palestine to the Jews for their state even though they owned just 6 per cent of the land at that time. What is interesting when pro-Israel Lobbyists cite UN Resolution 181 as the basis of the state's legitimacy is that a) General Assembly Resolutions of the UN are not binding, b) the Resolution "was probably ultra vires [outside the competence of the United Nations]" in any case; and c) the nascent State of Israel went beyond the boundaries fixed by the UN despite its pledge to implement Resolution 118, which inter alia intended Jerusalem to be a corpus separatum to be administered by the UN. Israel, of course, claims the whole of Jerusalem as its "undivided and eternal capital".
When, in 1948, Israel applied to join the UN, it was rejected. A second application was made in February 1949 and it was made conditional for Israel to abide by UN Resolutions 181 "concerning the territory of the Arab and Jewish states, the City of Jerusalem, the Holy Places and minority rights" as well as Resolution 194 (dated 11 December 1948) "concerning repatriation of [Palestinian] refugees and Jerusalem". Israel has never complied with those resolutions. Nor, indeed, has it ever complied with any other UN Resolutions which required it to do something which would entail the return of Palestinian refugees to their land or to fix its borders according to Resolution 181. Astonishingly, Israel is the only member state of the UN which has never declared what its borders actually are. This, very conveniently, has allowed it to grab ever more Palestinian territory on a regular basis over many years as it bids to create "Greater Israel"; the "Zionist dream", according to President Obama.
In general, it is fair to say that Israel ignores UN Resolutions unless it suits its political and territorial ambitions to do otherwise. It is also fair to say that it has never been taken to task for this blatant abuse of UN membership, which requires all states to abide by the terms of the UN Charter.
In terms of human rights conventions, Israel breaks the Fourth Geneva Convention with apparent impunity; the most obvious example of this abuse is the Israeli settlements which are built across the occupied West Bank. These are deemed to be illegal in international law, which prohibits the acquisition of territory by war and the transfer of the occupier's population across the border into occupied territory; Israel – surprise, surprise – disputes this but is the only country to do so. That is why it is so galling to hear people like Barack Obama insist that the Palestinians should return to the negotiating table at which the settlements can be discussed. Since when are criminals allowed to "negotiate" about their crimes? What kind of law did the US President study at Harvard?
The list of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity is long, ranging from the transfer of detainees from their land under occupation to prisons inside the territory of the occupying power, to the use of white phosphorus bombs in civilian areas during "Operation Cast Lead", an act captured so dramatically on camera in an attack on a UN school in the Gaza Strip. Such atrocities have been fairly common, from the infamous Deir Yassin massacre of 1948, through the Qibya Massacre of 1953, Sabra and Shatila in 1982 to Israel's offensive against the largely unarmed civilian population of Gaza in 2008/9 and 2012.
At all times, without exception, Israel's actions are passed off as "responses" to Palestinian "terrorism". The Lobby's major success has been to convince Western governments, if any actually needed convincing, that legitimate Palestinian resistance to the Israeli military occupation is "terrorism". Such legitimacy can be found in, for example, UN Resolutions 2787 dated 6th December 1971.
Given the requirement in international law for signatories to the Geneva Conventions to apprehend those accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is amazing that the likes of Barack Obama can go to Israel and praise such a criminal state and government. Equally amazing is the fact that a government like Britain's coalition has amended domestic law to allow Israelis believed to be responsible for war crimes to visit the UK without fear of arrest.
All of this begs the obvious question: how can opponents of Israel's illegal activities and policies ever be accused of seeking to "delegitimise" the state? Surely, by any measure, Israel has delegitimised itself ever since it agreed to uphold the terms of the UN Charter; allow the right of return of Palestinian refugees; and agree on the international status of Jerusalem, all of which are requirements for its membership of the UN, and yet make every effort not only to ignore those requirements but work actively against them? Israel can't have it all ways; if it claims legitimacy from a particular document surely it must uphold its terms and requirements.
The pro-Israel Lobby and its lackeys should be exposed for what they really are; not supporters of a democratic state struggling to survive as an "outpost of civilisation against barbarism", as Herzl put it, but as vociferous backers of a rogue state hellbent on interpreting international laws and conventions to suit its own nefarious objective of taking more and more Palestinian land with as few Palestinians on it as possible.
Talk of peace without justice, and without bringing to justice those who have treated international norms of behaviour with absolute contempt at the cost of thousands of Palestinian lives, should be a thing of the past. Peace with justice is beneficial to everyone in the Middle East; that is why people of goodwill need to pursue it assiduously.
So, does Israel's legitimacy stem from its adherence to Biblical commandments as it claims Biblical roots in the "historical home of the Jewish people"? Or from the UN as the organisation which provided the springboard for its creation? Or does it stem from Israel's respect for the UN Charter and UN Resolutions? Or from its respect for the international laws and conventions which the rest of us are expected to adhere to, or none of the above?
The next time we hear accusations that someone is trying to "delegitimise" Israel just because they have called for it to abide by international law or face the consequences as other countries and governments must, we must ask the proIsrael Lobby mouthpieces to state explicitly where they thinks their favoured state's legitimacy comes from. The world deserves to be told.

