Bush, Blair and Saddam are/were Freemasons!

Architects of Deception a 600-page history of Freemasonry by Estonian writer Juri Lina offers profound insight into the true character of modern history.

Essentially, a dominant segment of Western society has joined the Jewish financial elite in embracing Freemasonry, a satanic philosophy that represents a death wish for civilization. They imagine somehow they will profit from the carnage and suffering caused by their "New World Order."

Incredible, bizarre and depressing as it sounds, Lina writes that 300 mainly Jewish banking families have used Freemasonry as an instrument to subvert, control and degrade the Western world.

This view is consistent with the 1938 NKVD interrogation of an illuminati member who names many of these banking families and confirms that Freemasons are expendable tools.

Based on the archives of the powerful French Grand Orient Lodge, captured in June 1940 and later made public by the Russians, Lina details how Freemasonry has conspired for world domination and orchestrated all major revolutions and wars in the modern era. (Lina, p.332)

Masons, often Jewish, are responsible for Communism, Zionism, Socialism, Liberalism (and Feminism.) They love big government because it is the ultimate monopoly. "World government" (dictatorship) is the final trophy. This is the vision behind 9-11 and the "War on Terror."

These "world revolutionary" "progressive" movements all mirror Lucifer's rebellion against God and nature which is at the heart of Freemasonry. They ensnare millions of gullible idealists by promising a utopia based on materialism and "reason" and dedicated to "liberty, equality and fraternity," "public ownership" or some other idealistic sounding claptrap. It's called bait-and-switch.

According to Lina: "The primary aim of modern freemasonry is to build the New World Order, a spiritual Temple of Solomon, where non-members are nothing but slaves [and] ...where human beings would be sacrificed to Yahweh."

Lina cites numerous Jewish sources that claim Freemasonry is based on Judaism and is "the executive political organ of the Jewish financial elite."

The common goal of these Masonic inspired movements is to undermine race, religion, nation and family ("all collective forces except our own") by promoting social division, self indulgence and "tolerance" i.e. miscegenation, atheism, nihilism, global-ism, sexual "liberation" and homosexuality thereby reducing humanity to a uniform dysfunctional and malleable mush.

Lina and others who attempt to alert humanity to its real condition are routinely slandered as anti-Semitic, fascist, and right wing "haters" by people indirectly employed by the bankers.

This tactic shields the conspirators from scrutiny and makes discussion of our grim predicament impossible.

A coroner has launched a scathing attack on the MoD for refusing to release a tape of the moment a soldier was killed by US forces in Iraq.

The coroner presiding over the inquest of Lance Corporal Matty Hull, who died in 2003 when his tank came under attack by US forces, backed the soldier's "grieving family" and hit out at the Ministry of Defence.

The soldier's widow Susan told the coroner that she had been told "categorically" by the MoD that the recording did not exist.

The flight data tape is believed to be from one of the US A-10 tankbusters that opened fire on a Household Cavalry troop, killing L/Cpl Hull.

MoD lawyer Leigh-Ann Mulcahy said that "high-level diplomacy between US and UK governments" was needed over the release of a classified cockpit recording.

But Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said: "This is a simple matter and I simply fail to understand why it is proving so difficult to resolve."

He added: "At the heart of this matter is a grieving family who have already had to wait far too long for this inquest."

An application by the MoD for the case to be adjourned for a week has been thrown out at the inquest in Oxford.

There is little relief in the papers for Tony Blair, following the news he was interviewed a second time by police investigating cash-for-honours claims.

The news blackout on the fact he was quizzed days before Lord Levy was again arrested, has heightened speculation.

The Independent surmises that police did not want Lord Levy to know they had talked to the PM until they had arrested the party fundraiser.

The Guardian says trust has eroded between Downing Street and the police.

On cash-for-honours, the Sun claims police asked the PM if he knew of alleged emails between between Lord Levy and Mr Blair's aide, Ruth Turner.

