Mar 20, 2012
4 themes from the NDP leadership race
By Laura Payton, CBC News
4 themes from the NDP leadership race
May 20, 2012
Grand Entrance (Masonic ‘Cutsign’ @ 01:31)
JFK Truthers Banned From Dealey Plaza for 50th Anniversary: Jim Marrs Reports
‘To avoid the carnival atmosphere that has often prevailed at previous anniversaries on the plaza, museum officials are planning to take over commemoration activities there.’
Published on Apr 27, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel
Strauss-Kahn accuses Sarkozy as France vote looms
France’s presidential race headed into its home straight Saturday as ex-IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a Socialist once tipped to win the vote, blamed Nicolas Sarkozy for his spectacular downfall.
The claim came as the battle between Sarkozy and the front-running Francois Hollande grew ever more bitter, with the incumbent accusing the Socialist of subjecting him to a “Stalinist trial” over his bid to woo the far right.
Strauss-Kahn, in his first major newspaper interview since his disgrace a year ago, told The Guardian that his fall was orchestrated by opponents to prevent him from standing as the Socialist candidate in the election.
The ex-International Monetary Fund boss had been favoured to win the vote until May last year, when he was arrested in New York and accused of sexually assaulting a hotel maid, Nafissatou Diallo. The charges were later dropped.
Strauss-Kahn said that although he did not believe the incident with Diallo was a setup, the subsequent escalation of the event into a criminal investigation was “shaped by those with a political agenda.”
“Perhaps I was politically naive, but I simply did not believe that they would go that far — I didn’t think they could find anything that could stop me,” Strauss-Kahn told the British daily.
The Guardian said it is clear that the “they” refers to people working for Sarkozy and his UMP party.
Strauss-Kahn accuses the agents of intercepting phone calls and ensuring that Diallo went to the police to make her accusations.
He believes he was under surveillance in the days before the encounter, and had removed encryption from his phones because of technical problems, the interview said.
A New York lawyer representing Diallo in an ongoing civil lawsuit against Strauss-Kahn dismissed as “utter nonsense” that there had been any political intrigue.
Opinion polls show that Hollande is expected to win the election run-off against Sarkozy on May 6.
Strauss-Kahn said he was sure he would now be in Hollande’s shoes had it not been for the events at the Sofitel hotel in Manhattan on May 14 last year.
“I planned to make my formal announcement on 15 June and I had no doubt I would be the candidate of the Socialist Party,” said Strauss-Kahn, who refused to discuss with The Guardian a separate sex scandal that has erupted in France.
Hollande and Sarkozy were expected to call a brief truce later Saturday when both head for a soccer match at the Stade de France in Paris to watch third-tier outsiders Quevilly battle Lyon for the French Cup.
But the gloves have come off in recent days, with Hollande accusing his rival of a “transgression” in his bid to secure the votes of the 6.5 million people who plumped for far-right leader Marine Le Pen in last Sunday’s first round.
Sarkozy has reached out to the former political pariah Le Pen, insisting that her values are not incompatible with France’s republican tradition, and vowing to secure Europe’s borders and fight multiculturalism.
But Hollande is also scrambling to recruit voters who backed the anti-immigrant, anti-European National Front leader.
Le Pen did well in the first round among white working-class voters who might once have backed the left, and on Friday the Socialist candidate made a concession to their concerns.
“In the period of crisis we are going through, limiting economic immigration is necessary and essential,” he said. “I also want to fight illegal immigration on the economic front.”
Sarkozy complained at a rally on Friday in the central city of Dijon that he was being subjected to what amounted to a Stalinist show trial but that all he wanted to do was to “talk to the 6.5 million French who voted Marine Le Pen.”
Le Pen won just short of 18 percent in the first round, not enough to join Hollande or Sarkozy in the run-off but enough to make her supporters a tempting pool of potential second-round voters.
She is not expected to endorse either of the remaining candidates before May 6, and is thought to relish the prospect that a defeat for Sarkozy would leave the centre-right in disarray before legislative elections in June.
Published on Mar 28, 2012 by telegraphtv
Pope Benedict XVI received as a gift from The Cuban president Raul Castro of a statue of the Virgin of Charity of El Cobre, patron saint of Cuba, as he arrived at the Revolution Palace in Havana.
