Dean Henderson: The Freemason BUS & the House of Rothschild!

In 1789 Alexander Hamilton became the first Treasury Secretary of the United States. Hamilton was one of many Founding Fathers who were Freemasons. He had close relations with the Rothschild family, which owns the Bank of England, and leads the European Freemason movement. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Ethan Allen, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Brown and Roger Sherman were all Masons. Roger Livingston helped Sherman and Franklin write the Declaration of Independence. He gave George Washington his oaths of office, while he was Grand Master of the New York Grand Lodge of Freemasons. Washington himself was Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge. Of the General Officers in the Revolutionary Army, thirty three were Masons. This was highly symbolic, since 33rd Degree Masons become "Illuminated." Populist founding fathers led by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Thomas Paine, none of whom were Masons, wanted to completely sever ties with the British Crown, but were overruled by the Masonic faction led by Washington, Hamilton and Grand Master of the St. Andrews Lodge in Boston General Joseph Warren, who wanted to "defy Parliament but remain loyal to the Crown". St. Andrews Lodge was the hub of New World Masonry, and began issuing Knights Templar Degrees in 1769. All US Masonic lodges are to this day warranted by the British Crown, whom they serve as a global intelligence and counterrevolutionary subversion network. Their most recent initiative is the Masonic Child Identification Program (CHIP). According to Wikipedia, the CHIP programs allow parents the opportunity to create a kit of identifying materials for their child, free of charge. The kit contains a fingerprint card, a physical description, a video, computer disk, or DVD of the child, a dental imprint, and a DNA sample.

Ellen Ray and Bill Schaap: Historical Roots of the US "War on Terrorism"

The Pathology of a Single Superpower, NATO and Beyond: The incisive and carefully researched article originally published by Covert Action Quarterly in 1999 sheds light with tremendous foresight on the historical evolution of the US led "War on Terrorism" and the articulation of what has been described as "Global NATO". Secretary of State Madeleine Albright referred to the August 1998 missile assaults against Sudan and Afghanistan, allegedly in retaliation for the US embassy bombings in Africa two weeks earlier, as "unfortunately, the wars of the future." In one sense, she was lamenting the likelihood of various Islamic forces retaliating against American civilian targets. There is, as Albright understands, another side to these wars, more than guided missiles launched from a thousand miles away, with no danger to US troops. American military strategy calls for "the use of overwhelming force to minimize United States casualties". But it is not that simple: Former CIA Director Robert Gates was more precise: "Our people and our government must accept another reality as potential official American targets are hardened, terrorists will simply turn to non official targets, businesses, schools, tourists and so on. We can perhaps channel the threat away from the United States Government, but not away from Americans." What grand scheme, then, is in place, that may bring these "unfortunate" wars back home, against civilians? Recent US strategy, to implement the administration's self appointed role as global policeman, is now defined by its evolving military unilateralism, at home and abroad. With the end of the Cold War, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the US at last realized its objective to be the world's only superpower. Though Washington and Wall Street had always been possessed of a rapacious ambition to control the world's economy, what globalization is all about, there is now the conviction in many quarters that it is developing the military capability to do so.    

Nicola Nasser: Israel's Doomsday E-1 Settlement

Diabolical Encroachment to Prospective Palestinian State: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has definitely crossed an international red line to vindicate a swift and firm rejection from Israels closest allies, when he announced plans recently to build a new settlement on a corridor of occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, which will render any prospective Palestinian contiguous state territorially impossible. Daniel Seidemann, the Israeli founder of Terrestrial Jerusalem, has condemned it as the doomsday settlement, and not a routine one. Netanyahu risks a diplomatic confrontation, that will not develop into a diplomatic isolation of Israel, because Israels allies have decided to pressure him to backtrack, by incentives and disincentives instead of sanctions, in the words of the British Foreign Secretary William Hague. Summoning Israeli ambassadors to protest Netanyahu's plans by Australia, Brazil, France, UK, Sweden, Denmark and Spain was nonetheless an unusual international outcry, because if implemented, his plans would alter the situation, with Jerusalem as a shared capital increasingly difficult to achieve, according to William Hague, thus seriously undermining the two state solution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, according to the French foreign ministry spokesman Philippe Lalliot, which is a solution without which there will never be security in Israel, according to the Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr. The international outcry is not against the Israeli policy of settlements on Palestinian occupied land per se, but against this one particular E-1 settlement, which was Netanyahus answer to the overwhelming recent recognition of Palestine as a non member state by the UN General Assembly. Because, on the ground, the site of some 4.6 square miles (12 square km) of this settlement on the easternmost edge of eastern Jerusalem will close the only territorial link between the north and south of the West Bank, and sever it from East Jerusalem, the prospective capital of the State of Palestine, thus undermining any viable and contiguous Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and turning the recognition of the UN General Assembly on November 29, 2012 as merely a Palestinian paper achievement.      

