"The people of Lebanon must be able to choose their own representatives in open and fair elections, without the specter of violence or intimidation, and free of outside interference," Clinton said during an unannounced visit to Beirut.
Clinton calls for 'open and fair' Lebanon elections, CNN, April 23, 2009

"I do not come here to back any particular party or any particular person. I come here to back certain principles," Biden said later with President Michel Suleiman. "We will evaluate the shape of our assistance programs based on the composition of the new government and the policies it advocates."
Biden visits Lebanon, offers support for government, LAT, May 22, 2009

SPIEGEL has learned from sources close to the tribunal and verified by examining internal documents, that the Hariri case is about to take a sensational turn. Intensive investigations in Lebanon are all pointing to a new conclusion: that it was not the Syrians, but instead special forces of the Lebanese Shiite organization Hezbollah ("Party of God") that planned and executed the diabolical attack.
New Evidence Points to Hezbollah in Hariri Murder, SPIEGEL, May 23, 2009

via FLC

Aside from that:

I personally know a bit or two about the Spiegel publications interior workings and the above leaked Hariri story is quite curious:

Cont. reading: US Fears Hezbollah Will Win Election – Interferes

• More from Mr. No-Change – Obama orders Gates to update plan for Iran strike – (YnetNews)
• Diplomacy, Inc. – The Influence of Lobbies on U.S. Foreign Policy – (Foreign Affairs)
• History of Diego Garcia – All your bases belong to US – (The National)

• Good idea … – Geithner Calls for ‘Very Substantial’ Change in Wall Street Pay – (Bloomberg)
• … the result: – Morgan Stanley to Boost Executive Salaries as Bonuses Decline – (Bloomberg)

• Bradley, Fergusan, Krugman, Roubini, Soros, Wells et al. – The Crisis and How to Deal with It – (NYRB)
• Selling out infrastructure – The Toll Booth Economy – (Counterpunch)

In this passage of Obama's speech yesterday he lays out a system of indefinite detention of innocents that is illegal, against basic human rights and against all morals. It is Cheney at his worst simply clad in new cloth.

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here—this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We’re going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture—like other prisoners of war—must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That’s why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

This is all terribly wrong.

• Someone got explosive trainings? So what – most soldiers on this world have received such.
• Someone led the Taliban in battle? So what – the Taliban ain't al-Qaeda and had a right to defend their country against invaders.
• Someone expressed allegiance to Osama bin Laden? So what – pledging allegiance is not harming anyone.
• Someone wants to kill Americans? So what – first they may have a good reason and second if they try, the police and the court system can take care of them. How many Americans say each day "I am going to kill that sucker." Will they now all be indefinitely imprisoned without trial and without being found guilty of something?

by Parviz

By now everyone knows that Edward Liddy just stepped down as Chairman and CEO of AIG. I believe this is highly relevant to this blog as the event validates many of the criticisms I have leveled at the majority of MoA posters. Liddy left because he could no longer tolerate the self-aggrandizing politics that was hindering his honest attempt at paying off tax-payers in as careful and deliberate a fashion as possible.

In trying to navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of a) unrelenting criticism, and b) unrealistic expectations, he threw in the towel and answered the prayers of some and, as the saying goes: “Hell is answered prayers”:

Who is going to replace him? Obviously someone with knowledge and experience (= a hated ‘insider’?), maybe a turn-around specialist (= “vulture capitalist”?). Or somebody with sufficient ‘stature’ to face of a hypocritically angry Congress and Senate baying for blood when they should be sacrificing their own?

Liddy did the right thing. The American public didn’t deserve the services of somebody who took on the most difficult and high profile job in the U.S.A. for a nominal salary of $1 per year.

I often use analogies to make a point, so let me offer you another one:

There’s been an earthquake in Iran. The whole system is corrupt and buildings are built sub-standard, with the construction mafia pocketing the difference. 50,000 have already died and another 200,000 sit among or beneath the rubble. There is a desperate need for excavators, bulldozers and other machinery and equipment in the immediate vicinity, but these are all owned by the same contractors that caused the mess to begin with, and their employees are equally inept or corrupt. Now, what does the Government do? Forbid the use of those companies/contractors and call in new people and equipment from far away, knowing full well that every second’s delay could cause an additional death? Seize the equipment by decree and risk a protracted battle, I mean a really nasty one, between the government and the construction mafia that would divert attention from the job of saving lives?