Publicado el 28 de marzo 2012 por el TelegraphTV
El Papa Benedicto XVI ha recibido como un regalo de El presidente cubano Raúl Castro de una estatua de la Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre, patrona de Cuba, a su llegada en el Palacio de la Revolución en La Habana.
(00:38 – 00:44, 01:44 – 02:05)
Published on Mar 23, 2012 by telesurtv
El papa Benedicto XVI fue recibido por el presidente, Felipe Calderón, en el Aeropuerto Internacional Del Bajío, bajo de la nave con los brazos abiertos para saludar a los cientos de feligreses que se concentraron en el terminal para darle la bienvenida. Joseph Ratzinger llegó este viernes a la ciudad mexicana de Guanajuato para lo que será su visita de tres días a este país, la segunda que realiza a Latinoamérica. El Pontífice fue recibido por el presidente Felipe Calderón y su esposa Margarita Zavala.
Published on Mar 23, 2012 by telesurtv
Pope Benedict XVI was received by President Felipe Calderon in Del Bajio International Airport, under the nave with open arms to greet the hundreds of parishioners who gathered in the terminal to welcome him. Joseph Ratzinger arrived Friday at the Mexican city of Guanajuato for what will be his three-day visit to this country that performs second to Latin America. The Pope was received by President Felipe Calderon and his wife Margarita Zavala.
(00:51, 02:00, 10:37)
Brian Stewart: The F-35 fiasco and Ottawa’s culture of secrecy
By Brian Stewart, special to CBC News
The who-knew-what about the real costs of the F-35 fighter jet Canada wants to purchase is worrisome enough. But at the heart of the fiasco is a far more serious concern about what public honesty means to this government.
It’s a sad state that few Canadians appear surprised by the auditor general’s findings that Parliament was kept in the dark over the real costs of this program and what looks to be a $10-billion overrun.
Many seem to assume that misleading and denying whenever it suits is a government’s normal default position. After all, this government seems to have done it for years on Afghanistan and with its other problems in national defence.
In my own attempts to unravel the F-35′s real costs I never once met a single soul outside government and knowledgeable about defence purchases who believed the prime minister’s promise that the planes could be delivered for a bargain-rate $75 million each.
I never met anyone inside the Canadian military who thought so either.
I’m sure thousands in the aviation industry who follow these programs, especially in the U.S. and Europe, simply assumed Ottawa was dealing in fairy tales for public consumption, from which it refused to budge.
This is why we need to see if this current mess is part of a pattern of official “misstatements” on defence matters. If so, we’ve got a serious national problem.
The Afghan adventure
If we look for trends, the Afghanistan mission offers so many of these quicksand moments over direction, policy and costs that it will baffle historians for years. It certainly confused Stephen Harper’s own minister in its day.
Defence Minister Peter McKay in the cockpit of a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in July 2010. Canada is planing to buy 65 of the new jets from Lockheed Martin, but at what price? (Reuters)Remember when the prime minister was never going to “cut and run” but then suddenly switched 180 degrees to launch the 2008 election with the promise of a full pullout in 2011.
The defence department was stunned, and so was his minister Peter MacKay.
“I don’t know,” MacKay told reporter Murray Brewster when asked how the historic shift came about. “I heard about it the same time you did.”
Military officers were also perplexed when Harper reversed himself again at the Lisbon NATO Summit in 2010 and committed 900 Canadian Forces personnel to stay on in Afghanistan for some years after the pullout on a training mission.
He was under enormous pressure at the time from Washington to help out, and described the training mission as not very risky.
But everyone involved knew that foreign military trainers were fast becoming the new targets of insurgent groups, as the past many months have clearly demonstrated.
Throughout the war, inquiring journalists found our military to have become increasingly secretive and at times even untrustworthy, as National Defence and PMO communications staff snatched control of information away from officers in the field.
For long periods Canadians were denied information on the number of Afghan detainees that Canadian soldiers handled, the tally of firefights our soldiers were involved in, the number of attacks on Canada’s main base in Kandahar, even the full number of our wounded.
What’s more, they were constantly assured the Taliban was being battered into weakness, despite quite contrary evidence.
As for the total cost of the Afghanistan adventure? That was, and remains, as murky as the cost overruns of the F-35 program.
The less said
Even supporters of the war, like leading historians Jack Granatstein and David Bercuson, in their Lessons Learned? study last October revealed horrible mismanagement.