To the Daily Mail, Downing Street is "looking increasingly like a crime scene and less like a seat of government".

The Daily Telegraph compares the debacle with a slow-motion car crash.

Munich - German prosecutors on Wednesday issued arrest warrants for 13 people believed to have been working for the American security service the CIA in connection with the 2003 abduction of German national.

The 13 suspects were crew and passengers on an aircraft which flew the victim - Khaled el-Masri who was detained as a terrorism suspect - from Macedonia to Afghanistan.

Germany's NDR TV said 11 men and two women were listed in the arrest warrant. Prosecutors suspect most of the names are CIA aliases. Among those listed are a Kirk James Bird, James Ohale, James Fairing, Jane Payne und Patricia Riloy.

Prosecutors are attempting to determine the real names of the 13 people who are accused of false imprisonment and torture.

German officials say they expect little help from the US and the 13 are unlikely to be detained unless they return to a European Union country.

El-Masri's lawyer hailed the move.

'German authorities will not accept the criminal activities of CIA agents against a German citizen,' said Manfred Gnijdic.

El-Masri was detained on the Macedonian-Serbian border in December 2003 and was then reportedly flown to Kabul in a plane which arrived from the Spanish airport at Palma de Mallorca.

A Muslim of Lebanese origin who lives in southern Germany, el-Masri says he was imprisoned by US agents in Macedonia and tortured in Afghanistan, then released. He said the Americans accused him of being a terrorist.

