!~ Free Your Mind People - FREE... YOUR... MIND ~!

Source: http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/151106Nuzzling.htm

(Please go to the main link above to see Images, mainstream news links
and images within the Live Article... Thanks!)

(IMAGE)

The "Nuzzling" Terror Cell
Couple face 20 years behind bars for "kissing and cuddling" on a plane
as airline insanity flies to new heights

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The Insanity of Homeland Security enforced airline security measures
reached a new high today as two American citizens were charged with
violating the Patriot Act for "sexual play" on a Southwest Airlines
flight from Los Angeles.

Just when you thought it was safe to get back on a plane, just when you
thought it may be possible to fly without fear of hijacking by liquid
explosive baby milk wielding psychopath Islamofascists bent on
destroying 400 airliners all at once thus igniting atmospheric gasses
and triggering mass armageddon all over the planet, you were wrong.

You were wrong because now we must face the threat of the "nuzzling"
terrorists.

Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell, a couple in their early forties, were
observed nuzzling or kissing each other on the neck, and allegedly
engaging in more adult sexual acts. "During these actions, Sewell was
observed smiling," reads the indictment filed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.

OH NO NOT "SMILING" AS WELL, HOW COULD THEY?

In all seriousness however, this may at first seem like an isolated
incident, sadly it is not, it is the latest in an unending series of
examples of ludicrous airport and airline incidents that indicate the
extent to which freedom of movement is under attack. It is also the
latest example in a long history of the use of the Patriot Act against
lawful American citizens.

Persing and Sewell are facing up to twenty years in prison for violating
legislation that, although unlawfully passed, is supposed to be for use
against those who commit or intend to commit terrorist acts.

Today also saw a 65-year-old Australian man fined S$10,000 ($6,423),
under the United Nations anti-terrorism regulations, by a Singapore
court for uttering the word "bomb" on a flight to Indonesia.

He was lucky he wasn't gunned down like the incident in Miami where
Rigoberto Alpizar was shot on board American Airlines Flight 924 for
"saying he had a bomb".

Previous mind boggling airport and airline incidents include:

-- A Wisconsin man who wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag
containing toiletries was detained in September.

-- An 83-year-old wheelchair bound breast cancer, broken hip from a fall
and stroke victim was manhandled and treated to extra screening at At
Denver International Airport, in April

-- Harraj Mann was reported to the British airport police for listening
to a Clash record in a taxi on the way to the airport. The weasel driver
was so frightened by some of the lyrics that he took them as a rallying
call for a terrorist attack.

-- A man was arrested in Portland airport in december 2002 for becoming
angry when security groped his pregnant wife and ordered her to strip in
front of hundreds of other passengers.

-- Passengers on a flight returning from Malaga Spain complained about
two Asian men who they thought were potential suicide hijackers. The
evidence? They were Asian! To the astonishment of the students they were
marched off the plane at gun point before it took off.

-- On August 14th a British Airways flight bound for New York was
diverted back to Heathrow Airport because a mobile phone rang at the
rear of the plane and its owner was not to be found.

In August of this year we saw the mother of all fake terror alerts used
to beta test a system of total tyrannical control within airports where
mothers carrying baby milk as well as gel bra wearers, lip gloss users,
people who wear coats and children who carry dolls were treated as
possible terrorists.



(IMAGE)



Several incidents have occurred where people who rely on medication have
become ill or even fallen into comas because airport staff have refused
to let them take medicines on board.

While a couple of weeks before a tabloid reporter had "planted a bomb"
on a nuclear waste train by just walking onto it, the British and
American public were being ordered around, background checked, screened
and analyzed in any airport they entered.

Similarly, test runs where terrorists smuggle dummy nuclear bombs across
the US border without being apprehended were successfully conducted by
Glenn Spencer's American Border Patrol on three separate occasions.
Airports and the general public, however, remain the focus of beefed up
security measures.

Immediately after the very dubious plot details broke the British
Government again attempted to ram though draconian detainee legislation,
only to face a fierce backlash from the public who were sick and tired
of being treated like mindless fools that believe anything they are told
by their leaders.

Airline companies too have viscously attacked the government, this week
it was revealed that BA's "terror alert" bill has hit 100 million
pounds.

It is now clear that anything anyone does in an airport or on a plane,
including talking and kissing, is being categorized as possible
terrorism. This is an excuse to implement the first stage of an agenda
to create a two tier caste system whereby only government authorized
citizens will be able to travel and everyone will be subject to intense
airport style harassment on city streets.

Such idiotic excuses are being used everyday to cram our lives with
escalating security measures, biometric and body scans, lie detector
tests, behavior analysis, facial analysis and spot teams to spy on
passengers. We are being acclimatized to these things, first within
airports. Technology and measures that you don't even see used in
prisons or high security facilities are being passed off as completely
normal in airports.

Every indication suggests that there are moves afoot to implement these
measures and methods into everyday life. A year ago we were told that
Federal air marshals were to expand their work beyond airplanes,
launching counterterror surveillance at train stations and other mass
transit facilities. So called "Visible Intermodal Protection and
Response" teams — or VIPER teams, may soon be permanently implemented on
everyday transport facilities.



(IMAGE)



With no real threat to counter such teams will busy themselves busting
people selling tokens and herding people around like cattle in 'shock
and awe' programs, whatever the hell that term is supposed to mean now,
prodding them through transit scanners.

We are told that an attack on transit systems with in the US is
inevitable, In Canada record levels of funding are now being poured into
transit security to develop new surveillance networks, including
cameras; develop risk assessments and security plans, and hire staff. Of
course this is necessary because despite the moves to totally crank up
security on transit systems, Al Qaeda has them as their main targets.

The airports are merely a beta test for the exact same measures to be
rolled out in major cities, where regular checkpoint officials inspect
internal passports and consumers are body scanned to enter a supermarket
or any kind of public event as spy drones swoop overhead to catalogue
movement and alert authorities to any suspicious body language (remember
Poindexter's gait analysis?).

The majority of what I outlined is already being implemented at major
transport and police hubs in the US and Britain. When the technology to
automate these measures is more widely used, its cost will drop and in
turn spread like wildfire outside of the major cities and into local
communities - unless we scream bloody murder and stop it before it makes
it out of the airport terminal and onto our street corners and we all
end up being categorized as suspects along with the "nuzzling
terrorists".

Sup mick from Canada... Welcome!

Source:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5432985120114407979&q=john+conner+visits+san+diego&hl=en

(Go to main link above to see the Video Clip...Thanks!)

Related: http://www.TheResistanceManifesto.com

Related: (Free Version Online) - Loose Change 2nd Edition -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change

Related: (Free Version) -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&sourceid=zeitgeist
- Terrostorm - The History of Government Sponsored Terror... - ( As sold
on Amazon.com -
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorstorm-History-Government-Sponsored-Terrorism/dp/B000HRJLM4/sr=8-1/qid=1162237325?ie=UTF8&tag2=infowars-20
)

Note: If online videos don't play at first... Please keep trying.
Eventually they will play or check back later for viewing.

About Video: John Conner visits San Diego State University (SDSU) and
crashes a BIO 100 Lecture to spread some 9/11 truth and gave away free
dvds of Loose Change 2nd Edition a Must See!!

Sooooo... do any of YOU want your own Global ID card?

Most likely to me in the Real World. I call this your own Slave
ID/United Nations Global ID Card.

I know I'm not going to accept this card for my safety or security.
Because in giving up my rights and liberties. I recieve NEITHER but
total Privacy lost in a High-Tech Surveilled Society.

Our whole world is becoming a Global Prison Grid....

A classic ^_^

Source:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=a93ec036-ff8c-4346-a559-97bc33de72f0&k=45732

Related: Real ID/National ID Card -
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/realid/

Related: Big Brother Archive -
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_big_brother.html


Controversial ID cards have support of 53 per cent of Canadians: Study

Gregory Bonnell
Canadian Press
Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The controversial idea of Canadians carrying a national identification
card that bears their personal information has the support of more than
half the country, a new study of public attitudes towards privacy
suggests.

The cards - strongly opposed by privacy commissioners and civil
libertarians despite calls for their use in the wake of the 9-11 terror
attacks - are considered a good idea by 53 per cent of Canadians,
according to a study released Monday by Queen's University.

Still, 48 per cent of the study's 1,001 Canadian respondents expressed
concern that post-9-11 laws aimed at protecting national security are
too intrusive - exposing a Canadian public "polarized" on issues of
privacy, said one of the researchers behind the study.

"It's a hotbed topic," said Linda Harling-Stalker, a post-doctoral
fellow at Queen's.

"The thing that we're really pointing out is the connection to
anti-terrorism laws as it relates to your sense of a breach of personal
information."

The study, which looked at how 9,000 people in eight countries view
surveillance and privacy, found Americans even more wary of post-9-11
legislation than Canadians.

The margin of error for the Canadian respondents portion of the study
was plus or minus 3.1 per cent.

While 48 per cent of respondents in Canada felt such laws intrude on
their privacy, that number rose to 57 per cent in the United States.

Although the United States is working on an ID card, only 44 per cent of
Americans agreed with the idea.

The global move toward ID cards makes the argument against them moot,
said Denis Coderre, the former immigration minister who spearheaded the
campaign to bring them to Canada.

"You have over 176 countries right now with a national ID card," said
Coderre, who called the Conservative government "short-sighted" for
suggesting an ID card program would be too expensive.

"The government won't have any choice, because at the end of the day it
will be imposed by international standards."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said the ID cards are not an option
his government is leaning toward.

In 2003, Coderre proposed a plastic card that would contain not only
personal data but also biometric information - such as fingerprints or
retina scans.

"It's more than the technology," said Coderre.

"There's a social conscience that should be attached to it. ... We don't
want to create a (police state)."

The government agency issuing the cards would also become a central
repository for the personal information contained on them. That has
raised concerns from privacy commissioners and constitutional lawyers.

"It's a bad idea because we don't know exactly what will happen to the
information that's contained on the card," said lawyer Morris Manning,
who made submissions in 2003 to a Commons committee studying the issue.

"We have no assurance that the card itself will be used in a limited
fashion, and that the information that's stored cannot be accessed by
those whom we don't want to have access to it."

Some Canadians appear to share that concern.

While 53 per cent either "strongly" or "somewhat" agreed with the idea
of an ID card, only 43 per cent said they were confident Ottawa would be
able to safeguard the information from privacy abuses.

Overall, less than half of Canadians said they trusted the federal
government with their personal information, with the Americans at 38 per
cent.

Brazilians proved especially suspect, with only 20 per cent saying they
trust the government with their information.

By contrast, 63 per cent of Chinese respondents said they trusted their
government.

Earlier this month, a study released by the London-based Privacy
International ranked Germany and Canada the best defenders of privacy.

The Queen's University study, which asked questions on a number of
privacy-related issues, also found that two-thirds of Canadian
respondents were worried about providing personal information on
websites.

Also, 58 per cent of Canadians rejected racial profiling at airports for
security purposes while 48 per cent of Americans raised the same
objection.

Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35682

Your Smart Phone's data belong us, says US

Danger from US customs checkpoints

Tony Dennis:
Inquirer
Monday, November 13, 2006

US CITIZENS face the danger of their smartphones being confiscated ad
infinitum according to a report in the New York Times.

This report revealed that laptop computers are currently seized on a
completely ad hoc basis from US citizens on re-entry to the US without
"probably cause, reasonable suspicion or warrant."

The whole thrust of the article illustrates how members of an industry
body, the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, have and
potentially can have, their laptops taken without even the remotest
excuse by US government agencies.

And one female member told the NYT that had she been waiting for at
least a year to get her laptop back.