Today that study reads like a primer for the F-35 shambles. We see layer after layer of weak political leadership, jealous bureaucratic infighting, and a complete lack of strategic insight from the top on down.
The prime minister’s office has not only rigorously controlled every aspect of government communications, muting the military’s own voice, but it seemed determined to give Canadians as little information as possible on the war, the study said.
In the historians’ words: “The prime minister may have concluded that the war could not be won, was politically costly and, therefore, the less said of aims and objectives the better.”
The same attitude, of saying as little as possible, seems to have been at play again during this long process over the F-35 purchase, with the government simply refusing to retreat from its predictions that these next-generation jets would cost only $15 billion over a 20-year period.
That is quite a gap from the $25 billion lifetime cost that others, including the parliamentary budget officer (and even some DND officials, the auditor general has now revealed) felt was reasonable.
A history here
When pressed, Harper’s team even denies it has agreed to buy the plane. Yet it was the only warplane ever held up for Canada’s defence needs, while a fresh competition involving other planes was totally ruled out.
I’d like to think our top soldiers would refuse to go along with misleading Parliament. However, the public relations domination of National Defence has been eating away at even some core ethics of our military for some years now. The way it did in the RCMP.
Think of the number of events where misleading stories are put out there. Defence Minister Peter MacKay uses a search-and-rescue training flight to prolong a fishing trip. Any waste is denied, until the media shakes out the details.
Then, as payback, military officials tamely sent over information on opposition members’ flights to the minister’s office, so he could throw these back at his opponents in question period.
There was also the case last fall, when reports leaked out that Chief of Defence Staff Walt Natynczyk had used a government jet to connect to a family vacation in the Caribbean. His staff bitterly complained that he had been set up by “higher ups” in government and it’s widely believed he felt that way too.
Petty? No, it suggests just how much dark infighting is going on between defence and politicians, as the culture of secrecy and even intimidation spreads.
At times, these attempts to mislead can be quite farcical. Like last summer when one of Canada’s four submarines crashed on the ocean floor and the deputy-commander of the navy dismissed the incident as a mere “fender-bender.”
Actually, the hole in the hull was so extensive that the sub commander was relieved of his command and HMCS Corner Brook is not expected back in service until 2016.
This trend towards denial makes everything about the misstated F-35 billions a deeply serious affair.
We really need to know how deep the deception went in this case. And we ought to be much more curious about what is being carried out in our names under the cloak of secrecy.
About The Author
One of this country’s most experienced journalists and foreign correspondents, Brian Stewart is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He also sits on the advisory board of Human Rights Watch Canada. In almost four decades of reporting, he has covered many of the world’s conflicts and reported from 10 war zones, from El Salvador to Beirut and Afghanistan.
Comments (774) Hide comments
Coyne: F-35 debacle demonstrates a system of government in collapse
By Andrew Coyne, Postmedia News
There are so many layers of misconduct in the F-35 affair that it is difficult to know where to start. Do we especially deplore the rigging of operational requirements by defence officials to justify a decision that had already been made? Or should we focus on the government’s decision to buy the planes without even seeing the department’s handiwork? Is the scandal that the department deliberatedly understated the cost of the jets, in presentations to Parliament and the public? Or is it that its own internal figures, though they exceeded the published amounts by some $10-billon, were themselves, according to the Auditor General, gross underestimates?
It’s all of those things, of course, and more: a fiasco from top to bottom, combining lapses of professional ethics, ministerial responsibility and democratic accountability into one spectacular illustration of how completely our system of government has gone to hell.
This was, until last year’s shipbuilding contract, the largest single purchase in the country’s history. And yet it was carried out, as we now learn, without proper documentation, without accurate data, and without any of the normal procurement rules being followed. Defence officials simply decided in advance which aircraft they wanted, and that was that. Guidelines were evaded, Parliament was lied to, and in the end the people of Canada were set to purchase planes that may or may not be able to do the job set out for them, years after they were supposed to be delivered, at twice the promised cost.
But of course it’s much worse than that. If department officials played two successive ministers of defence, Gordon O’Connor and Peter MacKay, for fools, the evidence shows they did not have to exert themselves much; if they did not offer evidence to back their claims, whether on performance, costs, or risks, it is because ministers did not think to ask for any. Nor was this negligence confined to the Department of National Defence.
