A woman who claims she was stationed at Fort Meade on September 11, 2001, has given an explosive interview about how she personally heard military commanders make the decision to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11.

A person using the pseudonym Elizabeth Nelson told The Project Camelot website that she personally heard officials agree on the order to shoot down Flight 93. The decision was apparently made because the plane was flying in a no-fly zone near to Camp David and heading toward Site R, a military facility in known as the “backup Pentagon”.

Nelson stresses that at no time was there any talk of “hijackers,” and the plane was shot down purely because communication had been lost and standard operating procedure mandated that the plane be intercepted and destroyed.

Because the woman refuses to provide her real name, the authenticity of her story is very much up for debate, but in a 40 minute MP3 recording ( click here to listen) of the interview, she relates what she witnessed in as sincere and genuine a way as one could expect. This individual has seemingly little to gain from making up such a story, unless it’s part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Nelson says that she was stationed at at Fort Meade under the Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center Hospital and was training as a radiologic technologist having finished basic training three weeks prior. On 9/11, her rank was Private First Class.

Nelson relates how 9/11 started as a routine day before a higher ranked soldier suddenly emerged from another room and exclaimed, “Holy shit! I just saw a plane crash into one of the Twin Towers.”

Nelson and her colleagues then gathered around the TV in the hospital lobby before they saw the second plane hit the tower. Despite the fact that the first plane strike was not broadcast on live television, Nelson was adamant that the soldier was referring to the first plane when he first spoke. Nelson says that when she first saw the live TV pictures, only one tower was on fire, so the soldier could not have been referring to a replay of the second hit. In the interview, Nelson speculates that the first hit could have been broadcast on an internal military channel. President Bush once famously claimed that he had seen the first plane hit and thought that it was a case of pilot error, despite there being no live TV footage of the first plane strike.

While the majority of the personnel on the base scrambled to protect the facility as part of standard operating procedure, Nelson and a colleague were offered up by their First Sergeant to act as assistants to the Commander of the Base.

“All the other departments of soldiers - the nursing department, the clerical, administrational department - everybody sent their base soldiers there and I didn’t see them anymore. So basically the hospital was not fully active at that point. Everything was on hold,” said Nelson, adding, “And so I remember the room that they took us into. And they told us that we were in charge of, you know, getting coffees, any kind of snacks from the cafeteria - not cafeteria, like from the snack machines or from the place where you can get little snacks - in charge of making photocopies because she and I had the access codes for the rooms, to get in there.”

Nelson and her colleague were sat at the far end of the room and told to face the wall as the meeting of top officials on the base commenced.

“And there was probably six or seven men around this very large table, just like you would see in a big office somewhere. And they had this funny phone. It was like a conference-call phone. And I remember them sitting there and they were talking through this phone. And it seemed to me that they were talking to one or two other places,” said Nelson, adding that she suspected the men were in contact with the West Point military base an hour north of New York City.

The men were trying to ascertain what was going on and quickly expressed concern about Camp David and “Site R” and stating words to the effect of, “Protocol is that this is a no-fly zone. We have to take this plane down. Yes, it’s a passenger plane. It needs to be taken down. It’s a no-fly zone.”

According to Wikipedia, Site R, otherwise known as The Raven Rock Mountain Complex (RRMC) or the Underground Pentagon, is a United States government facility on Raven Rock, a mountain in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. The facility houses the ANMCC (Alternate National Military Command Center), JSSC (Joint Staff Support Center), OSD/DHS (Office of the Secretary of Defense/Department of Homeland Security), and the 114th Signal Battalion. RRMC also houses the emergency operations centers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

“I didn’t hear a thing about hijackers,” states Nelson, “We just heard that this plane was flying in a no-fly zone and they couldn’t make contact with the plane, or something like this. There was no communication. Protocol says it has to be taken out. And so I was in this room when the decision was mutually made by the people talking on the phone in the room that I was in, to shoot this plane down.”

“It didn’t feel like anybody knew that there was anything with terrorists,” added Nelson, saying that the officers mentioned the attack on the twin towers but only in the context that they didn’t know where Flight 93 was heading. She got the impression that they were genuinely unaware of the wider 9/11 plot, as would be expected in a compartmentalized structure, and that they were simply following military protocol.