Bitcoin & Cyprus Scheme: How Technocrats Manipulate All Digital Currency

March 20, 2013 
Banks in Cyprus havedeclared a bank holiday for the early part of this week to prevent more customers from extracting funds from their private accounts.
Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades recently stated that he has the “feeling . . . that the house is going to reject it because they feel and think it isn’t just and that it’s against the interest of Cyprus.”
The 5.8 billion euro bailout has prompted technocrats in conjunction with elected officials to raid customer private bank accounts.
The worth of the euro has taken a huge fall, being down 0.4% on the Stoxx Exchange 600 Index. 
In response, the pressure is mounting in Cyprus to ignore the public outrage and continue to plunder the citizen’s bank accounts under the European Central Bank (ECB) Emergency Liquidity Assistance program (ELAP).
The ECB appears to be blackmailing the Cypriot government while out right confiscating depositor’s money under this “project”.
Earlier this year, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervisors (BCBS) applied the underlying pressure on US banks to liquidate to appease global markets. The American taxpayer is picking up the tab for this turn of events. BIS is giving these banks until 2019 to comply with their new rules. Capital to prop up the banks will be needed while they liquidate assets such as bonds, mortgages, loans and stock shares.
Consequences of the liquidation have been evidenced in governmental austerity and movement toward sovereign debt by the technocrats. Any asset assessed by BIS can and is being used as collateral of the banksters in an anything goes temperament while the squandering of wealth continues.
BIS has used the scheme of forcing capital from the banks to control the measures taken globally. International banking constraints mandated in these new rules are putting more control into the hands of “shadow banks” where supervision is unheard of.
Michel Barnier, commissioner of BIS, stated that the Basel Committee has “revised liquidity coverage ratio and the gradual approach for its phasing-in by clearly defined dates. This is significant progress which addresses issues already raised by the European Commission. We now need to make full use of the observation period, and learn from the reports that the European Banking Authority will prepare on the results of the observation period, before formally implementing in 2015 the liquidity coverage ratio under EU law in line with the Basel standards.”
Liquidity is seen by the technocrats as a necessity for “the stability of banks as well as for their role in supporting wider economic recovery.”
At a time when the introduction of a global currency to replace all fiat across the globe is at hand, it makes perfect sense that the technocrats are positioning themselves to control the central banks as offshoot branches of their operation. At the head of this monster, the BIS sets the tone and directs the banksters with limitations and orders.
The European Central Bank (ECB) is setting the stage of a complete financial collapse of fiat currencies across the globe. Joining in the scheme are other technocratic institutions such as the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank.
Under the guise of preventing a system failure during the global financial crisis, there will be “an extension of the existing temporary US dollar liquidity swap arrangements until February, 1 2014.” This action allows the central bankers to liquidate currencies under their jurisdiction “should market conditions so warrant.” Under this plan, euros backed by nothing can continue to pour into the system throughout the Eurozone “in addition to the existing liquidity-providing operations” in the US. This liquidation will take place “until further notice.”
Alternative media is reporting that to salvage their funds, Europeans are beginning to invest in Bitcoin. Indeed, Bitcoins have been purchased and “downloaded” at a record high of $52 euros per Bitcoin in an attempt to keep customer cash safe from the plundering of technocrats.
Bitcoin has begun to thrive under the threats in Cyprus with an app for iPhones to make purchasing the digital currency easier.
Supporters of Bitcoin incorrectly claim that the scheme is not centralized as an alternate form of currency that would be of itself a protest to the technocrats.
However Bitcoin has been given that status of a “payment service provider” (PSP) by French financial institutions Aqoba and Crédit Mutuel. Officially,they are not a PSP because of the banks they are aligned with who are. This means Bitcoin is able to take advantage of their PSP status without having to be one themself.
Crédit Mutuel is the “main component of the Crédit Mutuel-CIC Group” which includes a federation of French financial institutions that have assets totaling over $581 billion. The federation’s holding corporation, the Banque Federative du Crédit Mutuel (BFCM) control French and foreign operational subsidiaries in Germany, Belgium, Spain and Portugal.
Crédit Mutuel is classified as a retail bank, yet it also services corporate investments, asset management, private banking and conducts international activities. They also are involved in:
• Finance leasing
• Real estate investment
• Property development
• Collection services
• Insurance policies
Bitcoin now has an International Bank ID number (IBAN) which allows transactions through PayPal and WorldPay and other digital payment networks; as well as issue debit cards, enabled to process monetary transfers to other banks and accept transfer of digital currency to their own “location”.
A Bitcoin account will be as viable as any other bank account with other established banks worldwide. Deposits will be subject to compensatory laws that are applicable when dealing with printed fiat in traditional accounts and balances in Bitcoin accounts can be exchanged for the fiat in that country (i.e. euros, US dollars, Yaun, etc. . . ).
The illusion is that this digital currency can allow any “two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party”; however while based on the collective control of computers, a “chain of digital signatures” and a “trusted central authority” to keep the monetary system from relying on printed fiat.
Virtual cash, the digital exchange offered by Bitcoin, is gaining ground as the possible future replacement for global currencies as a network of global computers.
The actuality of Bitcoin is that it is no different than any other type of e-currency and subject to manipulation by the technocrats. Should people transfer their fiat into Bitcoin thinking they can avert theft from banksters, they will soon realize that ALL digital currency plays into the central banking schemes to extract wealth from the people.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The Power of Touch: The hug that helped change medicine

In 1995, a baby was saved by the hug of her sibling. CNN's Lisa Sylvester reports on a twin bond that has lasted.