The passage explaining how Public Works was persuaded to sign off on the deal is perhaps the most damning in the Auditor General’s report. Anxious to avoid having to put the purchase out to competitive bids, as is usually the practice, defence officials hit upon the scheme of drafting the requirements in such a way that only the F-35 could meet them — needlessly, as I mentioned, as the government agreed to go ahead with the purchase a month before the requirements were delivered; that is, before they even knew what the planes were supposed to do, let alone whether they could do them.
Nevertheless, at some point in the process somebody at the department of Public Works and Government Services became suspicious of defence’s claims, and alerted their superiors. What kind of documentation did the “senior decision makers” (who they?) at Public Works demand from their defence counterparts? Take it away, Auditor General! “In lieu of a formalized statement of operational requirement or a complete options analysis,” Public Works informed Defence it would go along with the sole-source dodge if it were provided a letter, “confirming National Defence’s requirement for a fifth generation fighter and confirming that the F-35 is the only such aircraft available.” Wait, it gets better: The letter was produced “the same day.” Still better: “There were no other supporting documents.” Still better: “It is important to note that the term ‘fifth generation’ is not a description of an operational requirement.” Stop! You’re killing me!
Whether ministers knew they were peddling the same falsehoods is to some extent beside the point. If they did not know, as the saying goes, they should have. It is plausible that a kind of willful blindness might have set in. If ministers were too willing to believe their officials, it might have been because they liked what they were being told. The Auditor General’s report leaves little doubt why: because of the wealth of “industrial benefits” they were promised (“a driving motivation for participation . . . used extensively as a basis for key decisions . . . briefing materials (placed) particular emphasis on industrial benefits . . . ). This is what comes of allowing pork-barrel politics into decisions that should be guided by only one consideration: getting value for the taxpayers’ money.
But what’s really at issue here is neither duplicitous bureaucrats nor credulous ministers. It is the lack of transparency throughout. If officials kept their ministers in the dark, it is also true that ministers kept Parliament in the dark. Had anyone outside government been allowed to see the requirements, we might have been able to judge whether these were as essential to the defence of the nation as claimed; whether the F-35 was indeed the only plane that could fulfill them, and so on. Had Parliament been given the costing information it demanded, we might have been in a better position to judge who was right, the government or its critics — before the last election, not after. Remember, it was the government’s refusal to provide just this information that was, in part, the reason for the motion of no-confidence that precipitated the election.
So this is also what comes of Parliament’s prerogatives, its powers to hold ministers to account, being ignored or overridden. These aren’t procedural niceties, of concern only to constitutional law professors — “process issues,” as more than one member of the press gallery sneered at the time. They’re the vital bulwarks of self-government, the only means we have of ensuring our wishes are obeyed and our money isn’t wasted. Parliament having long ago lost control of the public purse, it was only a matter of time before the government did as well.
Jesse Kline on current threats to Internet freedom: The statists strike back
The modern Internet is a product of the Cold War: Following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. military built a decentralized computer network that could continue to operate in the event of a nuclear attack. Where previous networks relied on a central server to facilitate the transfer of information, what came to be known as the Internet was decentralized, so that communication could continue even if a large part of the network was destroyed. The result was a communications medium that, to this day, is largely free from government censorship.
But that may change — unless those of us who treasure our online freedoms stand up to government efforts to monitor and even control our key strokes and page views.
The first major attempt by the U.S. government to enforce state control over the Internet came in the form of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Part of the Act, which was later struck down on First Amendment grounds, contained decency and obscenity standards, similar to those imposed on broadcast television stations — essentially making it a crime to swear online.
In 1998, the United States enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The idea was to attack online piracy by updating copyright law for the digital age. While good in theory, it has ended up imposing harsh restrictions on Internet users and service providers. Two of the major problems with the bill include the notice-and-takedown system, and the legal prohibition on circumventing digital locks. Here in Canada, similar provisions have been incorporated into Stephen Harper copyright reform bill (C-11), which is currently being studied by Parliament.
Under the notice-and-takedown system, website operators are compelled to take material offline if a rights holder claims ownership over the work. The problem is that this has become an easy way to censor online content, as the burden is placed on the original poster to prove it is not copyrighted material, or that it is covered under a legal exemption.