Nelson recalls how she later felt revulsion after she saw news reports about how Flight 93 had supposedly been taken down by brave passengers.

“I remember the distinct feeling inside of me of when I saw on the news that there was this story that there were terrorists on this plane, and that the people overtook the pilot and crashed the plane, - I mean, overtook the terrorists and crashed the plane themselves. And how this was leaking out as these people being heroes,” she states.

“And I remember the extreme moral frustration inside of me, of feeling: But that’s not true! That’s not true at all! We shot this down. And a huge conflict inside of me, of knowing that the world is made to believe this story that’s not true.”

Nelson subsequently felt frustrated when anyone talked about the manufactured myth of the Flight 93 heroes.

“I also remember the confronting feeling when I would be around … because there were civilians that worked in the hospital as well. And then when they would talk about the heroes and these things, the conflict that I had inside of myself was wanting to bust out and say: That’s not true!,” she states.

“They didn’t crash the plane. If they would have crashed it, there would have been a skeleton of the plane. There was no… Nothing. It was blown up.”

Nelson speculated that the errant aircraft could have been originally heading for New York City (Building 7?) before the passengers retook control of the aircraft and started aimlessly flying it elsewhere.

“The only thing I can think is if the third plane was also intended for somewhere in the city [New York City] as well, and that the people actually did take over the hijackers and divert the plane so that the plane ended up flying aimlessly someplace else. And of course the people don’t know how to talk over the radio or any of these things. And that’s maybe something that happened,” she states.

The biggest argument against Nelson’s claims is the hard to accept notion that she and another Private were allowed to sit within earshot of top military commanders making monumental decisions about national security. If the commanders had needed people to make photocopies of documents and bring snacks and drinks as Nelson describes, then why not just have them on call in a different room? One would expect that a military complex have sophisticated communication connections that would have easily facilitated such a scenario.

Then again, if all the other active duty personnel were busy defending the base it could be argued that in the midst of the chaos, Nelson and her colleague were called upon.

Whether or not Nelson’s story is true, the fact that Flight 93 was shot down is one of the most glaring holes in the official 9/11 story.

Footage of the crash site showed barely any debris whatsoever. Compare this to any other plane crash in history and the contrast is astounding.

The debris field of Flight 93 was eight miles wide - investigators found a second debris field three miles away from the main crash site at Indian Lake, and a third debris field in New Baltimore, eight miles away. This is entirely consistent with the plane having been shot down.

Several eyewitnesses described hearing explosions before Flight 93 crashed and others said they heard missiles.

The Flight93Crash website has a compilation of eyewitness reports all attesting to the fact that the plane was shot down.

Donald Rumsfeld himself said that Flight 93 was “shot down” in an apparent slip of the tongue on December 24, 2004.

Last night Lou Dobbs agreed with the President of Mexico that drugs are flowing into the United States because our government permits it. President Calderon said U.S. corruption permitted drug imports. “If there is traffic in the United States, it is because there is some corruption in the United States,” Calderon said. Dobbs agreed.

“…there is no other explanation,” Dobbs said, “It goes well beyond indifference and apathy, but the fact that this country has tolerated that border being violated by drug traffickers who bring in from Mexico methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine and marijuana – in fact, Mexico is the largest source. And for us as a nation to have tolerated the immense loss of life, the devastation of lives to addiction and drugs, most of which, again, originate in Mexico, can only be explained by corruption.”

Lou Dobbs is right, there is corruption, but it is mainly political. Drugs are allowed into the country because the ruling class is willing to sacrifice its citizens on the alter of globalism.

American Border Patrol has shown that the new border fence began cutting off smuggling routes and that led to the Mexican drug war. But the establishment doesn’t want the fence, so they blacked out ABP and its reports, and that includes those who run Lou Dobbs Tonight.

There is something even worse, but more on that later.

By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group.

Afghanistan’s women are no longer in vogue.

It was only a few years ago that Laura Bush, who normally shied from causes that could be considered controversial, took up their banner. “The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists,” the first lady said in a radio address shortly after President Bush launched the U.S-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.”

