Saturday, May 27, 2017

Cocoa Beach, FL Dream Home For Sale

Contact Ms. Perry at 001-321-613-4772 or Nick at 001-321-357-3097

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Sumerian texts

The origins of human beings according to ancient Sumerian texts

(Read the article on one page)

Sumer, or the ‘land of civilized kings’, flourished in Mesopotamia, now modern-day Iraq, around 4500 BC. Sumerians created an advanced civilization with its own system of elaborate language and writing, architecture and arts, astronomy and mathematics. Their religious system was a complex one comprised of hundreds of gods. According to the ancient texts, each Sumerian city was guarded by its own god; and while humans and gods used to live together, the humans were servants to the gods.

The Sumerian creation myth can be found on a tablet in Nippur, an ancient Mesopotamian city founded in approximately 5000 BC.

The creation of Earth ( Enuma Elish ) according to the Sumerian tablets begins like this:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...

Sumerian mythology claims that, in the beginning, human-like gods ruled over Earth. When they came to the Earth, there was much work to be done and these gods toiled the soil, digging to make it habitable and mining its minerals.

The texts mention that at some point the gods mutinied against their labour.

When the gods like men
Bore the work and suffered the toll
The toil of the gods was great,
The work was heavy, the distress was much.

Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods.

You have slaughtered a god together
With his personality
I have removed your heavy work
I have imposed your toil on man.
…
In the clay, god and man
Shall be bound,
To a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
The Flesh and the Soul
Which in a god have ripened –
That soul in a blood-kinship be bound.

This first man was created in Eden, a Sumerian word which means ‘flat terrain’. In the Epic of Gilgamesh , Eden is mentioned as the garden of the gods and is located somewhere in Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Sumerian tablet depicting Enki in the creation myth. ( world-myth.com)

Initially human beings were unable to reproduce on their own, but were later modified with the help of Enki and Ninki. Thus, Adapa was created as a fully functional and independent human being. This ‘modification’ was done without the approval of Enki’s brother, Enlil, and a conflict between the gods began. Enlil became the adversary of man, and the Sumerian tablet mentions that men served gods and went through much hardship and suffering.

Adapa, with the help of Enki, ascended to Anu where he failed to answer a question about ‘the bread and water of life’. Opinions vary on the similarities between this creation story and the biblical story of Adam and Eve in Eden.

Featured image: Sumerian chaos monster and sun god. ( Wikipedia)

Note: Ancient Sumerian translations were taken from William Bramley’s book, The Gods of Eden .

The Trillion Dollar Lawsuit

Neil Keenan’s battle against the world wide conspiracy of bankers

End of 2011 the Irish-American businessman Neil Keenan (agent of the Asian Dragon family) filed a claim in the Federal court in New York. [1] Neil Keenan’s lawsuit is not just about the stolen bonds with a face value of 134,500 billion dollar. It entails the largest fraud in the financial world. The story behind the claim exposes the corruption within the banking industry. It also uncovers the involvement of world leaders with these corrupt practises and unveils the sinister agenda of the Cabal (secret ruling elite, also called Illuminati). Furthermore it reveals the true motivations behind the Second World War and 9/11.

And if the claimed amount of more than a trillion dollar is not spectacular enough, the list of defendants is at least as impressive: Dal Bosco (financial advisor of the Vatican), the Italian government, Prime Minister Berlosconi, the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon (UN), World Economic Forum and the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. [1]

One would almost think that this is not a serious case, but nothing could be further from the truth. This case is dead serious and everything indicates that this story is the absolute truth. A chilling truth, at least for the Cabal, as this most likely will be the sword of Damocles that hangs over their head.

The claim

In June 2009 two Japanese men were arrested in the Italian Chiasso, near the Swiss border. The two Japanese, Yamaguchi and Watanabe, carried in the double bottom of their suitcase Federal Reserve Bonds with a face value of 134,500 billion dollar. [2] The two were accused of having counterfeits in their possession and after the arrest their bonds were confiscated by the Italian police. After they were brought before the court, they were quickly released and there is no police or legal report anywhere to be found, neither in the Italian police record, nor at the Financial Police, nor at Interpol. However, the confiscated bonds remained in the hands of the Italians and there is proof that they have been redeemed by the Italian government and the Federal Reserve Bank in new York and placed in a financial program of the United Nations.