In one U.S. case, National Public Radio forced YouTube to take down an anti-gay-marriage advertisement that contained NPR content. In this way, the network had (according to critics) achieved its goal of censoring political speech — even though the NPR content was covered under the “fair use” doctrine of copyright law. In another instance, a woman’s home video of her toddler dancing in the kitchen was taken offline because of a Prince song playing in the background. She had to go to court in order to get it back online. The Canadian bill does not include the same system (it uses a notice-and-notice system), but Canadians who use American websites are already subjected to the DMCA’s draconian provisions.
A bigger issue for Canadians is C-11’s ban on breaking digital locks, which are pieces of software that prevent someone from using digital content or a digital device in a certain way. DVD and Blu-ray discs, for example, are protected by digital locks to prevent piracy, but those locks also serve to prevent people who purchase them from making backups, or viewing the content on other devices, such as tablets. Cell phones also contain digital locks, and although the Conservatives’ copyright bill has an exemption for unlocking a phone to switch providers, it makes unlocking a phone to install your own software illegal.
Such actions obviously have nothing to do with copyright infringement, but will be covered under C-11 nonetheless. The virtually all-encompassing ban on circumventing digital locks will penalize people who are not engaging in copyright-infringing activities, and stifle creativity and free expression in the process.
Another piece of Canadian legislation, C-30, is an even greater threat to online privacy and free expression. In its current form, Bill C-30 would co-opt Internet service providers into being a party to the state’s surveillance apparatus, by forcing them to install costly monitoring equipment on their networks, which would log the Internet activity of all Canadians. It would then allow police and law enforcement agencies to get detailed information on the company’s subscribers — on demand and without a warrant. There is also a provision in the bill allowing the minister to appoint an “inspector” who would have the authority to go into an Internet service provider’s offices and take any information Ottawa wants. In an age when people use the Internet to do just about everything — from banking to telephone calls, dating, shopping and staying informed — we might as well just put a webcam in our homes and give the minister a link to the live feed.
This is a part of an international trend. The U.K. plans to introduce regulations that would allow the government to track all phone calls, text and e-mail messages, as well as the websites people visit online. This is on top of a system that already directs all Internet traffic through a central filter. The British “Cleanfeed” system was initially setup to censor child pornography, but it is capable of censoring anything and, a couple years ago, the government tried to get Internet service providers to start censoring legal porn sites as well.
Other countries, including China and Russia, are trying to make a play for increased regulation of the Internet through the United Nations — the same dysfunctional and overly bureaucratic body that continually fails to stop the same authoritarian regimes from brutalizing their own people. If these countries are able to get their way, the current privately operated, deregulated environment that has allowed the Internet to flourish for decades will be gone, making way for “international control over the Internet,” as Vladimir Putin put it.
It should be remembered that the real danger comes from the physical world. Terrorists do harm when they blow people up; child pornographers do harm to the kids who are tortured in the production of such material. Government resources are better spent tracking down the people who are actually harming others, rather than creating large-scale informational dragnets to monitor law-abiding citizens.
It’s become clear that regulating the Internet is less about protecting the populace and more about establishing control over cyberspace. Anyone who uses the internet — and that’s pretty much all of us — should raise their voice against this trend. It’s all well and good to mock Vic Toews for comparing critics of C-30 to child pornographers. But he’s just the tip of the iceberg: There are many more Vic Toews types out there, who want to know what you type and where you click. We shouldn’t let them.
Related National Post Articles
Former U.S. vp Dick Cheney deems Canada too dangerous for speaking visit
Mon, 12 Mar, 2012
TORONTO – Former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney has cancelled a Canadian speaking appearance due to security concerns sparked by demonstrations during a visit he made to Vancouver last fall, the event promoter said Monday.
Cheney, whom the protesters denounced as a war criminal, was slated to talk about his experiences in office and the current American political situation at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre on April 24.
However, Ryan Ruppert, of Spectre Live Corp., said Cheney and his daughter Elizabeth had begged off via their agent.
“After speaking with their security advisers, they changed their mind on coming to the event,” Ruppert said.
“(They) decided it was better for their personal safety they stay out of Canada.”
Last Sept. 26, Cheney’s appearance in Vancouver was marred by demonstrators who blocked the entrances to the exclusive Vancouver Club.
The activists, who at one point scuffled with police, called for Cheney’s arrest for war crimes and booed guests as they arrived at the $500-a-ticket dinner.
One man was arrested for choking a club staff member.
Ruppert said the “thugs” put everyone at risk and forced Cheney to remain inside the club for seven hours until police were able to disperse the protesters and deem it safe for him to leave.