What would I do if a solution were within my power? I would enlist the aid of everyone in the vicinity, whether corrupt or otherwise, to get the remaining people out from under the rubble and to hospital, and then, and only then, would I hold inquiries and dole out punishments. The U.S. economy has suffered precisely such an earthquake. Actions born of anger alone will not save it.

FT: Hostile atmosphere too much for Liddy – (alternative link)

• On indefinite detention of innocents – Great Speech, But No [to] Military Commissions and No [to] “Preventive Detention” – (Andy Worthington)
• What Digby says – Looking In The Rearview Mirror – (Hullabaloo)
• Landay & Strobel – Cheney's speech ignored some inconvenient truths – (McClatchy)
• Entrapped stupid petty criminals did what the FBI told them to do – N.Y. Bomb Plot Suspects Acted Alone, Police Say – (NYT)

• Collectively? Yes. – Are Americans wimps? – (FP/Stephen Walt)
• Americans' Addiction to War – (William Pfaff)
• "Madame Clinton, wishes to revisit the scene of the crime." – The Balkans Again – (DNI)
• Going for Broke –
  Six Ways the Af-Pak War Is Expanding – (TomDispatch)
• Israel against the Iran route – Obama administration creates South Caucasus supply network – (Richard Sale/SST)
• U.N. hails Iran for curbing flow of Afghan heroin – (Reuters India)

• “From now on,” he says, “I’m Hamas.” – The Smell of Paradise – (CJR)
• Interview with the Angry Arab (video) – abukhalil online – (Alternative Focus/Youtube)

• Krugman on health care – Blue Double Cross – (NYT)
• First time ever – Global electricity use forecast to fall – (FT)
• Another portrait – Prophet Motive – Is Nouriel Roubini lucky or just good? – (TNR)
• Joining the Pound – Dollar Falls to 4-Month Low Versus Euro on U.S. Credit Outlook – (Bloomberg)

Please add your links, views and news in the comments.

Why is there no outrage when Israeli officials insult the President of the United States, the Vice-President and the Secretary of State?

Mrs Clinton urged continued dialogue with the Palestinian Authority to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. “We happen to believe that moving towards a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interests,” she said.
Clinton says two-state solution ‘inescapable’ for Middle East, London Times, March 4, 2009

Biden, speaking to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), said Palestinians must halt militant violence and Israel “has to work for a two-state solution … not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.”
Biden presses Israel on two-state solution, Reuters, May 5, 2009

“It is in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis, the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution,” Obama told reporters with Netanyahu sitting beside him.
Obama presses two-state solution in U.S.-Israel talks, Reuters, May 18, 2009

“This idea of two states for two peoples is a stupid and childish solution to a very complex problem,” senior members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu staff said on Wednesday as the entourage made its way back to Israel from Washington.
…
[A]nother top advisor had no qualms with explicitly deriding the solution itself as “juvenile.”
‘Fixation on two-state solution is childish’, YNet, May 20, 2009

“You know the Iranian nation is in principle and on religious grounds against the nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons only incur high costs and have no use. They do not bring power to a nation,” [Khamenei] said.
Chief Cleric Says Iran Doesn’t Seek Nuclear Arms, NYT, June 3, 2008

"We have no interest in building a nuclear weapon."
Interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Spiegel, April 10, 2009

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday she intends to explain to Iran it is not in its interest to acquire a nuclear weapon because it would spark a Middle East arms race.
Nuclear weapons are not in Iran’s interests: Clinton, AFP, May 21, 2009

But why does she think she needs to explain that?

• FBI stinger plot – 4 Arrested in Plot to Bomb New York Synagogues – (NYT)
• How MI5 blackmails British Muslims – (Independent)
• I wonder about the "Re-" in "Rejoins" – 1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds – (NYT)

• Yes. – Are Wall Street speculators driving up gasoline prices? – (McClatchy)
• Arbitrage in Somalia – The Great Hargeisa Goat Bubble – (Julian Gough)

Please add your links, views and news in the comments.

London Times: Ahmadinejad claims Iran's new missile is capable of hitting Israel

Voice of America: Ahmadinejad: Iran Tests Missile that Could Reach Israel, Europe

But this what the official Iranian agency FARS reports:

"The Sejjil missiles are among multi-stage missiles which move fast and are able to go into space then come back and hit the target. It works on solid fuel," Ahmadinejad added to cheers from the crowd.

He did not specify the missile's range.