A parliamentary inquiry into the case has been told that then US ambassador to Germany, Daniel Coats, informed Berlin officials on May 31, 2004 that el-Masri had been mistakenly detained, then freed.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has expressed “serious concerns” about the Blair government’s decision to call off the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into allegations of multibillion-pound bribery of the Saudi ruling family by British Aerospace (BAe), Britain’s leading defence contractor.
The three-year-long investigation related to the Al Yamamah defence contract for Tornado jetfighters, BAe’s largest-ever overseas arms deal. Negotiated during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership in 1985, the contract has been worth more than £40 billion over the past 18 years. In 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair secured a third order for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters.
Over the years, allegations of corruption have circulated. It was alleged that BAe had operated a £60 million slush fund to sweeten the deal and, in 2004, the SFO was forced to establish an inquiry.
On December 15, however, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced that the SFO had abandoned the investigation into the Al Yamamah contract, telling Parliament, “It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest.”
The SFO had dropped its inquiry so as “to safeguard national and international security,” Goldsmith continued, adding that this view was supported by the intelligence services.
This claim was backed up by Blair. Announcing that he took “full responsibility” for ending the probe, he argued that its continuance would be “devastating” for the UK, not only in relation to the loss of thousands of jobs but especially as regards national security and the “war on terror.” The statement was issued amidst media reports that Saudi Arabia was threatening to end its intelligence cooperation with Britain.
The decision to abandon the inquiry and the justification offered by the government brought it into conflict with the OECD. Article Five of the OECD’s anti-bribery convention, to which Britain is a signatory, states that investigations and prosecutions must “not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”
Meeting in Paris earlier this month, the 35-member group gave the Blair government until March to account for its decision, when it will consider “appropriate action.” The body has no power to discipline members but can “name and shame” those it considers to have stepped out of line.
The government’s attempts to defend its decision was further undermined by the refusal of the UK’s intelligence services to sign off on a letter to the OECD stating that they had supported its national security assessment.
The Guardian revealed that the head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, and the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, had “refused to endorse government claims that the Saudis were definitely planning to cut intelligence links. The government had hoped to get this backing from the intelligence agencies to head off criticism from the OECD,” it said.
As the then head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Scarlett was the nominal author of one of the two infamous “dodgy dossiers” circulated by the Blair government to justify preemptive war against Iraq. The dossier claimed that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed within 45 minutes.
The government was forced to deny any rift with the security services. A Foreign Office statement said that the intelligence agencies had “shared the concerns with others within Government over the possible consequences for the public interest of the Serious Fraud Office investigation.”
But the OECD’s humiliating rebuke has only deepened the political crisis surrounding the BAe decision.
Robert Wardle, head of SFO, had already disputed the government’s claims that the investigation had been going nowhere and was unlikely to lead to any charges. And on January 23, the Guardian reported that Wardle “was pressured at least seven times to drop his criminal investigation into alleged bribery by British arms firm BAE until he eventually did so.”
The prime minister had been involved on three of these occasions, it reported, as had the ambassador to Saudi Arabia. BAe was involved on another occasion, the paper said.
Details of their involvement emerged during questions in Parliament of Goldsmith and the solicitor general, Mike O’Brien.
The first intervention came in November 2005 when BAe made representations “warning of the adverse impact on business from the loss of a Eurofighter Typhoon agreement unless the SFO investigation...was halted,” Goldsmith said.
The Guardian cited legal sources that BAe legal director Michael Lester had written to Goldsmith in an effort to stop the SFO enforcing notices served on the company to identify its Saudi middlemen. Goldsmith confirmed that Blair had added to the pressure with a statement to him “as to the public interest considerations raised by the SFO investigation.” Blair’s concerns were backed up with statements signed by then-Defence Secretary John Reid and then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
When, in September 2006, the SFO obtained agreement from the Swiss authorities that it could access bank accounts believed to be linked to two of the Saudi middlemen, Blair again intervened. The prime minister’s “views” were passed on to Wardle for a third time in December. “Mr. Blair later confirmed that his ‘clear view’ was that the police inquiries should be called off,” the Guardian wrote.
“At the same time Britain’s ambassador to Riyadh, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, held three meetings with Mr. Wardle in November and December, advising him of dire Saudi political and commercial consequences if the SFO director gained access to the Swiss accounts. Shortly afterwards Mr. Wardle said he felt obliged to call off one of the SFO’s biggest inquiries,” it continued.
In December, the Independent on Sunday reported a “source close” to the police investigation into BAe’s alleged bribery claiming that their probe had been bugged. Blair’s “determination to stop the SFO investigation has left the detectives working on the case furious,” it stated.
“One senior figure who had been helping the SFO said the investigation’s security had been repeatedly compromised,” it continued, citing the source as stating, “I was told by detectives that the probe was being bugged. They had reached this conclusion because highly confidential information on the inquiry had been reaching outside parties.”
Of significant concern for Britain’s financial elite, the BAe decision has also put the government at odds with sections of international capital. French and American officials are said to have been most vigorous in pushing for action to be taken against Britain.
Saudi Arabia was said to have been in discussions with France on a potential arms deal at the time the BAe probe was called off. Michael Peel in the Financial Times cited one diplomat at the OECD describing complaints “that London’s approach gave its businesses a competitive advantage over rivals based in countries where corruption laws are more toughly enforced. It is a point long put by US multinationals to the authorities in Washington, which have in the past few years made notable targets of a number of overseas companies in bribery investigations.”
Last week, the Daily Telegraph reported that BAe Systems was under threat of a new criminal investigation in the United States over the Al Yamamah deal.
The US Department of Justice could take over the SFO’s aborted inquiry, the newspaper reported, after claims that more than £1 million worth of slush funds were handed over to senior Saudi officials in America.
Warning that the Blair government had set “an unhealthy and potentially self-destructive precedent,” Peel continued that London had “halted its flagship foreign bribery investigation at a time when it is trying to persuade less industrialised countries to tackle corruption fearlessly and without regard to vested interests.”
The FT continued, “This problem of international credibility runs deeper and, again, has commercial implications. No prosecution has yet been launched in Britain under a law passed in 2001 to prohibit explicitly the bribery of overseas public officials. This embarrasses investigators and is increasingly noticed in the business community. Hermes, Britain’s biggest pension fund, has said the abrupt curtailment of the BAE probe threatens the country’s reputation as a leading financial centre.”

From the slums of Kenya to the streets of Washington there is disgust at George Bush and Tony Blair's "war on terror".