The Economist: Democracy in America, American Politics!

The Democrats and the Fiscal Cliff: Not much on the table. Democrats say it so often that it has become something of a mantra: There will be no deal to resolve America's fiscal mess, unless Republicans agree to higher tax rates on the richest Americans, but they seldom talk about their side of that bargain. The cost cutting reforms to such entitlements as Medicare, the goverment's health care scheme for the old,and Social Security, its pension scheme, that they are expected to offer in return. As more and more Republicans grudgingly accept the prospect of higher taxes, the Democrats will soon have to decide what they can stomach on entitlement reform. To judge by Obama's latest offer in his negotiations with John Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the answer is, not much. The president will not even discuss Social Security, the White House says, on the ground that it is not a big contributor to the deficit. As for Medicare, the president is willing to make relatively modest savings by passing more of the cost of the program to drug companies by haggling for lower prices, and to the rich, by making them pay more for their coverage. Neither of these ideas, while sensible enough in itself, is remotely radical enough for Republicans' tastes. Nor is the sum the president proposed to save the result: $400 billion, just a quarter of the $1.6 trillion he is seeking in tax increases. Such tough talk delights the left, however. Mr Obama's stance, says the AFL- CIO, America's biggest trade union federation,"keeps faith with the voters". Bernie Sanders, a senator who describes himself as a socialist, has commended the president for his refusal to touch Social Security. "Thanks for fighting to end Bush tax cuts for top 2%", tweeted Move On, a left wing pressure group. Such outfits are anxious to dissuade Mr Obama from repeating the offer he made to the Republican leadership last year, during their previous round of negotiations on the budget. At the time, he expressed willingness to raise the age of eligibility for Medicare, and to use a stingier method to increase Social Security payments in line with inflation. 

Pepe Escobar: Obama in Tehran?

Imagine, for a moment, a world in which the United States is a regional power, not a superpower. A world in which the globe's mightiest nation, China, invades Mexico and Canada, deposing the leaders of both countries. A world in which China has also ringed the Americas, from Canada to Central America, with military bases. A world in which Chinese officials openly brag about conducting covert operations against and within the United States. A world in which the Chinese launch a sophisticated and crippling cyber attack on America's nuclear facilities. A world in which the Chinese send spy drones soaring over the United States, and position aircraft carrier battle groups off its shores. What would Americans think? How would Washington react? Perhaps something like Iran's theocratic leadership today. After all, Iran has seen the United States invade its neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan, announce covert operations against it, surround it with military bases, fly drones over it, carry out naval operations off its coast, conduct a gigantic build up of military forces all around it, and launch a cyber-war against it. Imagine again, in this alternate universe, that China forged military alliances throughout the Americas, pulling Mexico and Canada, as well as Caribbean and Central American nations into its orbit. Imagine that it started selling advanced military technology to those countries. How might the US government and its citizens respond? It's a question worth pondering, given Washington's recent reactions. Last month, for example, the US quietly announced plans to further flood the Middle East with advanced weaponry. According to November notices sent by the Pentagon to Congress, the Department of Defense intends to oversee a $300 million deal with Saudi Arabia for spare parts for Abrams Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and Humvees,, and another for $6.7 billion in new advanced aircraft. Add to this a proposed sale of $9.9 billion in Patriot missiles to Qatar, a $96 million deal with Oman for hundreds of Javelin guided missiles, and more than $1.1 billion in Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles for the United Arab Emirates.

Kari Huus: West Point Cadet Quits, cites 'criminal' behavior of officers

Blake Page, a senior at West Point, has announced he will leave the military academy to protest what he says is unconstitutional proselytizing by officers and discrimination against non religious cadets. Page has learned from his superiors at West Point that he will be given an honorable discharge, and not be required to pay "recoupment" costs for three and a half years at the military academy. He told NBC News that when out processing it finished, he will move to Minnesota and "continue the work I've started in whatever way I can." Original Post: A West Point cadet publicly announced his decision to quit the prestigious military academy, just months before graduating, to protest what he sees as the illegal infusion of military procedures and events with fundamentalist Christian proselytizing. To call attention to his move, senior Blake Page wrote a scathing commentary on West Point, published Monday in the Huffington Post. "Countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution," wrote Page, who was slated to graduate in May. "These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against West Point. He could be required to pay the Army some $200-$300,000 in "recoupment" costs for his time at West Point. "It's a very unusual move," said Elizabeth Hillman, professor of law of California Hastings College who specializes in military law. She said that while many cadets struggle with issues of conscience, few leave as a result. "Cadets will tell you it's very hard to leave," she said. "It's much harder to leave than to stay.""This kid just torched his career in the Army,and his degree at West Point," said Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates for total separation of church and state. He likens Page's move to those of Rosa Parks in the civil rights movement and monks who light themselves on fire to protest Chinese policies in Tibet. "People should recognize courage when they see it." 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/