The history of the Dragon Bonds

In order to understand the origin of these bonds and their astronomical value, one needs to go back to the time of the silk route. For thousands of years the West is engaged in trade with the East and particularly since the era of the East Indian Trading Company this trade intensified. Merchandise like silk, ceramics, spices and other valuable goods were imported from Asia. The Asians only accepted gold as payment and this is how 85% of the worldwide gold ended up in the East. This gold belonged to the Dragon family — China’s dynastic rulers before the communists came to power — and is now spread over various Asian countries: Indonesia, Thailand, South-Korean, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan. [3]

In order to regain this gold, the Cabal in the West made a secret agreement to plunder it from Asia by means of three world wars. This plan dates from 1776, the year that the Illuminati was founded as well. Later on in 1921, 18 years prior to when World War II would start, another secret agreement was signed by the American, British and French government, the future Japanese Emperor Hirohito and the Chinese communist leaders, to start the Second World War and steal the gold of the Dragon family. A copy of this agreement will be submitted in Neil Keenan’s lawsuit.

Example of Federal Reserve bond with face value of $ 100,000. Bonds with higher values, half a million to 100 million per bond, were also issued.

Part of the plan was a false flag attack by a Japanese proxy that stole part of the gold in China in the twenties. [5] This convinced the Dragon family to safely put away part of their gold in the Federal Reserve Bank in the US. The first part was shipped in 1934 and in 1938 seven tankers fully loaded with gold-bars left for the US. In exchange the Dragon family received Federal Reserve Bonds with gigantic values, varying from a million to 100 million dollar per bond. A condition of this deal was that the gold would be used to finance humanitarian projects to develop and modernize Asia and Africa.

Bretton Woods agreement

In 1944 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank were founded as part of the Bretton Woods agreement. [6] This was the start of the current worldwide financial system. The US demanded that from then on the Federal Gold Reserve would form the basis of the monetary system. It was a clever ruse to make sure that a large part of the gold in the hands of the Dragon family that was not part of the Federal Reserve, would this way be non-tradable. The gold that was handed over to the Federal Reserve Bank was lent for a period of 60 years. When this term ended in 1994 for the 1934 bonds the Dragon Family demanded their gold back. Because the promises made by the West to modernize the third world by humanitarian projects were not kept and furthermore the funds were used to finance various wars.

Chest and boxes used to store the Federal Reserve Bank bonds.

9/11 was related to 200,000 tons of gold

Because the Federal Reserve Bank did not want to return the gold, the Dragon family filed a lawsuit at the International World Court in The Hague. The trial took place behind closed doors and when the Dragon family won the case the Federal Reserve Bank was obligated to return 200,000 tons of gold. The deadline when this gold had to be sent back was September 12 2001, the day after 9/11. The gold was stored in the vaults in the basement of the World Trade Centre, and has disappeared ever since the attacks. Cantor Fitzgerald Securities the shipping company that was in the possession of the insurance and transportation documents was located in WTC 1. During the 9/11 attacks all 600 employees were killed and all documents vanished. The Treasury Police was located in WTC 7 and when this building came down, their documents disappeared as well. The message to the Dragon family was loud and clear; the Fed did not have the intention to return the gold. [3]

Full - http://www.ellaster.nl/2016/04/15/the-trillion-dollar-lawsuit/

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

"TTP", Corporations to officially rule the world

The Obama-proposed international-trade deals, if passed into law, will lead to “a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots,” says Alfred De Zayas, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order.

These two mammoth trade-pacts, one (TTIP) for Atlantic nations, and the other (TTP) for Pacific nations excluding China (since Obama is against China), would transfer regulations of corporations to corporations themselves, and away from democratically elected governments. Regulation of working conditions and of the environment, as well as of product-safety including toxic foods and poisonous air and other consumer issues, would be placed into the hands of panels whose members will be appointed by large international corporations. Their decisions will remove the power of democratically elected governments to control these things. “Red tape” that’s imposed by elected national governments would be eliminated — replaced by the international mega-corporate version.

De Zayas was quoted in Britain’s Guardian on May 4th as saying also that, “The bottom line is that these agreements must be revised, modified or terminated,” because they would vastly harm publics everywhere, even though they would enormously benefit the top executives of corporations by giving them control as a sort of corporate-imposed world government, answerable to the people who control those corporations.