Pentagon figures released last week revealed that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the US government a staggering $320 million a day.

This is money that could be spent on fighting poverty and saving lives. Instead it is poured into death and destruction.

So far the US has spent $500 billion on war. That's enough to wipe out the entire debt of the world's poorest 54 countries.

Stanislaus Alusiola is from the Kibera shanty town in Kenya. He spoke to Socialist Worker at the World Social Forum, which is currently taking place in Kenya's capital Nairobi.

"There is terrible poverty in Africa that could be stopped with a tenth of the money spent on war," he said. "Why do we live in such conditions – with HIV/Aids, no schools and no toilets – yet there is so much money for war?

"Bush is a tyrant. He is destroying Iraq, eyeing Iran and now he has encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia. We need a world where Bush and Blair are gone and people's needs come first."

Bush Approval Rating Graph

CLIVE GOODMAN the royal editor of the News of the World had every reason to believe that, in the wake of the government’s decision last week to spare all but the worst offenders from jail, (his own transgressions — tapping Prince William’s phone messages to aides) might lead him to walk away a free man.

His hopes were dashed as Mr Justice Gross handed him a four-month jail term in Belmarsh prison.

His use of interception techniques to plunder the mobile phone messages of high-profile figures was deemed so serious that the judge said it was “of very first importance” that he be jailed.

That was not the end of the affair, however. It was promptly followed by an announcement that the newspaper’s editor, Andy Coulson, had resigned. Unlike many politicians who cling to power amid scandal, Coulson decided that the buck stopped with him.

This weekend it emerged that such courtroom scenes may soon become commonplace. The government is said to be “keen” to introduce jail sentences for journalists who use deceit to obtain other forms of private information, including bank records, ex-directory telephone numbers and medical records.

Unlike phone tapping, which is an offence under the potent Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, data breaches are covered by the Data Protection Act and are only punishable by fines.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which was set up to oversee the act, has called for the imposition of two-year jail sentences to curb what it believes is the widespread abuse of confidential information by private investigators acting for clients including legal firms, finance centres and journalists.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has now completed a consultation paper and Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, is seriously considering the introduction of jail terms later this year.

A DCA spokesman said yesterday: “The government is very keen to crack down on the abuse of the Data Protection Act. The mood is that something has to be done. There is a view, not just in our department, that the penalties need stiffening.” Jail terms, say the ICO, would act as a deterrent to journalists accessing people’s data without good cause. The act does provide for journalists to obtain such details as long as they do so “in the public interest”.

However, proving what is in the public interest is not always straightforward. One senior industry figure said: “That kind of justification is very rarely apparent at the start of a journalistic investigation. Introducing two-year sentences for accessing data may lead journalists to restrict themselves to the extent of not making inquiries in the first place.”

Goodman’s actions included accessing more than 600 messages on the mobile phones of aides to Princes William and Harry in order to get stories about them and Harry’s girlfriend Chelsy Davy. He also used Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective, to listen to the private messages of Elle Macpherson. The activity was deemed so serious that Coulson felt he had to resign.

The News of the World editor, who delivered tabloid scoops such as revealing David Blunkett’s affair with Kimberly Quinn, and the “fake sheikh” sting on Sven-Goran Eriksson, the former England football coach, announced his departure from the paper 90 minutes after the sentence was read out at the Old Bailey.

“Before he left he made a speech to the paper’s staff which mentioned the fact that paedophiles were being allowed to walk the streets while Clive Goodman was being sent to jail,” said an insider.

The government’s move to threaten journalists with jail, which Whitehall insiders said had been strengthened further by public revulsion over the actions of Goodman, has renewed debate about the need to impose greater controls on the newspaper industry generally.

According to some media commentators, recent judgments in the civil courts — such as Prince Charles suing over the publication of extracts from his diary, and a cuckolded husband being told he cannot reveal his wife’s affair with a well known sports figure — have now given Britain a de facto privacy law.