IRNA has nothing about the missile range, ISNA neither. Press TV claims the missile has 2,000 kilometer range which is of course not enough to reach Europe. Other Iranian missile types are already able to hit Israel so the new missile does not really change anything there either.

BTW none of the Iranian sources above reports that Ahmadinejad said something about Israel at all.

I dismissed the Sanger/Shanker piece Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says as propaganda for three reasons:

[H]ere are the three points where Sanger manipulates the reader:

• The assertion of "confidential briefings" for which he does not
  name a source and does not explain how he got knowledge of these.
• The "rapidly adding" in the headline and first graph also not sourced at all and not confirmed by the rest of the article.
• Moving Senator Webb's question of control about future money to
  Pakistan into the context of adding nukes when it is much more
  generally asked in the context of Pakistan's military stand versus
  India.

Looking deeper into the issue there is another and much more relevant reason to dismiss the piece. For now Pakistan simply does not have the ability to rapidly add nuclear arms.It lacks the ingredients.

Cont. reading: Another Shot At Sanger’s Propaganda Piece

• Chomsky – The Torture Memos and Historical Amnesia – (TomDispatch)
• Hang'em high – The 13 people who made torture possible – (Salon)
• On McChrystal – The new face on Washington's war – (Socialist Worker)
• Cowards – Democrats in Senate Block Money to Close Guantánamo – (NYT)

• Moving target – Iraq slides election until January – (AP)
• Psychos – U.S. military: Heavily armed and medicated – (MSNBC)
• Forget the 'May Be' – Arms From U.S. May Be Falling Into Taliban Hands – (NYT)

• With some interesting details on Iran negotiations – Interview with Mohamed Elbaradei – (Spiegel)
• U.S.-Russian Team Deems Missile Shield in Europe Ineffective – (WaPo)

• Dennis Ross 2008 income includes $214,605 for speeches to AIPAC etc. – 2 special envoys prove well-heeled – (USA Today via FLC)
• Bibi's answer to Obama – Israel unleashes new war upon Gaza ghetto – (PressTV)

• Invade the Cayman – Lax Little Islands – (The Nation)
• Our ruling oligarchs – Beware bail-out kings and backbench barons – (FT, alt. link)

Please add your links, views and news in the comments.

Some credit card bill passed with large majorities:

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to put new restrictions on the credit card industry, passing a bill whose backers say will make card-issuers spell out their terms in fewer words, using plain English, and treat customers more fairly.

…
Credit card debt has increased by 25 percent in the last decade, with delinquency rates up by more than a third since 2006, according to statistics cited by the White House. Americans pay $15 billion in penalty fees a year, accounting for about 10 percent of the industry’s revenues. About one-fifth of those carrying credit card debt pay more than 20 percent in interest.

Before Tuesday’s vote, the senators applauded their colleague Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who cast the 11,000th vote of his Senate career. “I couldn’t think of a better bill to cast this 11,000th vote on,” Mr. Levin said.

Well -  I for one certainly can think of a much much better bill to cast a Yea vote on.

How about one that forbids usury which I define as anything beyond a 5% margin. If the credit card companies can refinance at 0% through the Fed than asking anything beyond 5% in interest on debt is usury.

German law sets the usury limit a bit higher than that but at current refinancing rates anything above 12% "effective rate" (which includes upfront costs, credit insurance etc.) would certainly make the contract illegal. The U.S. killed any usury limit in the 1980 with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. The "better bill" Levin can not think of would reintroduce sharp usury limits and void such loans ab initio.

The credit card companies need higher interest payments because they have large charge offs?

Well – why do they market their product to people who abuse it? I do not lend money to people who are unlikely to be able to pay back (except of course to friends in need). The credit companies do so and make their good customers pay for it. This is an abuse of honest people.

A very simple way to cure that is to limit the amount of interest they can charge. With such a limit the credit card companies would only service customers that are likely able to pay back what they borrow. There still would be some charge offs for people who unexpectedly have some trouble and can not pay because of illness or something else. That is the normal business risk.

But what is currently allowed is for these companies to catch people through sophisticated marketing campaigns, induce them to run up debt and then charge them hellish interest rates that will never let them recover to a real life. Credit card debts have become a virtual debtor prison.

This chart tells a story about half-way decent regulation versus runaway neo-liberal deregulation. It is time for the U.S. and other countries to re-learn the decent lending lessons.

Last August my piece Around the Hindu Kush, 30 is a Magic Number quoted 16 media items about different incidents in Afghanistan between February 2006 and August 2008. Each of those incidents involved "30 militants", "30 insurgents" or "30 enemies".

Since then the number 30 has not lost its magic. Here is an update with 18 incidents since August last year all of which involve the magic number:

At least 30 Taliban reported dead in shelling of Pakistan redoubt, DPA, May 14, 2009
Islamabad – At least 30 Taliban fighters were killed Thursday when government artillery fire destroyed their hideout in north-west Pakistan, residents and officials said, as concerns about the fate of thousands of refugees in the region grew amid an escalating humanitarian crisis.

Cont. reading: Around the Hindu Kush, 30 is a Magic Number – An Update

• Not going to happen – Why Obama Must Shackle Bibi – (Rootless Cosmopolitan)
• Netanjahu's gift for Washington – Israel begins new settlement, despite U.S. opposition – (Haaretz)
• As expected – No progress visible from Obama-Netanyahu talks – (McClatchy)

• James Petras – Obama’s Animal Farm: Bigger, Bloodier Wars Equal Peace and Justice – (VoltaireNet)
• Pakistani news – 'US special squad killed Benazir' – (The Nation)
• More Pakistani news – I did not say Cheney killed Benazir: Hersh – (DailyTimes)

• A new puppet for Afghanistan – Ex-U.S. Envoy in Talks for Key Role in Afghan Government – (NYT)

• Slowly but steady – Brazil and China eye plan to axe dollar – (FT, alt. link)
• No "single payer" – The Health Care Cave-In – (Robert Reich)
• Character assassination – At Geithner's Treasury, Key Decisions on Hold – (WaPo)

Please add your links, views and news in the comments.

Has David E. Sanger replaced Judith Miller as the chief scaremonger at the New York Times?  We are not sure but he is one of the chief writers in the NYT's propaganda campaign for war on Pakistan.

Sanger's front page headline today is Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says.

Now aside from the irrelevance of the issue – there is no strategic difference between a Pakistan with 80 nukes and a Pakistan with 100 nukes – there is simply no fact in Sanger's piece that justifies the headline and the thrust of the story.

The lede:

Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

“Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security.

Mullen's "yes", Sanger tells us, confirmed "confidential briefings" to Congress. The Mullen hearing itself was public. Nowhere does Sanger explain who told him about those "confidential briefings", with what interest in mind and what the context and content of these briefing were.

There follow fourteen paragraphs of quotes from the usual concerned hawks like David Albright raising the danger of WMD in terrorist hands. Nothing in those graphs justifies the "rapidly adding" attribute. But only after walking through all those assertions do we learn of the real question Mullen answered with a simple "Yes".

Cont. reading: NYT Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Propaganda

• ‘They are Nazis!’ Neocons blocked early Sunni resistance peace offers in Iraq – Heads in the Sand – (Vanity Fair)
• Peddling the Arab fear Iran meme – Roger Cohen – Arabs, Persians, Jews – (NYT)
• The Arab League Secretary begs to differ – Israel poses main nuclear threat, not Iran – (International Reporter)

• War on Pakistan propaganda – Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says – (NYT/Judith Miller/David Sanger)
• “Alarms about Pakistan’s nukes come from the same fabricators with hidden agendas who brought us Saddam Hussein’s bogus weapons.” – U.S. stirs a hornet’s nest in Pakistan – (Margolis/The Sun)
• Overreach – Waziristan next, says Zardari – (Dawn)
• “The use of drones displays every characteristic of a tactic … substituting for a strategy” – Death From Above, Outrage Down Below – (NYT)
• The full picture – Losing Pakistan – FB Ali – (SST via FLC)

• “Sources close to leading Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Namr claim that his followers have declared independence from the Kingdom” – Saudi Shias still ‘discriminated against’ – (PressTV)

• Suckers rally – S&P 500 Earnings Decline: 90% – (TBP)
• More people are satisfied in heavily tariffed nations – The happiest taxes on earth – (Market Watch)

Please add your links, views and news in the comments.

Comments on the Pelosi fight with the CIA took over several threads here – so lets give it a dedicated one.

My view:

• Did Pelosi know that torture was going on?
• Likely yes, but not through official sources. The informal sources did not provide hard proof. As the minority leader withe the public and the media supporting Bush what could she do?

• Was Pelosi officially briefed on torture?
• Likely yes, but in very obfuscated ways – 'we probably could use this technique …'.

• Did the CIA brief her on specific 'methods' used on specific persons?
• Likely not.

Consider:

• The CIA is professional in the business of lying.
• The CIA did lie (and still lies) about abducting and torturing people.
• The current Panetta/CIA uttering about having briefed Pelosi are non-denial denials.

This is not a case about Pelosi. That's just an artificial sideshow.

But in total I welcome this fight and the discussion. It makes the torture issue more public and will lead, in one way or another, to a wider public opening of the whole case.

Obama's argument that publishing more torture pictures would incite more resistance to the U.S. military is stupid. The people who have been tortured know. They tell their stories all the time (just not in our media). Their sons, fathers, uncles and cousins know. Their experience gets broadcast on Al Jazeera.

The pictures will not change that. Publishing the pictures will not change the knowledge the people have. It will shock for a moment but the fact that they get published will also convince that the U.S. can indeed turn away from erroneous paths. The only way for the U.S. to redeem itself in the eyes of many, many people is to let the truth out and to publicly repent its deeds.

That could be done through:

• A truth commission (likely a whitewash and thereby bad)
• A Congress investigation (too political)
• An independent counsel investigation (difficult minefield – depends on person)
• Individual court cases (good but too slow).

Whatever. It will be impossible to keep the story under wraps and will be impossible,
as the Republicans try, to redefine it. The evidence is out there and the number of witnesses is just too big.

My favorite solution?

An investigation by an independent counsel with full legal powers and dedicated to the issue. Real legal consequences for all involved. Nominated lead person: Patrick Fitzgerald.

How much of an evangelical nut was George W. Bush?

Rumsfeld obviously thought it was Bush's weak point and that he could use it to get from Bush whatever he wanted. That at least is my conclusion from Rumsfeld's headlining of intelligence briefings for Bush with bible quotes:

The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”

You can see some of the 'top secret' briefing cover sheets here. Other examples:

On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”

One wonders how the reports of 'intelligence' from torture interrogations were headlined. My guess is that quotes from the ten commandment or the sermon on the mount were not used for those.

• Frank Rich on the need for torture investigation – Obama Can’t Turn the Page on Bush – (NYT)

• Ahmed Rashid – Pakistan on the Brink – (NYRB)
• Tony Karon – The Writing on the Wall for Obama’s ‘Af-Pak’ Vietnam – (Rootless Cosmopolitan)
• Not mentioned in U.S. news – US drone attack kills 29 in North Waziristan – (Dawn)

• Good piece, but too much ‘middle of the road’ – Obama and the Middle East – (NYRB)
• Mearsheimer – Saving Israel From Itself – (American Conservative)
• Israeli Tourism Adverts Wipe Palestine From the Map – (Palestine Campaign)
• Tea, coffee, sausages are also verboten – Israel bans books, music and clothes from entering Gaza – (Haaretz)

Please add your links, views and news in the comments.

by Debs is Dead

I'm telling ya the backlash is a coming. The arrogance of AIPAC and it's attendant Zionist lobbies is unbelievable – it is just the sort of behavior that had the leaders of organised superstition right about "pride coming before the fall".
I totally recognise that it won't seem like that at the heart of empire – but the dismissal of the espionage case caused an amount of head scratching from the citizenry. That being followed so soon after by such blatant obeisance to a foreign lobby will be duly noted by the citizenry and it will come back to bite every AIPAC aligned pol on the ass sooner than most can comprehend.

If I was Jewish and and living in America I would be ceaseless in my haranguing of these megalomaniacs to stop now! – because when the shit does hit the fan it will be the average Jewish American who will bear the brunt of the community backlash. There is a delicate balance to be struck if one is living as part of a cohesive minority culture within a much larger host culture.

Some members of the smaller culture can be tempted to play the power game whereby the smaller culture concentrates 'power players' together in a way that rarely happens in the larger culture, where each 'person of standing' is dissipated for want of a better word, amongst the general populace. When this does happen, forms of nepotism, cronyism and a 'one hand scratches the other' accepted reality takes hold – eventually to the point where the players imagine that 'everyone is in on the game' and then they convince themselves that they are impervious to consequences.

Of course this model isn't confined to ethnicities – organised societies such as the freemasons can make this mistake; when they do and larger society finally catches up the price is high.
The masons are all but dead here now. The reaction from a larger society sick of jobbery and corruption, was to ensure that anyone believed to be associated with that organisation didn't get a promotion, didn't get the contract. No one wanted to let masons in lest they took the place over.

Cont. reading: Backlash For AIPAC