Obama is pushing for international cartels to replace important functions of today’s national governments, and De Zayas is saying that, “We don’t want an international order akin to post-democracy or post-law.”

De Zayas told the Guardian that the panels that are proposed to be at the very center of these trade-pacts

“constitute an attempt to escape the jurisdiction of national courts and bypass the obligation of all states to ensure that all legal cases are tried before independent tribunals that are public, transparent, accountable and appealable.”

That is, in fact, the motivation behind these deals. Costs get transferred from corporations onto consumers, workers, and the environment, while profits are increased for the corporation’s investors, and CEO pay will soar. In fact, the EU’s own study of the economic impact of the TTIP with America, calculated

“economic gains as a whole for the EU (€119 billion a year) and US (€95 billion a year). This translates to an extra €545 in disposable income each year for a family of 4 in the EU, on average, and €655 per family in the US. … Income gains are a result of increased trade. EU exports to the US would go up by 28%, equivalent to an additional €187 billion worth of exports of EU goods and services. Overall, total exports would increase 6% in the EU and 8% in the US.”

According to the analysis, no one would lose anything. For example, tariffs would be reduced but income taxes and other taxes that the public pays wouldn’t be increased in order to make up for that loss of income to the state from reduced tariffs. Not at all. Instead: “As much as 80% of the total potential gains come from cutting costs imposed by bureaucracy and regulations, as well as from liberalising trade in services and public procurement.”

In other words: government regulations of product-safety and the environment and workers’ rights are a terrible waste, which would be eliminated and handled more efficiently by letting international corporations themselves handle those things, according to the EU’s study. And “liberalising trade in services and public procurement” would cut “red tape” that has prevented government officials who are the purchasers in “public procurement” from getting high-paid corporate directorships, etc. under the existing regulatory structures in democratic nations where the public, the voters, can hold their own government accountable for such corruption. If these functions become the domain of the international corporations themselves, then existing regulations and the government employees who enforce them can be eliminated. Accountability, in other words, is such a waste, for the inside investors in large corporations. They don’t need it; they fight against it. They are fighting against it. They don’t even want accountability to their own outside investors, who might want them removed from corporate management.

The EU simply doesn’t mention the downsides. And they also don’t mention that, “Obama’s TTIP Trade Deal w. Europe Would Be Disastrous for Europe, Says the First Independent Study.” That study wasn’t paid for by the EU, so they just ignore it. (They even ignore that it found that America’s international corporations would benefit even more from the deal than would Europe’s international corporations, which is the exact opposite result than the EU’s own study calculated. President Obama performs brilliantly for America’s billionaires, even though most of them are Republicans.) The economist who did that study wasn’t paid by anybody to do it. Occasionally, a study like that is performed by an economist. However, paid-for studies get far more publicity, because the findings are then heavily promoted by the sponsoring organization — after all, it’s propaganda.

On 23 January 2015, Britain’s Financial Times bannered, “Davos 2015: Businesses rally support for transatlantic trade deal.” Attendees there would pop the champagne corks if these deals pass.

David Korten at YES! magazine, headlined on 15 April 2015, “A Trade Rule that Makes It Illegal to Favor Local Business? Newest Leak Shows TPP Would Do That And More.” He stated, in common language, a recently-leaked (from wikileaks) chapter of the TPP, the treaty’s Investment chapter. Key provisions of it are:

Favoring local ownership is prohibited. …

Corporations must be paid to stop polluting. [Yes: Obama demands that corporations possess an actual right to pollute! It’s in the contract!! Ignore his mere rhetoric.] …

Three [corporate] lawyers will decide who’s right in secret tribunals. …

Speculative money must remain free [of governmental regulation] …

Corporate interests come before national ones. …

Then, there’s a sixth basic provision: to “prohibit governments from requiring that a foreign investor be under any obligation to serve the host country’s people or national interest.”

And that’s just one chapter of the proposed document. No wonder, then, why the billionaires at Davos are eager for Obama to ram this secret treaty through Congress. (Their people were in on the drafting of this proposed treaty, so Davosians didn’t need Julian Assange’s organization for them to know what the treaty contains. Only we do. And so now we understand why Obama wants to imprison or execute Assange.)

In the United States, congressional Republicans are almost unanimously in support of Obama’s trade-deals, but most congressional Democrats are opposed to these deals. President Obama doesn’t even enforce the workers’ rights provisions in the existing NAFTA and other existing trade-deals. Murders of labor union officials are prohibited under NAFTA but the Obama Administration ignores them. On April 22nd, Huffington Post bannered, “AFL-CIO’s Trumka: USTR Told Us Murder Isn’t A Violation Under U.S. Trade Deals” and quoted an AFL-CIO official,

“‘The question is whether USTR [Obama’s U.S. Trade Representative, the same man who is negotiating both the TPP and the TTIP] considers murder to be a violation of the labor chapter. That is the question,’ she said. ‘The point is that USTR has informed us that labor-related violence does not constitute an actionable violation of the labor provisions [of NAFTA]’.”

Obama relies almost entirely upon congressional Republicans for support of his proposed trade-deals, and of his existing trade-policies (such as non-enforcement of NAFTA). The only real question is whether congressional Democrats will be able to block his deals. When American voters in 2014 elected Republicans to majorities in both houses, the result was to ease the way for passage of Obama’s proposed international-trade deals. Harry Reid controlled the Senate and blocked them, but he was now replaced by the Republican Mitch McConnell, who is trying to win Senate approval for the TTIP. Reid, now as the Minority Leader, is still doing the best he can to block that; he just doesn’t have the power he did when he was Majority Leader.

Within the general American public, however, there seems to be more support for the TTIP among Democrats than among Republicans. On 9 April 2014, Pew Research Center issued a poll that was sponsored by the pro-deal Bertlelsmann Foundation, headlined “Support in Principle for U.S.-EU Trade Pact,” and the poll’s key question was:

“Q3 As you may know, the U.S. and the EU are negotiating a free trade agreement called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. Do you think this trade agreement will be a good thing for our country or a bad thing?”

In the United States, 53% of respondents marked “Good thing,” 20% marked “Bad thing,” and 14% marked “Haven’t heard enough.” (Most of the others marked “Don’t know.”) Whereas 53% of all respondents said “Good thing,” 60% of Democratic respondents did, but only 44% of Republican ones did.That’s a 16% difference — substantial. Thus, apparently, at least as of a year ago, when a member of the public heard “TTIP,” the person mainly thought that it came from Obama (which it does), and that Obama is a Democrat (which he isn’t, except in rhetoric, but members of Congress are different; they know that he’s not, even if the public don’t); and, so, Republican voters were far less supportive of TTIP than were Democratic voters.

The general public judged the deal by the nominal party of the person who initiated and is negotiating it. This is why, whereas in Congress, Republicans almost unanimously want TTIP to pass, and most Democrats want it to fail, the situation among the voting public is in the exact opposite direction: overwhelmingly favorable to the deal among Democrats, but only slightly favorable to the deal among Republicans. On the other hand, all Republican U.S. Presidential candidates support Obama’s trade-deals in principle and they only want him to speed up his getting other nations’ leaders to sign onto to them — as if he even has the power to do that.

If the TTIP and the TPP pass and become law, then historians will almost certainly remember Obama far more for those international trade-deals than for Obamacare or anything else, because of the enormous global political change they will bring. And Obama will then probably be generally regarded as the worst President in U.S. history, because he will then have done more to bring back dictatorship as the global norm and ended democracy, than any other nation’s leader, in all of history, ever did.

The evidence strongly supports Alfred De Zayas’s statement, that these trade-deals would produce “a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots.” His statement was alarming, but not at all alarmist.

De Zayas is the chief UN official responsible for “reporting” on proposed international-trade treaties. As the likelihood of Obama’s proposed treaties passing has increased, he has become increasingly vocal about what their implications would be, for the UN’s founding vision of gradual evolution toward a democratic world-government — something comprehensive like what is now being suddenly rammed through, but democratic instead of fascist, and thus more the opposite of Obama’s vision instead of similar to it. On April 23rd, Reuters headlined, “U.N. expert says secret trade deals threaten human rights,” and De Zayas spoke in far more measured terms, not nearly so direct. He said:

“I am concerned about the secrecy surrounding negotiations for trade treaties, which have excluded key stakeholder groups from the process, including labour unions, environmental protection groups, food-safety movements and health professionals”

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

The original source of this article is Global Research