That was then. This is now: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands’ sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house — even for work or school — without a husband’s permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression.

“This is really, really dangerous for everybody in Afghanistan,” Soraya Sobhrang of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said in a telephone interview from Kabul. Noting that violence against women already is rampant, Sobhrang said the new law effectively “legalizes all violence against women in Afghanistan.”

The legislation zoomed through Afghanistan’s parliament. Karzai, who faces elections in August, signed it in an apparent effort to placate conservative religious forces that are said to hold the balance of power in his re-election bid. The United Nations Development Fund for Women is still analyzing a final version of the legislation but says it is “seriously concerned.” The law appears to contradict both the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women, and international conventions on human rights.

The U.S. State Department has had no comment.

Afghanistan’s women are, apparently, the latest casualty of the Obama administration’s tilt toward realpolitik: ignore human rights violations — whether they’re in China or Russia or in the quiet misery of an Afghan villager’s home — in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals.

This contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way. But now we have Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regime. Clinton took the helm of the State Department vowing to elevate the cause of human and economic rights for women and girls — a pledge she made again in The Hague this week at the end of a major conference on Afghanistan that was aimed at securing greater international cooperation on the desperate and disparate crises there.

“My message is very clear. Women’s rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal, they are not an add-on or an afterthought,” Clinton said in response to a general question about the situation confronting women in Afghan society. “You cannot expect a country to develop if half its population [is] underfed, undereducated, under-cared-for, oppressed, and left on the sidelines.”

The secretary was not asked specifically about the new law. Among its other provisions, it guarantees that married men can have sex once every four nights and wives must submit. In effect, it legalizes marital rape. Sobhrang worries there may be worse to come. “They are talking about child marriage,” she says.

Without pressure from the foreign powers that hold so much sway in Afghanistan, there was little that even the women in the country’s parliament could do. Sobhrang faults those who were quiet in the face of the clear effort by a religious faction to reimpose medieval mores on a country that is in many ways a ward of the contemporary international community.

The ugly truth is that Afghanistan has long been sliding back into the violent chaos that is friendly political ground for the Taliban and other extremist groups. Women have, as usual, been among the chief victims.

There is indeed a lengthy and urgent to-do list for the Obama administration, which says it is determined to abandon a failing course. But that does not mean the United States should again fail Afghanistan’s women.

To consign them to what Laura Bush correctly called “deliberate human cruelty” is cruelty itself.

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet

Recall the Geithner Bank Plan in a nutshell: private investors will partner with the government to buy those “toxic” assets off of struggling “zombie banks.” The buyers would put about 7 percent of the purchase price down, and the Treasury Department would match that with another 7 or so percent. Then the FDIC would offer government-backed loans for the remainder.

If the assets were to recover their value and turn a profit down the road, the investors would split the profits with the government. But if they don’t – if their values continue to tank, and it’s entirely likely many will — then you and I and everyone else we know who pays taxes will be on the hook for the lion’s share of the losses.

In other words, we’re letting bargain-hunters pick up the “troubled assets” that are burdening a number of financial institutions for pennies on the dollar, and limiting their downside risk if it doesn’t turn out well. It’s a pretty sweet deal for those investors. And, as I wrote when Geithner first announced the plan, it’s also pretty much the definition of “moral hazard.”

That background is important in order to understand just how incredibly infuriating this report from The Financial Times is:

US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals under the Treasury’s $1,000bn (£680bn) plan to revive the financial system.

The plans proved controversial, with critics charging that the government’s public-private partnership - which provide generous loans to investors - are intended to help banks sell, rather than acquire, troubled securities and loans.

[...]

Participating in the plan as a buyer could be complicated for Citi, which has suffered billions of dollars in writedowns on mortgage-backed assets and is about to cede a 36 per cent stake to the government.

Citi declined to comment. People close to the company said it was considering whether to take part in the plan as a seller, buyer or manager of the assets, but no decision had yet been taken.

[...]

Goldman and Morgan Stanley have large fund management units and have pledged to increase investments in distressed assets.

This week, John Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, told staff the bank was considering how to become “one of the firms that can buy these assets and package them where your clients will have access to them”.

Goldman and JPMorgan did not comment, but bankers said they were considering buying toxic assets.

Get it? We first pumped tens of billions of dollars into these institutions via the TARP, set up another program to aid them further by offering investors the opportunity to purchase the “shitpile” on their books with sweet federal subsidies, and they then turn around and now they’re essentially going to buy the assets back with taxpayer-backed loans.

FT again:

Critics say that would leave the same amount of toxic assets in the system as before, but with the government now liable for most of the losses through its provision of non-recourse loans.

Administration officials reject the criticism because banking is part of a financial system, in which the owners of bank equity — such as pension funds — are the same entities that will be investing in toxic assets anyway. Seen this way, the plan simply helps to rearrange the location of these assets in the system in a way that is more transparent and acceptable to markets.

What mumbo-jumbo — “banking is part of the financial system.” Thanks, but there’s a difference between pension funds and the financial institutions who have taken boatloads of public cash because they were deemed “too big to fail.”

But the obviousness of Big Finance’s rip-off may get in the way of its success. The Financial Times warns, “public opinion may not tolerate the idea of banks selling each other their bad assets …”

Despite the fact that the term “new world order” was mentioned in connection with the G20 this week hundreds of times by both global leaders and in news reports, it is still regarded as a “conspiracy theory” by that bastion of truthiness, Wikipedia.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself yesterday announced that the G20 heralded the creation of a “new world order” which would involve increased global regulation of economic markets.

A Google News search provides well over a thousand results of reports including the term “new world order” over the past couple of weeks.

Despite the fact that world leaders have been talking about a “new world order” for decades, in the context of the political agenda to diminish the power of sovereign states in favor of a move towards global governance, it was still regarded as a delusion of paranoid conspiracy theorists by the establishment media until relatively recently.

Now even Fox News and Sean Hannity are throwing their arms in the air and admitting that the “conspiracy theorists were right” as the agenda for global government is openly announced.

However, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is notorious for being completely infested with maniacally obsessive trolls, crooked insiders, and establishment apologists, claims that in its warped version of reality, the “new world order” as a sinister concept is still a nebulous conspiracy theory.

New World Order: So-called “conspiracy theorists” had to endure decades of ridicule for daring to claim such a political agenda existed - now it’s openly discussed in every major news outlet.

But according to Wikipedia, it’s still a “conspiracy theory”.

Wikipedia attempts to make the differentiation by claiming that the new world order in the context of a sinister, undemocratic, and ultimately totalitarian political agenda, is a characterization embraced only by paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Presumably, Wikipedia is only willing to accept the fact that an agenda to create a new world order exists if that new world order equates to a happy, loving, positive move, where world bankers and global elitists really have the best interests of all of us at heart. Forgive us for being somewhat skeptical of that conclusion.

In reality, as we have exhaustively documented, the new world order has nothing to do with saving the world and everything to do with centralizing power and control into the hands of a gaggle of criminal globalists who are concerned about nothing other than increasing their domination over the planet - at the expense of the rest of the population.

The new world order is totalitarian by its very nature - shifting power away from sovereign countries to global institutions which have no accountability to the general public whatsoever, and through which the public has no voice or influence. That cannot be defined as anything else but undemocratic. There is no such thing as a “benign” new world order.

This very agenda was again enunciated this week by World Bank President and and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick, who openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.

Speaking about the agenda to increase not just funding but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.”

Proponents of a new world order have always disguised their rhetoric with flowery notions of achieving some kind of global utopia, but behind the scenes the real agenda has always been sinister, nepotistic and anathema to any reasonable notion of democratic freedom.

It’s about time the establishment media stopped parroting the words of globalists and blithely repeating the term “new world order” like it was going out of fashion, and actually started asking real questions about what it really means.

Congress Check
CongressCheck.com
April 03 2009

As reported today by the Associated Press on 04/03/09 1:00PM:

Binghamton, NY Mass Shooting

NEW YORK (AFP) —

A gunman shot up to four people and took some 40 others hostage Friday in Binghamton, New York state, local media reported. Armed police had surrounded a civic association where the gunman was believed to be holding the hostages, WBNG television and the local Press and Sun-Bulletin newspaper reported. Police shut down a nearby school and several streets. The newspaper reported that there were 41 hostages in the building — 15 in a closet and 26 in the boiler room. Binghamton is a small city in central New York state near the Pennsylvania border, northwest of New York City.