“It was a complete disaster for them because it’s a major security issue,” he said.
The upshot, he said, is that discussion over American policy on such issues as Guantanamo Bay or the Iraq war is being silenced.
“You lost that conversation because you’re talking about a group of thugs,” Ruppert said.
“It’s a real sad story because it really overshadows what the peaceful protesters, who often have very legitimate points, would be doing and saying.”
Those who bought tickets to the Cheney event can either get a full refund or exchange them for an appearance by free-speech activist, Mark Steyn.
“It’s incredibly disappointing for us,” said Ruppert, who was planning for as many as 5,000 people to attend the Cheneys’ talk.
“We were very excited about this event.”
Rupert did not say how many tickets had already been sold at prices ranging from $79 to $595.
Cheney critics accuse him of endorsing the use of water boarding and sleep deprivation against detainees while serving in former president George W. Bush’s administration.
Before the Vancouver event, Human Rights Watch urged the federal government to bring criminal charges against Cheney, accusing him of playing a role in the torture of detainees.
Don Davies, the NDP immigration critic, also argued that Cheney should not have been allowed into Canada.
Cheney has vigorously defended interrogation techniques on the grounds they saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Emcee Masonic ‘Cutsign’ @ 00:12 (uses hands on waist sweeping downward)
Steve Wozniak Considers Return to Apple
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak reportedly said he might return to the company if asked, giving shareholders plenty to ponder regarding the uncertain future of its leadership.
Wozniak, or “Woz,” still holds Apple stock and even remains a paid, if nominal, employee; he also maintains relations with Apple president Steve Jobs. But Woz differs significantly from Jobs in that he favors more customizable computers than Apple currently offers.
“My thinking is that Apple could be more open and not lose sales,” he said to Reuters. Given Apple’s current circumstances, Woz’s opinion isn’t just academic.
Steve Jobs is now in his third leave of absence, having suffered through pancreatic cancer, a liver transplant, and recently an undisclosed medical condition.
Jobs’ potentially indefinite recuperation recently prompted nervous shareholders to outline a CEO succession plan. But it was shot down in a February 23 vote, leaving people to wonder what will happen should Jobs be unable to return.
Enter “The Woz,” an enigmatic genius who partnered with Jobs and others to create Apple in 1976. Woz assembled the prototype for the Apple 1 and wrote his own version of BASIC for it. A supporter of self-service machines and open-source code, Woz also distributed the first Apple’s design so other engineers could build such computers too.
Apple products today are the antithesis of that tinkering, hands-on ethos. Devices are designed to “just work,” and privilege simplicity in user interfaces. Apple discourages its users from unlocking iPhones and tweaking their MacBooks, instead ushering them to company stores for repairs and upgrades.
With his history of championing openness, Woz might challenge this facet of Apple should he find himself playing a more central role at the company.
But whether or not he returns to Apple, one thing is certain: “The Wonderful Wizard of Woz” will continue to lead a colorful life. Since leaving the company in 1987, Woz has founded several start-ups, been married four times, appeared on “Dancing with the Stars” and “The Big Bang,” written an autobiography, joined the Freemasons, and currently plays Segway polo.
Indeed, his whirlwind life might caution shareholders to take his recent, as yet noncommittal statements with a grain of salt.
Freemasonry and Atheism
9/11 Abortion Airbus Al Qaeda Auditor General BGM-71 Cardinal Wuerl Catholic Church CBC CBS CIA CNN Conservative Party Conspiracy David Letterman Department of National Defense donetsk Egypt Freemasonry Georgia Gross Underestimates Hans Kung Jack the Ripper Joseph Ratzinger Kate Middleton Muslim Brotherhood NBC Nobel Peace Prize obelisks PBS Peter Mansbridge Poroshenko Queen Elizabeth II raul castro Sarin Gas Attack Secret Societies Shah of Iran Shriners Terrorism Terrorists Titanic TOW Missiles TV Ukraine White Helmets
Travel to the F.·.W.·. Tyler
(Must also change Mobile Browser to 'Request Desktop Site')
Organized Freemasonry has personally hurt yourself,
family, friends, aquaintances, or community. We would
also appreciate any additional background information,
links, and references on Freemasonry and the Occult.
Help us take a bite out of Freemasonry.
FastCounter by bCentral
June 24, 6000 A.·.L.·.
Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa