Life in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The first western journalist in the world to be allowed extensive access to Isis territories in Syria and Iraq has returned from the region with a warning: the group is "much stronger and much more dangerous" than anyone in the west realises.

Jurgen Todenhofer, 74, is a renowned German journalist and publicist who travelled through Turkey to Mosul, the largest city occupied by Isis, after months of negotiations with the group's leaders.

He plans to publish a summary of his "10 days in the Islamic State" on Monday, but in interviews with German-language media outlets has revealed his first impressions of what life is like under Isis.

Speaking to the website Der tz, Todenhofer revealed that he actually stayed in the same hotel in Benghazi as James Foley, the US journalist who was beheaded on camera by Isis in August.

"Of course, I've seen the terrible, brutal video and it was one of my main concerns during the negotiations as to how I can avoid (the same fate)," he said.

Once within Isis territory, Todenhofer said his strongest impression was "that Isis is much stronger than we think here". He said it now has "dimensions larger than the UK", and is supported by "an almost ecstatic enthusiasm that I have never encountered in any other warzone".

"Each day, hundreds of willing fighters arrive from all over the world," he told tz. "For me it is incomprehensible."

Todenhofer claims to have been able to move among Isis fighters, observing their living conditions and equipment. On his Facebook page, he has posted images which he said show German Heckler & Koch MG3 machine guns in the hands of Isis. "Someday this German MG could be directed to us," he said.

Isis's fighters themselves sleep, he said, in barracks formed from "the shells of bombed-out houses". They number around 5,000 in Mosul, and are spread so widely that were the US to bomb them all "they would have to reduce the whole of Mosul to ruins", he said.

Todenhofer says that this ultimately means Isis cannot be beaten by Western intervention or air strikes - despite US claims last week that they have proven effective. "With every bomb that is dropped and hits a civilian, the number of terrorists increases," he said.

Speaking in a TV interview with RTL's Nachtjournal programme two days after his return to Germany last week, Todenhofer said Isis has worked hard to establish itself as a functioning state. He said it has "social welfare", a "school system", and that he was even surprised to see it has plans to provide education to girls.

Most concerning of all, he said, was Isis fighters' belief that "all religions who agree with democracy have to die".

He said the view that kept being repeated was that Isis want to "conquer the world" and all who do not believe in the group's interpretation of the Quran will be killed. The only other religions to be spared, Todenhofer said, were the "people of the book" — Jews and Christians.

"This is the largest religious cleansing strategy that has ever been planned in human history", he told RTL.

Charlie Winter, a researcher for the anti-extremism thinktank Quilliam, said such comments about Isis being "a group that is formidable militarily and politically" were quoted by pro-Isis accounts because it is "a bitter pill for policymakers to swallow".

"That said, Todenhofer's comments on the massacre of the Yazidis and displacement of hundreds of thousands in Mosul have been routinely ignored by Isis supporters," Mr Winter said. "The facts are being cherry-picked to give a very narrow view of the situation that Todenhofer was met with in Syria and Iraq."

Todenhofer plans to use his first-hand experience of Isis in a book he is writing about the group. He says on Facebook that he has always "spoken to both sides" in his 50 years reporting from war zones, including interviews with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and al-Qaida, with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai and with leaders of the Taliban.

In his view, Isis will soon come to the west to negotiate a level of co-existence. "The only ones who could stop this now are the moderate Iraqi Sunnis," he said, adding: "If you want to defeat an opponent, you must know him."

Isis has executed at least 150 women for refusing to marry militants in Iraq, Turkish media has reported.

A statement released by the country's Ministry of Human Rights on Tuesday said the militants had attacked women in the western Iraqi province of Al-Anbar before burying them in mass graves in Fallujah.

Some of the women killed were pregnant at the time, according to the Anadolu Agency.

"At least 150 females, including pregnant women, were executed in Fallujah by a militant named Abu Anas Al-Libi after they refused to accept jihad marriage," the statement said.

"Many families were also forced to migrate from the province's northern town of Al-Wafa after hundreds of residents received death threats."

Isis has overrun a large part of the western Anbar province in its push to expand its territory across swathes of Iraq and Syria.

The executions come after the militant group shot dead at least 50 men, women and children in a tribe massacre in the province last month.

The attack against the Al Bu Nimr tribe took place in the village of Ras al-Maa, north of Ramadi, the provincial capital. There, the militant group killed at least 40 men, six women and four children.

A senior tribesman said they were lined up and publicly killed one by one. An official within the Anbar governor's office corroborated the tribesman's account, according to The Associated Press.

Isis also recently published what appeared to be an "abhorrent" pamphlet providing its followers with guidelines on how to capture, keep and sexually abuse female slaves.

A Yazidi girl captured by ISIS has revealed the extreme abuse she suffers as a sex slave at the hands of Islamic State (IS) extremists.

Only 17 years old, Mayat, (not her real name) was kidnapped by members of ISIS on 3rd August during an offensive against Sinjar. She remains with her captors.

These men allowed Mayat, who speaks some English as she wanted to study in Europe, to talk because, "to hurt us even more, they told us to describe in detail to our parents what they are doing."

Her parents, refugees in Kurdistan, gave their daughter's number to a journalist from Italian paper La Repubblica.

The teenage girl begs her interviewer not to name her because: "I am ashamed of what they have done to me.

"Part of me would like to die immediately, to sink beneath the ground and say there. But another part that still hopes to be saved, and to be able to hug my parents once more."

One of around 40 women and young girls held by the extremists in an unknown city, Mayat estimates their ages as anything from 12 to 30.

"What are they doing to me?" She says, "I am too ashamed to say, and I don't even know how to describe my torture."

In the interview Mayat describes how the women and girls are kept in a house under armed guards.

There are, she says, three "rooms of horror" where the women are raped, often by different men and throughout the day.

"They treat us like slaves. We are always 'given' to different men. Some arrive straight from Syria," she says.

ISIS has made huge territorial gains across northern Iraq and parts of Syria, capturing thousands of women and children according to an Amnesty International report last month.

"They threaten us and beat us if we try to resist. Often I wish they would beat me so hard I will die. But they are cowards even in this. None of them have the courage to end our suffering."

Mayat says some of the youngest girls have stopped talking because of the abuse and were taken away by their captors. Many of the women have attempted to end their lives.

"Sometimes I feel as though it will never end. And if it did, my life would remain forever scarred by the torture I have suffered the past few weeks," Mayat says. "Even if I survive, I don't think I'll be able to remove this horror from my mind."

Mayat's story contradicts previous claims from ISIS which purport to show life under the Islamic State, highlighting their care of widows and children.

Earlier today the British government promised to donate guns and ammunition to Iraq to fight the insurgency.

Amid concerns of terrorism president Barack Obama has promised to address the American people tomorrow on efforts to "degrade and destroy" ISIS.

Mayat finished by saying: "They have already killed my body. They are now killing my soul."

ISIS have beheaded four Christian children in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam, a British vicar based in the country has claimed.

Canon Andrew White, who is known as the 'vicar of Baghdad', told Orthodox Christian Network that the killings happened in a Christian enclave close to Baghdad which has been taken over by ISIS (formerly known as Islamic State).

He spoke of how ISIS has "hounded" the Christians out of Iraq, and how "they killed in huge numbers, they chopped their children in half, they chopped their heads off, and they moved north and it was so terrible what happened".

He told the network that militants "came to one of our people the other day, one of the Christians".

"They said to one man, an adult, 'Either you say the words of conversion to Islam or we kill all your children'.

"He was desperate, he said the words. And then he phoned me, and said, 'Abouna [Father], I said the words, does that mean that Yeshua doesn't' love me anymore?' I said, 'Yeshua still loves you, he will always love you".

Canon White claimed that the children who were beheaded had refused to "follow Mohammed".

"ISIS turned up and said to the children, 'You say the words that you will follow Mohammed'."

"The children, all under 15, four of them, said no, we love Yeshua, we have always loved we have always followed Yeshua, Yeshua has always been with us.

"They said: 'Say the words.' They said 'No, we can't.' They chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry."

Canon White said that ISIS were threatening to kill him, and that he is now living in Israel, following orders from the Archbishop of Canterbury to leave Iraq. He said that most of his staff are still in the north of Iraq trying to look after displaced Christians.

The ISIS extremist group has executed 100 of its own foreign fighters who tried to flee their headquarters in the Syrian city of Raqqa, the Financial Times reported on Saturday. 

An activist opposed to ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said he had "verified 100 executions" of foreign ISIS fighters trying to leave the jihadi group's de facto capital. ISIS fighters in Raqqa said the group has a military police to clamp down on foreign fighters who miss duty. Dozens of homes have been raided and many jihadis have been arrested, the FT reported. The British press reported in October that 12 Europeans wanted to return home complaining they did not end up fighting Assad's regime.

President Obama's Announcement on Osama Bin Laden's Death

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we've done. But it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who's been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Shock World Court Ruling Warned Will Destroy Obama, America

By:

Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Russian diplomatic and foreign affairs experts are in shock today over the International Court of Justice (World Court) [symbol top photo left] ruling yesterday that declared the independence declaration of the Serbian province of Kosovo to be legal and not a violation of International Law.

According to the World Court’s President, Judge Hisashi Owada, and supported by a majority ruling, “The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence. Accordingly it concludes that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law.”

After the World Court ruling Russian Foreign Ministry officials publicly stated that they would continue not to recognize Kosovo as an independent Nation, a stand opposed by the United States whose Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of it yesterday “Kosovo is an independent state and its territory is inviolable.”

Note: The independence declaration of Kosovo has long divided the United States and Russia, which have respectively championed Kosovo’s and Serbia’s cause. It has also split several International blocs. Most European Union member-states recognize Kosovo’s independence, but five others – Spain, Cyprus, Slovakia,Greece and Romania do not due to separatist movements in their own Nations that threaten their sovereignty.

Though this World Court ruling is being supported by the United States now, Russian historical intelligence analysts in a report today on this momentous event are warning that the Americans, more than any other Nation on Earth, stand the most to lose because of it, especially President Obama, who by his administrations support of Kosovo now puts him firmly opposed to the most powerful of the United States “secret” orders, the Society of Cincinnati. [Photo Order of Cincinnati emblem bottom left]

The Society of the Cincinnati is a historic organization with branches in the United States and France founded in 1783 to preserve the ideals and fellowship of the Revolutionary War officers and to pressure the government to honor pledges it had made to officers who fought for American independence. Now in its third century, the Society purports itself as a nonprofit historical and educational organization that promotes public interest in the American Revolution through its library and museum collections, exhibitions, programs, publications, and other activities

The concept of the Society of the Cincinnati was originated from Major General Henry Knox. The first meeting of the Society was held in May 1783 at a dinner atMount Gulian (Verplanck House) in Fishkill, New York, before the British evacuation from New York City. The meeting was chaired by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton, and the participants agreed to stay in contact with each other after the war. Membership was generally limited to officers who had served at least three years in the Continental Army or Navy but included officers of the French Army and Navy above certain ranks.

Later, membership was passed down to the eldest son after the death of the original member. Present-day hereditary members generally must be descended from an officer who served in the Continental Army or Navy for at least three years, from an officer who died or was killed in service, or from an officer serving at the close of the Revolution.

Each officer may be represented by only one descendant at any given time, following the rules of primogeniture (right of first born). It was this aspect ofprimogeniture which caused the society initially to be controversial, as primogeniture was associated with the rules governing European nobilities.

The Society is named after Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his farm to accept a term as Roman Consul and then served as Magister Populi (with temporary powers similar to that of a modern era dictator), thereby assuming lawful dictatorial control of Rome to meet a war emergency.

When the battle was won, he returned power to the Senate and went back to plowing his fields. The Society's motto reflects that ethic of selfless service: Omnia Relinquit Servare Republicam (“He relinquished everything to save the Republic”).

The Society has from the beginning had three objectives, referred to as the “Immutable Principles”: “To preserve the rights so dearly won; to promote the continuing Union of the States; and to assist members in need, their widows, and their orphans.”

Important to note, this report says, is that in all of the United States history only seven of its Presidents have been members of the Society of Cincinnati, four of them following the assassination of their predecessor.

The first Society of Cincinnati member to gain the Presidency was General George Washington (1732-1799) who is credited with being the “Father of the Nation” for winning his Nation’s war of Independence from the British. Washington gained further fame by returning to his Virginia farm in the “spirit of Cincinnatus” after ending his second term of office and not, as many had wished, becoming a king.

The second Society of Cincinnati member to become President was General Andrew Jackson (1767-1845). A hero of the War of 1812 for defeating a superior British force at the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson was put into power by the Society of Cincinnati to defeat the establishment of a Central Bank that was supported by President John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) and was feared would split the Nation.

Of the danger facing the United States should a Central Bank be allowed to gain control of the US economy Jackson warned:

“The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it. I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.”

Directly to President Adams and the other Central Bank supporters Jackson said directly:

“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

Adams was enraged at his and the Central Banks defeat by Jackson and refused to attend his inauguration. To his dying day Adams retained a great hatred of the Society of Cincinnati and as a Member of the United States House of Representatives (the only American President to serve in this body after leaving office.) cast the only “no” vote on a law to give medals to the US Military officers who had served in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Immediately after casting his vote Adams collapsed and died two days later.

The third Society of Cincinnati member to become President was General Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), who like Jackson before him was put into power to defeat those forces attempting to create a Central Bank said needed due to the United States massive debts incurred from their Civil War (1861-1865) and opposed by President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), who said:

“The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity.”

Upon President Lincoln’s assassination by those forces advocating a Central Bank he was succeeded by President Andrew Johnson (1808-1875) who, like Lincoln before him, opposed those European forces [the Rothschild’s banking family alone was reported to have lost nearly $50 million in support of the Confederacy.] attempting to take control of the American economy and in further “outrages” against themforgave the Southern States of their debts, granted unconditional amnesty to all Confederate Soldiers, freed all remaining slaves in the United States, and paid back the Russian Empire for its blocking of a North American invasion by British and French forces by purchasing Alaska for $7.2 million.

Note: Contrary to what American school children are taught today, Lincoln did not free all the slaves in the United States, that was done by President Johnson. What Lincoln did do was sign two executive orders under the authority of his position as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution”. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply. These two executive orders are today known as the “Emancipation Proclamation”.

Note: Not even told to American schoolchildren about their true history was that Russian Naval squadrons set out towards the coast of North America in the second half of 1863 to protect the United States from British and French invasions. (British Forces landed in Canada, French Forces in Mexico) The Atlantic squadron commanded by rear admiral S.S. Lesovskii (frigate "Aleksandr Nevsky", "Peresvet", "Osliabia", corvettes "Variag", "Vitiaz" and clipper "Almaz") departed from the Russian port of Kronshtadt and went to New York. Another squadron - Pacific - was commanded by rear admiral A.A. Popov (corvettes "Bogatyr", "Kalevala", "Rynda", "Novik", clippers "Abrek" and "Gaidamak"). They went from the ports of the Far East and set out to San Francisco. In September 1863, the squadron of Lesovskii arrived at the port of New York, and the squadron of Popov - to the port of San Francisco. The Russian squadrons stayed in these ports of North America and sailed near its West and East coasts until August 1864.

For President Johnson’s continued opposing the aims of the Central Bankers he was greatly weakened by two attempts to impeach him from office [In 1926 the US Supreme Court ruled the basis for those impeachment attempts as unconstitutional.] thus necessitating the need for the Society of Cincinnati to put General Grant in power.

The forth Society of Cincinnati member to become President was Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886) who was also the first non-military member of the order to ascend to the Presidency but did so through the rules of primogeniture (right of first born) granted to him as the direct descendant of maternal grandfather and Revolutionary War leader Uriah Stone and was “established in place” to take power upon the assassination by these European bankers of President James A. Garfield (1831-1881).

President Garfield warned of the dangers to America should these Central Bankers ever gain power by stating shortly before his death in 1881, “Whoever controls the money of a nation, controls that nation and is absolute master of all industry and commerce. When you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

The fifth Society of Cincinnati member to become President of the United States was William McKinley (1843-1901) whose membership in the order was granted under their rules of primogeniture through his grandfather and American Revolutionary War hero David McKinley, and who by his own right had distinguished himself as a hero in the Civil War.

President McKinley began his attack against the Central Bankers with his ally and Secretary of State John Sherman (1823-1900) whose connection with the Society of Cincinnati was through the membership of his older brother and Civil War here General William Tecumseh Sherman (1820-1891). The legal tool used by President McKinley and Sherman against the European bankers was the law known as the “Sherman Antitrust Act” which was first brought to bear against the Rothschild supported and funded JP Morgan financial empire known as the Northern Trust who by the late 1800’s owned nearly all of America’s railroads.

Note: George Peabody, a Massachusetts’s trader, set up a banking house - George Peabody & Co. - in London in 1837. He became regarded as a "financial ambassador in London. Carrol Quigley attributes the use of tax-exempt foundations for manipulation of society to Peabody, seen in his European based Peabody foundation.

Daniel Colt Gilman, a member of the Skull & Bones and first President of the Carnegie Institution, was involved in the establishment of the Peabody foundation. He was in such high regard by the elite that they have erected a statue of him across from the Bank of England. Peabody was getting old and needed a younger partner. Junius Morgan, of Hartford, Connecticut, was recommended to Peabody.

In 1854 Junius and his family arrived in London to join George Peabody & Co. When the elite’s concocted American Civil War broke out, Peabody and Junius Morgan raised loans for the North. It appears Junius played both sides of the war. Ralph Epperson claims Junius was one of the Rothschild agents who shipped supplies to the South.

When Peabody retired in 1864 Junius took over the business. The firm was re-named JS. Morgan & Co. That same year Junius’ son, J.P. Morgan, became a junior partner in the firm. A year later J.P. left for America to represent the firm in the New York. After the end of the Franco-Prussian War, Junius Morgan was called on to help restore the French economy.

Around this time his bank was talked of as a rival to the Rothschild’s New Court, but Junius was a Rothschild agent, when he prospered so prospered the Rothschild’s and the Illuminati. J.S. Morgan & Co. was one of the Rothschild’s great power tools in the United States. In 1869 Junius’ son, J.P. Morgan went to London to met with the Rothschild’s. They laid out the plans to form Northern Securities, a company that would act as an agent for New Court in the USwith JP Morgan ruling as a proxy for the family.

In 1871 Junius’ son, J.P. Morgan, made an alliance with Tony Drexel, heir to the powerful Philadelphia bank. Their firm - Drexel, Morgan & Co. -resided in an extravagant new building on Wall St., which is still Morgan headquarters today. After the Europeans got over their lack of confidence at the end of the CIvil War, money began to stream across the ocean to the US, providing massive profit for the firm. It set out to finance the growing number of industrial projects in America. The House of Morgan was getting extremely rich and this past week announced a quarterly profit of $1.46 Billion.

Shortly after President McKinley began his attack against the Central Bankers he was assassinated (1901) allowing his Vice President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt (1858-1919) to take power. Upon the Rothschild backed “and paid for” President Roosevelt taking office one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to drop the United States government lawsuits against the Northern Trust and accelerate the American age known as “Manifest Destiny” which continues to this day and basically gives these Central Bankers the “power” to plunder the entire World for profit and gain above all else.

Note: The Roosevelt’s had been in New York since the mid-17th century. Theodore Roosevelt was born into a wealthy family of Dutch origin; by the 19th century, the family had grown in wealth, power and influence from the profits of several businesses including hardware and plate-glass importing.

The family was strongly Democratic in its political affiliation until the mid-1850s, then joined the new Republican Party. Theodore's father, known in the family as "Thee", was a New York City philanthropist, merchant, and partner in the family glass-importing firm Roosevelt and Son. He was a prominent supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union effort during the American Civil War.

His mother Mittie Bulloch was a Southern belle from a slave-owning family in Roswell, Georgia and had quiet Confederate sympathies. Mittie's brother, Theodore's uncle, James Dunwoody Bulloch, was a United States Navy officer who became a Confederate admiral and naval procurement agent in Britain. Another uncle, Irvine Bulloch, was a midshipman on the Confederate raider CSS Alabama; both remained in England after the war. From his grandparents' home, the young Roosevelt witnessed Abraham Lincoln's funeral procession when it came through New York.

The last chance for the Society of Cincinnati to thwart the European plan to establish a Central Bank in the United States ended on April 14, 1912 with the deliberate sinking of the RMS Titanic by British agents that killed one of the orders members named Major Archibald Willingham Butt (1865-1912) along with the American business tycoons John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim and Isidor Straus who were returning to the United States from Great Britain after what they believed was a successful “negotiation” with the Rothschild’s to “leave America alone” under “threat of war”.

Note: Throughout this over 300 year battle between the forces for freedom and independence against these European (and now by extension United States) banking interests many in America, like Germany of last century, are led to believe that powerful Jewish interests control these monolithic institutions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, even though there are Jewish families involved in these powerful banks they are now, and always have been controlled by European royalty aided and abetted in their crimes against humanity by the Catholic Church. If not for the actions of many of America’s and Europe’s most powerful Jewish families the European and Catholic Church “master plan” to control the entire World would have been accomplished a hundred years ago.

According to Burke's Peerage, the Bible of European aristocratic genealogy, all American Presidents (including Obama) have carried European royal bloodlines into office. 34 have been genetic descendants from just one person,Charlemagne, the brutal eighth century King of the Franks. 19 of them directly descended from King Edward III of England. In fact, the Presidential candidate with the most royal genes has won every single American election. The Society of Cincinnati in knowing that European royal interests would always seek to gain control of America has always managed to “convert” many of these Presidents to their cause too.

With the last “obstacles” removed from creating a Central Bank in the United States with the sinking of the Titanic the European banking powers forced through the American legal system what is known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which once enacted (and remains to this day) became the sole and complete authority over the United States economy forcing the American people into two World Wars and countless other conflicts during the past 97 years all designed with one single purpose, to create for Europe’s royal families a “New World Order” controlled by them.

After World War II (1939-1945) the sixth Society of Cincinnati member to become President of the United States was General Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower (1890-1969), who was “appalled” over his Nations defacto surrender to Nazi German forces during World War II in order to obtain the atomic bomb Hitler was ready to use against them, and the deliberate murder of his close friend and fellow Society of Cincinnati member General George S. Patton (1885-1945) who upon his learning that Europe’s royal “powers” had delivered the atomic bombs secrets to the Soviet Union was ready to march against them.

Both Eisenhower and Patton, as members of the Society of Cincinnati and Sons of the American Revolution, were especially enraged over President Harry Truman’s (1884-1972) dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

Note: For more information on the United States defacto surrender to Nazi Germany go to our May 25, 2009 report “Obama Assumes Dictatorial Powers As Israel Prepares For All-Out War” where the links will guide you to the historical proof of this event.

Prior to the expiration of President Eisenhower’s second term [American Presidents are only allowed to serve two 4-year terms] the Society of Cincinnati attempted to install another one of their members as President but failed when Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) was defeated by President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) in the 1960 election.

Johnson was, however, able to gain President Kennedy as a Society of Cincinnati ally to the fight against the European royal powers attempting to destroy America, and they appeared near victory when on June 4, 1963 President Kennedy issued Executive Order 1110 which for the first time since 1913 returned to the United States government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve (Central Bank).

Five months later, on November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was brutally assassinated while sitting by the side of his wife in a Dallas, Texas motorcade, an event so shocking to then Vice-President Johnson he was reported to have hid in the Presidential planes bathroom “huddled in the fetal position” and “crying like a baby”.

Upon the death of President Kennedy, President Johnson became the seventh and last Society of Cincinnati leader of America, and one of his first acts was to repeal Kennedy’s Executive Order 1110.

Since 1963, to this present day, the United States has remained under the control of the royal European banking elite through their control of the Federal Reserve who during this past nearly 60 years have all but dismantled what was once the great Nation known as the United States of America.

Through their infiltration of all levels of government, corporations and media, they have used their forces to destroy America’s “moral fiber” and reduce this once great power to but a shadow of its former self. Their once great industrial might is now gone, their schools are noted for their shockingly high dropout rates (even those who graduate know less than a child born a century ago), its once great cities are fast falling into ruin as its roads and bridges disintegrate too, and, perhaps worst of all, these once great people have nearly lost all hope.

But, for good or bad, and as this report continues, the World Court’s ruling on Kosovo may point to what could very well be a revival….but not without America and her people experiencing a “cataclysmic shock” as their Nation faces the certain prospect of outright civil war and could very possibly by destroyed.

The stage for this all occurring is being set now as the most pivotal day in the history of the United States is racing towards us all….December 21, 2012.

For as this date is more well known as the end of the ancient Mayans long count calendar (and ending of the World?), it is also the date the Federal Reserve’s 99-year old charter to control the American economy ends. And, most importantly, for it to be renewed it would require not only a majority vote in both houses [Senate and House of Representatives] of the US Congress, but also a three-quarter majority vote by every one of their 50 States’ legislative bodies.

Russian diplomatic, historical, financial, and intelligence experts, who have followed this saga for decades, all conclude that the Great Game being played between the Society of Cincinnati and the royal European banking powers amounts to nothing less than the complete reshaping of the entire World for centuries to come, it is that momentous of a moment.

On the side of the Society of Cincinnati are those forces that have, literally, turned on the “money spigot” to force the Federal Reserve into total outright bankruptcy by enlarging the United States debt to stratospheric proportions beyond any hope of it being paid. On the other side are the royal European banking interests who, along with their Vatican allies, are plunging the European Union into the largest monetary contraction known to history by cutting their Nation’s budgets to the “bare bone” in order to have the reserves to prop up what’s left of America when it eventually defaults.

Standing on the sidelines, so to speak, is the rest of the World, most notably Russia, China, the Arab World, South America, and Israel…all of whom are arming themselves “to the teeth” as nearly all of them believe this saga will erupt into Total Global Warfare as these most ancient of foes battle to the death.

Most important to remember about everything you’ve read so far is that it was taken nearly verbatim from the files located in Russia’s Foreign Ministry that we were granted unprecedented access to. These are the same reports that Russian academic Igor Panarin, dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats, based his report upon that stated the United States would begin to disintegrate into civil war in 2010 and break apart into a number of separate Nations.

Though Professor Panarin’s grim report on the United States has been derided in the West, especially in America, the “trigger events” he based his analysis upon have all come true….and none more important than the World Court’s Kosovo ruling that gives any US State, or group of US States, Indian Reservations, or as much land that their illegal Mexican population can seize and hold, that declare their independence from the United States Federal Government can now be legally recognized by any country in the World.

this report and believing it not true, they are in the greatest danger because they are, and to put it plainly, ignorant fools.

To them we highly suggest they read (Today!) the American Spectator report “America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution” written by Boston University’s Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston University Angelo M. Codevilla that details how the two classes that exist in America today have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners….the ones that started the Civil War.

To the rest of you, we strongly encourage you to support our efforts by going to the Sorcha Faal’s Special Report “Everything Will Change….” and giving whatever you can to help us “pay” our dear Russian friends who have given us such unprecedented access to their most private of files and increase our likelihood of getting more of them in the future.

Also, to the thousands of independent news and website blogs, all around the World, who take the Sorcha Faal’s reports and post them on your sites without including the links or, even worse, not even linking back to this reports original source…Shame On You! All you are accomplishing by your actions [aside from the outright theft of intellectual property that doesn’t belong to you] is depriving your readers of the full knowledge contained in these reports provided by the links we have put into them going back, and as it should be, to the original source material.

And finally, to those of you who have supported our efforts THANK YOU! (And our dear Russian friends thank you too.) Your efforts are what make our efforts possible, and when you come right down to it, really, really looking at the truth of all things…We’re all in this together and as the old Benjamin Franklin saying goes, “We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.”

India has formula to zap oil from BP spill

India may hold the answer to President Barack Obama's worries over what to do with piles of crude from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. For several years now, oil companies in India have been using a homegrown cocktail of bacteria called Oilzapper to reclaim vast tracts of farmland contaminated by crude leaking from pipelines or oily sludge coming out of other installations.

Using bacteria to clean up an oil slick is called bioremediation and is practised in many parts of the world. But the Indian formulation is unique as it eats up all four layers of crude -- waxy element or saturated hydrocarbons, aromatic component or benzene compounds, NSO (compounds of nitrogen and sulphur) and asphaltene or tar. And unlike other formulations, Oilzapper can work in temperatures ranging from 8-40 degrees Celsius.

An estimated 184 million gallons of crude has spilled into the sea after an explosion in BP's offshore drilling rig in US's southeastern coast on April 20 this year, making it the worst accidental spillage in history.

Banwari Lal, a scientist at the energy and environment think-tank Teri said Oilzapper could help contain the environmental damage due to the spill. "Other bioremediation measures tackle only one or two contents so you may still be left with the task of, say, stowing tar. In Oilzapper we have succeeded in creating a cocktail of four bacteria that do not fight amongst themselves and each feeds on only one layer of crude content. It is also 40% cheaper than other options," he said. Lal holds the patent for Oilzapper and heads the joint venture between Teri and state-run ONGC that markets the formulation.

The formulation was developed by Teri under a central government initiative after the Gulf War-I. It is being used by major oil and power companies, including multinationals, operating in India besides the state-run oil firms of Abu Dhabi and Kuwait. Users in India include Reliance Industries, BG (formerly British Gas), Cairn and Tata Power besides all state-run oil firms. So far, Oilzapper has reclaimed over 20 lakh tonnes of soil in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Assam where these companies have refineries, storage facilities or pipelines.

Lal said Oilzapper is like powder and is sprayed on an oil pool or contaminated soil just like a fertilizer. It takes 3-4 months for the bacteria to eat up the oil. After that the soil is tested by an independent laboratory identified by the Central Pollution Control Board before it is declared safe.

Farmers in Gujarat and Assam contacted by TOI were full of praise for the product. "I have got back about 3-4 bighas of land. For so many years the oil just refused to go. Now I am ready to sow jowar," said Rameshbhai Desai of Jhalora village in Gujarat's Mehsana district.

Rameshbhai, another farmer from the district's Sobhasan village who got back a bigha of his land, said he was initially sceptical but recommends Oilzapper now. "Earlier, we would get monetary compensation from ONGC (which has its crude pipelines there). But what is the use of compensation if your land turns into a wasteland. I have my land back now, it is fit for farming. What more can one ask for?"

Farmer Jeherol Mohammad of Nazira in Assam went a step further and claimed he was getting better yields from his reclaimed land. "I have got back 1.5 bigha of my land. I am a rice and banana farmer. Farming has become easy as the treated soil turns soft with little watering. I am getting better crops from this tract of land than before."

I Don't Want to Hold Your Hand

How Saudi Arabia and the United States have grown apart.


What will be the image that frames the news reporting of June 29's White House meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Surely not another bow toward the desert monarch, as caught on video at the London G-20 meeting in April 2009. Or what hypercritics saw as a further deferential bob in Riyadh last June, when the president leaned forward so the shorter king could confer on him the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, a chunky necklace that Obama took off within seconds.

Of course, what the White House staff most wants to avoid is any image as awkward as the shot of President George W. Bush and then Crown Prince Abdullah walking arm in arm at the start of a meeting at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in April 2002. The shot was memorialized by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 and, with Moore himself superimposed in place of Abdullah, became the poster for the movie, plastered on thousands of theater walls across the United States.

More... We will have to wait for W's biography for his explanation of this gaucheness, which came to define his presidency. However, the prevailing assumption is that Abdullah, then the effective ruler of Saudi Arabia because of the ill health of King Fahd, had thrown Bush off balance by threatening to walk out of the summit before it started. Abdullah insisted on being able to take home a diplomatic prize -- anything to make his visit worthwhile. This demand wrong-footed Bush, who had thought the Saudis would still be -- and should have been -- on the defensive because of widespread accusations about their historical tolerance of the Islamic extremism that spawned the 9/11 attacks nearly eight months earlier. Bush grabbed Abdullah's arm as a way of saying: "Stay. Let's talk about it." The rest is history.

Obama and Abdullah already has met just two days before at the G-20 summit in Canada, but Abdullah is coming to Washington to talk one-on-one about Palestine and Iran. On the former issue, Abdullah thinks that Obama "gets it," as he has been tougher on the Israelis than Bush or Bill Clinton. On Iran, however, the Saudi king fears that his country's historically closest ally is naive, and dangerously so, for putting so much faith in diplomacy. The same emotional approach that causes Abdullah to anguish about the Palestinians also explains his distrust and antipathy toward the Iranians, whom he sees as typically untrustworthy Shiite challengers to Sunni, and therefore Saudi, custodianship of the holy places of Islam.

Despite the official blandishments, there are clear indications that under Abdullah, and especially since 2001, Saudi Arabia has put distance into its relationship with the United States. Abdullah is trying to gain more room to maneuver in the Sunni-Shiite rivalry and between extremists and moderates within Sunni Islam. To do so, he has to erode the notion that the House of Saud is a pawn of Uncle Sam.

A clear example of this distancing is the foundation of U.S.-Saudi ties: oil. Saudi Arabia, despite having the world's largest oil reserves, is no longer the largest global producer -- Russia takes that title. And though for many years, in a clear statement of diplomatic priorities, the kingdom was the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States, it has now slipped behind Canada and Mexico. With the years of ritual denunciations from both Bush and Obama regarding U.S. "dependence on foreign oil," Washington can hardly complain, but the net result is less U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia.

On Iran, there is a widening if not unbridgeable gap between the two countries. The kingdom's own signals of the policy differences between Riyadh and Washington might well include the June 12 London Times story, which reported that the kingdom would allow Israeli jets to fly over its territory to complete a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although officially denied by Saudi officials, the Times stood by its report. Its editor would not run such a story without being confident of the sources.
The kingdom's own pursuit of (peaceful) nuclear energy is a clear sign that Riyadh thinks that the United States cannot or will not stop Iran's program. A June 17 Reuters story quoted an energy advisor to the kingdom as saying that not only was Saudi Arabia looking at nuclear power plants, but it should also be allowed to enrich the necessary uranium fuel itself. That mirrors the Iranian stance, though the ability to make low-enriched uranium for power plants is, but for a few technical tweaks, the same technology needed to make highly enriched uranium for an atomic weapon.

Saudi Arabia's ability to master this technology is doubtful -- but its ambition is not. By his own admission, Pakistan's controversial nuclear expert, Abdul Qadeer Khan, now notionally free after years of house arrest on allegations of rogue nuclear trading, visited the kingdom around 50 times and was on the technology subcommittee of the Jeddah-based Islamic Development Bank. According to Khan's 11-page confession letter, a senior prince at one point even offered Saudi citizenship to Khan and some of his aides. (They declined.)

Abdullah's determination to go nuclear, at least for generating electricity, is being encouraged by France, where he will travel after leaving the United States. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is noted for his tough approach on the Iran nuclear issue, has already pitched the idea during three visits to Saudi Arabia. If the kingdom pursues this, it will impact the centerpiece of U.S. nonproliferation efforts on the Arabia Peninsula: the so-called nuclear 123 Agreement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which won U.S. approval for nuclear power plants by renouncing enrichment technology. If Washington accepts Saudi enrichment, the UAE -- which in its bad old days, also offered Khan a passport -- would insist on renegotiating its deal.

The octogenarian King Abdullah often cuts a lonely figure in the clannish House of Saud. One almost sympathizes for him when he returns home and has to explain to his brother princes where the United States stands on key policy issues. Crown Prince Sultan, his designated successor and official stand-in during his absence, is reportedly enfeebled and unable to comprehend government affairs. Therefore, the ultra-cautious, conservative, and anti-Iranian views of Sultan's brother, Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who is emerging more clearly as the next in line, could be crucial. Both men were said to be involved in paying off Osama bin Laden in the years before 9/11. So, even if the enduring image from this most recent summit is a bow or an embrace, it appears likely that the kingdom will diverge even further from its decades-old bond with Washington.

Honduras Is An Opportunity

For a successful foreign policy, it is not just essential that a nation have clear objectives, but that it can differentiate between crisis and opportunity and manage both. That ability seems to be absent so far in U.S. President Barack Obama's administration, at least regarding its policies toward Latin America. This is particularly obvious when Obama's foreign policy is contrasted with his predecessor Ronald Reagan's. A brief review of the U.S. interventions in Grenada in 1983 and in Honduras in 2009 illustrates the point.

The U.S. actions in Grenada and Honduras are separated by a quarter century and 1,500 miles; they have shared and contrasting characteristics. The United States did not initiate the events that led to the Grenada invasion in 1983, as it did not instigate the removal of the President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in 2009. In the former, a U.S. president utilized a real crisis to liberate a country and to signal to the world that he would fight for freedom elsewhere. In the latter, another administration demonstrated that it cannot differentiate between the friends and the enemies of freedom.

Twenty-six years ago this week, on October 25, 1983, Reagan made the dangerous and at the time loudly criticized decision to invade Grenada. This marked the first contraction of the Soviet empire in more than 50 years, and helped spur the fall of the Berlin Wall six years later and the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War two years after that. Seldom in history has such enormous consequence resulted from an unacknowledged event.

Grenada was the high-water mark of the Soviet empire's expansion. In 1979, during the irresolute presidency of Jimmy Carter, Grenada fell into the hands of Maurice Bishop, a Marxist "revolutionary" who -- supported by Fidel Castro, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Libya, and other enemies of the United States -- imposed a dictatorial regime and turned the country into a base for communist expansion in the Caribbean.

Among other hostile moves, Bishop allowed Cuba to build an airbase large enough to accommodate Mig fighters and other military planes. Moreover, Bishop and his allies transformed Grenada into a base for political subversion of the Caribbean. When rival Marxist revolutionaries assassinated Bishop in 1983, the island descended into fratricidal violence. The lives of 800 foreign medical students, mostly American, were in danger. Against the wishes of some of his advisors, who preferred diplomacy, Reagan decided in 36 hours to invade and to remove the Marxist regime.

The invasion was deeply unpopular in the "international community," which denounced the move in a United Nations vote, 122 to 9. Only some neighboring nations in the Caribbean basin supported the United States. Even Reagan's closest ally, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, bitterly protested. Uniformly, U.S. and European media lambasted the White House. Many in Congress angrily condemned the invasion at first, only to support it later (it could be said they were against it before they were for it) when evidence of communist deceit became overwhelming. For example, U.S. soldiers discovered ammunition caches in boxes labeled "Cuban Economic Office, Grenada," demonstrating the danger the island country posed.
With Grenada's liberation, however, Reagan signaled that he was serious about combating Soviet aggression. Grenada was the first major use of U.S. military force since Vietnam; the first successful rollback of a communist state and thus the repudiation of the "Breshnev Doctrine," named after the former Soviet leader who held that no "socialist" state would be allowed to revert to capitalism; and the first military defeat of Castro's army, which at the time was running amok in Africa and supporting terrorists in Latin America.

A quarter century later, in Honduras in 2009, a corrupt and demagogic president distanced his country from the United States and joined ALBA, the anti-American alliance created by Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro. Zelaya attempted to subvert his country's laws in order to stay in power. But the institutions of democracy foiled him: The Honduran Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Zelaya had violated the Constitution and ordered his arrest. The president of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's own party, replaced him, a move the elected legislature nearly unanimously ratified. All told, every institution of civil authority and civil society supported Zelaya's legal removal. As with Grenada, the "international community" objected -- in this case, on the grounds that the ouster was really a coup. Inexplicably, the United States joined along in the pro-Zelaya baying.

Simply put, Zelaya's removal was not a crisis; it was an opportunity. Hondurans had simultaneously re-established the rule of law that Zelaya attempted to fracture and broke with the anti-U.S. Chávez and Castro alliance. This was a legal, autonomous, and liberating action by Honduras's political institutions. The United States had no right to intervene against the pro-democracy Hondurans, even if a terrible mistake provided an excuse.

In the chaos caused by Zelaya's arrest, some Army officers put him on an airplane out of the country. This was a violation of Honduran law; the Army has acknowledged it and has attempted to justify it by claiming that leaving Zelaya in the country would lead to violence. Zelaya's many calls since his removal for his countrymen to replace him by force do justify the Army's fears, if not the act of deportation itself. He should have been detained and made to answer to the many crimes with which he has been charged.

But the deportation of Zelaya is no excuse for the Obama administration to join with the hemisphere's leftist despots, even with the cover of international organizations, in calling for the illegal restoration of the ousted leader. To repeat, Hondurans ousted Zelaya legally, in accordance with their constitution. The United States did not have to cut off aid and impose sanctions on one of the poorest nations in Latin America for having rid itself of an autocrat determined to turn Honduras into an undemocratic, hostile state.

Reagan was bold and agile enough to use the unexpected events on Grenada to change the course of history. Grenada was a crisis that Reagan turned into an opportunity. Honduras was an opportunity that Obama turned into a crisis. It is not too late to change course in Honduras and take advantage of an unexpected opportunity.

Now, it’s Indispensable India !

Sitting in the imposing Hall of Flags in the US Chamber of Commerce Building across from the White House, its ornate ceiling festooned with banners celebrating explorers such as Amerigo Vespucci and Hernando Cortez, one might wonder if the history of the world would have been different if a certain Christopher Columbus had a GPS in his backpack and got his coordinates right. Yeah right, the desi wiseacre might respond snarkily: A few of us would be sitting on Reservations drinking ourselves silly while the White Man would be wooing Natives American tribes half-way across the world.

Perhaps. But the scene of the action on Thursday was the elegant Benjamin Franklin Room a few blocks away at the US State Department, in the inscrutable-sounding Foggy Bottom. Here, amid historic artifacts such as the desk used by John Quincy Adams to draft the Declaration of Independence and portraits of the Founding Fathers, US President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invoked superlatives from Mark Twain and Max Mueller to talk up ties with India. Why this happened at this point in time has more to do with incremental progress in relations between two countries than any sudden or spectacular policy decision.

Ever since Bill Clinton, a history buff with an intellectually astute spouse, decided in the late 1990s that Washington had to correct its policy of seeing India through the Cold War prism, ties have been on an upswing. George Bush’s uncomplicated approach of seeing things in black and white in the foggy war on terror accelerated it. Now, Barack Obama’s nuanced approach melds Clinton’s romanticism with Bush’s pragmatism and is cranking the relationship up a few notches. US officials say there is continuity in the approach, and it is the result of a combination of factors, not linked to any one country or geopolitical development.

Some of the reasons — or three million — were right there at the State Department. Two desk officers, a director of the South Asia bureau in Foggy Bottom, the pointman for South Asia at the National Security Council, two info-tech whiz kids manning White House communications, the Chief Financial Officer of Washington DC, and the USAID administrator, are of Indian origin. Overstatement is risky but that’s when one might start to wonder if there is more to the corny Bollywood line “Hamare aadmi chaaro oar phaile huwe hain” (Our people are everywhere). Mandarins on both sides caution that it’s not always a help to have American officers of Indian origin. If anything, this makes them more circumspect, even overcautious about anything to do with India.

Add to that Obama’s announcement the day of the US-India Strategic Dialogue that he was appointing MIT Dean of Engineering Subra Suresh as Director of the US National Science Foundation. He had already mentioned in his speech that he met the 2009 National Spelling Bee champion of Indian-origin at the White House the previous day. The day after Obama’s speech, another girl of Indian origin won the 2010 title. Then he rushed off on Friday to the Louisiana Gulf Coast to tackle the BP oil spill crisis even as state governor Bobby Jindal was giving him a torrid time and another gubernatorial aspirant (Nikki Haley Randhawa) was campaigning in South Carolina. Is there any place in the American mainstream that you don't run into people of Indian origin?

It is absurd to credit immigration or personnel alone with the blossoming of bilateral ties, but in American eyes, a US-India alliance is an idea whose time has come and it driven by democracy and demographics. In fact, it has more to do with 1.2 billion Indians in India and what they offer than the three million Indian-Americans in the US. Whether it is education, health, energy, agriculture or geo-strategic muscle, US officials say they cannot count India out because the country acquires more heft with every passing year. “Indispensable India,” is the current Washington DC expression.

If anything, it’s the Indians who are guarded, fearful that this is a temporary American fascination at the time of its decline. Despite the US turning it on, many Indians are underwhelmed. Absorbing the soaring rhetoric and woozy high that his brother, India’s education czar Kapil Sibal, is part of, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal is among those who counsel caution. While Hillary Clinton described US-India relations as “an affair of the heart, not just of the head,” Sibal and others maintain that New Delhi should not let the heart rule the head. Any perceived US support for India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is now seen as a litmus test for Washington's India tilt. Sibal says it is just a “change of inflection”. Others point to the spotty cooperation on counter-terrorism (the shadow of access to David Headley hung over the Strategic Dialogue) and nagging issues such as Indian scientific entities remaining on the sanctions list.

But current officials are typically more upbeat than former officials and they say all of this is merely a “matter of detail” and the big policy shift occurred a long time ago. “Look at this,” one US official said, waving his hand across the festive atmosphere in the Benjamin Frankin Room as Obama glad-handled the ropeline, “With which other country do you think we can celebrate our common values here? China? This is the real stuff.” The only country that could “screw-up” this relationship, he said, was India. By the time Obama arrives in New Delhi in November, the world will know if India sidestepped the propensity to do so.