Another mass shooting has been reported this morning. It really sickens me, for multiple reasons, some more obvious than others. I thought it would be pertinent to write a post going over the history of recent mass shootings pointing out similarities within these separate incidents.

It’s usually not found out until well after an incident, I wouldn’t expect it to come out today or tomorrow. But in a week or 2 when this incident has gone down the public memory hole; It will come out is that this man has a prescription for some form of psychoactive substance.

A large portion of the American population take such as, Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Serzone, Luvox, Effexor, Wellbutrin, and many others. These drugs fall under the class of drugs known as “MAOI”, “SSRI”, “SNRI”, and “Tricylics”. If you look on the side effects labels of these drugs, many of them list DEPRESSION as a side effect of taking them. What this means is that, a small portion of people have a negative or adverse reaction to the drug. A negative reaction to a anti-depression medication could make you more depressed, more anxious, or cause a complete psychotic break.

Having been prescribed one of these drugs previously by a doctor, and knowing its effects, I found it likely this would be the commonality between the mass shootings. When I was on prozac, after the first 30 days when it finally starts to take affect, you can literally feel the relationships between you and fellow man wither away. You go into this mind-numbed state losing all apathy, and sensitivity for anything that should give you feeling. The best 4 word description of these drugs I could give is “Lack of real emotion”. I could see how these drugs could if not, cause the shooters to perform these action, then allow it to happen through dissolution of reality.

As it turns out, I wasn’t the first person to research this subject. Many others have done the same research, and have come to the conclusion that I presented as my hypothisis. Every one of these shooters I investigated were on some form of anti-depressent psychoactive substance.

In the next days, this shooting will be used as an excuse to call for the ban in guns, from various anti-gun movements. Reject this, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. People who are on psychotropic drugs kill people. Call for a ban on prescribing brain altering drugs to children, and adults like candy.

PARENTS STOP DOPING YOUR KIDS UP ON HARMFUL CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES

Omaha, Nebraska - December 5, 2007: 19-year-old Robert Hawkins killed eight people and wounded five before committing suicide in an Omaha mall. Hawkins’ friend told CNN that the gunman was on antidepressants, and autopsy results confirmed he was under the influence of the “anti-anxiety” drug Valium.

Jokela, Finland - November 7, 2007: 18-year-old Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School in southern Finland, then committed suicide.

Cleveland, Ohio - October 10, 2007: 14-year-old Asa Coon stormed through his school with a gun in each hand, shooting and wounding four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon had been placed on the antidepressant Trazadone.

Blacksburg, Virginia - April 16, 2007:  An investigation of the incident by Virginia Tech found Seung-Hui Cho had a prescription of Prozac.

Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota - March 21, 2005: 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, reportedly under the influence of the antidepressant Prozac, went on a shooting rampage at home and at his school, killing nine people and wounding five before committing suicide.

Greenbush, New York - February 2004: 16-year-old Jon Romano strolled into his high school in east Greenbush and opened fire with a shotgun. Special education teacher Michael Bennett was hit in the leg. Romano had been taking “medication for depression.”

El Cajon, California - March 22, 2001: 18-year-old Jason Hoffman was on two antidepressants, Effexor and Celexa, when he opened fire at his California high school wounding five. Hoffman had also undergone an “anger management” program.

Williamsport, Pennsylvania - March 7, 2000: 14-year-old Elizabeth Bush was on the antidepressant Prozac when she blasted away at fellow students in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, wounding one. Conyers, Georgia - May 20, 1999: 15-year-old T.J. Solomon was being treated with a mix of antidepressants when he opened fire on and wounded 6 of his classmates.

Columbine, Colorado - April 20, 1999: 18-year-old Eric Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox when he and his partner Dylan Klebold killed 12 classmates and a teacher and wounded 23 others before taking their own lives in the bloodiest school massacre in history. The coroner confirmed that the antidepressant was in his system through toxicology reports while Dylan Klebold’s autopsy was never made public. Harris and Klebold underwent “anger management” and “death education” classes.

Notus, Idaho - April 16, 1999: 15-year-old Shawn Cooper fired two shotgun rounds in his school narrowly missing students; he was taking a mix of antidepressants.

Springfield, Oregon - May 21, 1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel murdered his own parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 22. Kinkel had been on Prozac. Kinkel also underwent “anger management” classes.

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”

Read entire article

An Infowars reader has sent a page taken from the Hardeman County, Tennessee, Bulletin Times announcing a seat belt checkpoint to be conducted on April 4 “in conjunction with a Homeland Security training exercise by the 251st Military Police in Bolivar who recently returned from Iraq” (see a PDF version of the announcement here, on page two).

Although uniformed military personnel will be visible at the checkpoint, the military participation will be strictly observation. The military police uses checkpoints to disseminate information and ensure safe movement in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency.

A clipping taken from the Hardeman County, Tennessee, Bulletin Times announcing seat belt checkpoint to be conducted on April 4.

The operation in Tennessee is similar to one held last December in San Bernardino County, California, and reported by Branson Hunter of the Big Bear Observation Post blog and Infowars on December 14, 2008. The California operation was a collaboration between the California Highway Patrol and the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center. It did not include Homeland Security.

“Dispatching Marines on California highways is an obvious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878. The Act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services, including military police, from working with state and local police and law enforcement,” we reported in December. The seat belt checkpoint in Tennessee with the participation of military police is also a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

In response to an editorial critical of the operation in San Bernardino County broadcast by KCDZ-FM in Joshua Tree, California, the California Highway Patrol sent the radio station a fax indicating the action would not include military police. It was later reported that uniformed military police in marked military police vehicles teamed up with the California Highway Patrol in the town of Yucca Valley, California.

Gary Daigneault, News Director at KCDZ-FM, went on the Alex Jones Show on December 15 and said the CHP was less than forthcoming about their plans to set-up checkpoints. The California Highway Patrol is required to provide the location of its checkpoints to the media at least two hours prior. Although the CHP did provide the radio station with a telephone number to get this information, when the number was called there was no answer, Daigneault said in his radio editorial (listen to the editorial and view the faxes).

“It should be obvious the Marines and the California Highway Patrol are engaged in a disinformation campaign against the media in order to cover up their illegal and unconstitutional behavior,” we wrote on December 15. “Not only do they want to entrap the residents of San Bernardino County in their ’sobriety/driver license checkpoint’ in violation of the Fourth Amendment protecting the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, they also want to send a message that the military will henceforth be involved in domestic law enforcement in direct violation of Posse Comitatus.”

The collaboration between Homeland Security, the military, and local law enforcement in Tennessee sets a dangerous new precedent. In the case U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, the Supreme Court ruled that DHS checkpoints could be set up to search for illegal immigrants and smugglers and so long as the checkpoints and searches were brief and for that purpose only they could be done anywhere within 100 miles of a US border. It appears DHS is now moving beyond U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte and expanding operations beyond the 100 mile limit.

DHS will likely argue they are not conducting the checkpoints in Tennessee and are there only as monitors. However, this point will be lost on the victims of the checkpoints when they see uniformed military police and DHS personnel.

In California, the attention of the media put the CHP and the Marines on the defensive. Last month, the coverage of the MIAC documents in Missouri by Alex Jones resulted in wide coverage of the issue in the corporate media. In response to the attention, the Missouri State Police and the governor of the state were obliged to repudiate the document and order an investigation into the Missouri Information Analysis Center’s practice of designating followers of political candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia” terrorists.

Attention placed on the operation in Tennessee will produce similar results.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
April 2, 2009

Felipe Calderón gave the Queen of England a Maque tray from Michoacan. The Queen gave Calderón a collector’s edition of George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Calderón received the book as he bowed and scraped at Buckingham Palace.

Felipe Calderón meets with the Queen.

On its face, the gift presented to Calderón seems rather strange. But when you think about it, not really. In the novel, Oceania has a strict social class arrangement with the Inner Party at the top (2% of the population represented by Big Brother), the Outer Party of bureaucrats in the middle, and a large number of Proles at the bottom. The Inner Party believes the Proles are inferior and expendable and strives to make certain they live in misery, not unlike the average Mexican who lives under grinding poverty while a small predatory and parasitical class represented by Calderón steals the country’s wealth.

The elected president of Mexico is Andrés Manuel López Obrador, but Mexico’s elite rigged the election in 2006 and installed the “free market” — that is to say, the globalist and bankster tool — Felipe Calderón.

Mexico has rather obvious and obnoxious social classes based along racial lines. Most of the country is mestizo (of mixed European and native ancestry) while the ruling elite is white. It is not uncommon for the elite to harbor racist attitudes bordering on white supremacy.

Felipe Calderón is careful not to display racist attitudes. Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh, does not share this aversion. He has made numerous racist, sexist and xenophobic comments in public and seems to revel in telling “jokes” about the lower classes (see Top 15 Quotes of Prince Philip).

Skin color is foremost in the minds of the royals. The BBC bent over backward to excuse Prince Charles for his racism. The Prince of Wales is fond of calling an Asian polo club member “Sooty.” Kolin Dhillon, the club member, told the BBC he likes “being called Sooty by my friends who I am sure universally use the name as a term of affection with no offense meant or felt.”

	The Duke and Duchess of Windsor meet Adolf Hitler in 1937.

But of equal import is the fact the royals are unabashed Nazi sympathizers. It’s not simply Prince Harry’s penchant for wearing Nazi uniforms — he wore the uniform at a friend’s birthday party in Wiltshire, which had the tell-tale dress theme “colonial and native” in 2005 — but royal family has a sordid history of royal support for Nazis as well.

King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor after abdicating in 1936, was sympathetic towards Hitler. In 1970 he told one interviewer: “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.” The duke and his wife, Wallis Simpson, had visited Germany in 1937 and were taken to meet the Führer.

Edward’s abdication led to Queen Elizabeth II’s ascension to the throne in 1952. It is said her second cousin, Prince Philip, whom she married, had siblings with connections to the Nazis. Philip was trained in the Hitler Youth. “Not only was he trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, but his German brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party,” writes Scott Thompson in The American Almanac. Philip’s belief in population control and eugenics is like a page right out the Nazi playbook.

“Other royals also had links to the Nazis,” writes Richard Woods for the Sunday Times. “Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, the father of Princess Michael of Kent, was a party member and an honorary member of the SS. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a Nazi who said that Hitler had done a ‘wonderful job.’”

“Three of Philip’s brothers-in-law were part of a group of German aristocrats who were Anglophile and pro-Nazi at the same time, and who remain a subversive force in Germany to this day,” Thompson adds.

It’s no secret the British monarchy, and the City of London’s leading Crown bankers, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled the Führer’s election, and did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine.

Considering the historical record — dutifully ignored by the corporate media as Obama bows and scrapes before the Queen and her pro-Nazi and racist husband — the Queen’s gift to Felipe Calderón may be inappropriate.

She should have gifted him with a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
April 2, 2009

According to Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon, the Euro was helped created by the Bilderberg Group in the 1990’s. He admitted this in an interview to the EUobserver online newspaper on March 16 2009.

While talking about his expectations of the EU-summit on March 19 and the G20-meeting in London two weeks later, he comments:

Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon

‘These two meeting are going to be important because of what (the media) will say- is it a lot of jaw-jaw and everything will get worse? Or maybe it’s the beginning of a realisation that the world will no longer be the same and we are going to do something about it.’

After this he brings the annual Bilderberg-meetings into the conversation, saying something that was considered a ‘conspiracy theory’ for the past couple of decades, but is now confirmed by none other than the current chairman of the secretive group. Here is the actual quote from the article:

‘A meeting in June in Europe of the Bilderberg Group- an informal club of leading politicians, businessmen and thinkers chaired by Mr. Davignon- could also ‘improve understanding’ on future action, in the same way it helped create the Euro in the 1990s, he said.’

The article concludes with Davignon’s assessment that:

‘People understand confusedly that there is a change (in the air). (…). But no government will satisfy the reactions of the people. They have the greatest reticence and cynicism against everybody who holds responsibility.’