One of the problems is that no-one has yet to legally challenge what the
US government can or cannot do with the information it acquires as the
result of such confiscations.

In one instance, the victim in question had been found to be harbouring
instances of child pornography.

There's a grave danger, however, that US customs officials will soon
realise that devices such as wireless PDAs and top end smartphones have
the potential to store as much illicit data as a laptop.

So US citizens face the prospect of their mobile phones not making it
past baggage check. It's a daunting prospect.

Source:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/cheney_next_on_chopping_block.htm

Cheney Next on the Chopping Block?

Wayne Madsen | November 13, 2006 - http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

According to Washington insiders, there are moves afoot to dump Vice
President Dick Cheney and replace him with either John McCain or Rudolph
Giuliani prior to the 2008 presidential election. Whoever succeeds
Cheney will be able to campaign for the presidency with the perks that
come with being an incumbent Vice President.

Since the increasingly-besieged Cheney has signaled he has no intention
of voluntarily stepping down, the strategy by the Bush camp may be to
force him out by presenting evidence before Special Counsel Patrick
Fitzgerald that it was Cheney who was responsible for the compromise of
CIA non-proliferation covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her
Brewster Jennings & Associates cover firm.

Observers note the unusual professional relationship between Fitzgerald
and Karl Rove's defense attorney Robert Luskin. Insiders believe that
Fitzgerald may be proffered a carefully crafted deal by Luskin whereby
Rove will testify to Cheney's primary role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson
and her firm. The sealed indictment of Rove will then be retired
permanently. If such a deal is worked out, Fitzgerald may then offer a
deal to Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former Chief of Staff, to
also testify against Cheney. With such double-barreled testimony,
President Bush will then be compelled to ask Cheney for his resignation
or face a very nasty and public indictment.

The game plan appears to be what DC insider Sally Quinn foresaw in her
Washington Post op-ed last month, an article that suggested she has
spoken extensively to a Donald Rumsfeld who was aware of his impending
firing. The op-ed stated that Rumsfeld would not be the scapegoat for
Iraq and planned to resign shortly after the election. Quinn, seemingly
channeling Rumsfeld, stated that after Rumsfeld left, there will be only
two scapegoats left: Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. The article
concluded by asking which person would be served up as the official
scapegoat for Iraq.

This editor wrote, "based on the arrival of James Baker and a coterie of
George H. W. Bush old hands on the scene to bail out Dubya, it is clear
that the Bush family does not intend to allow one of its own to be
declared scapegoat."

With word from White House sources that Cheney was opposed to the
sacking of his old mentor Rumsfeld and even more resistant to the naming
of Bush family loyalist Robert Gates to take his place, it is clear that
Cheney doesnot want to be placed in a position of exposure. However,
even Cheney neo-con allies like Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, sensing
that Cheney is the designated scapegoat, have bellowed about the Iraq
war being a mistake and are now distancing themselves from the Cheney
group, once the most powerful operating cell within the Bush
administration.

Source: http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/131106RonPaul.htm

(Please go to main link above to see live article with images,
documentation and mainstream news source links within article...Thanks!)


(IMAGE)


Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books"

Texas Representative urges repeal of neo-fascist laws in America before
it is too late

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, November 13, 2006

Re-elected Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul joined Alex Jones on
air last week to discuss the fallout of the midterm elections and what
he sees transpiring over the next two years. He ended by ominously
warning that if something is not done soon to overturn legislation such
as the Military Commissions act, the law officially allows for citizen
concentration camp facilities.

Beginning with the positives to come out of the election, Ron Paul
stressed that it has provided an important indication to the rest of the
world that the people of America are unhappy with the usurpers that have
seized control of their government and are trying to initiate change.
The Congressman was quick to point out that this may not be carried into
policy however:

"Not a whole lot will change because the leadership on the Democratic
side, even if they had their way, don't have a different foreign policy.
They have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy in the
middle east, and they are not about to back away from that... They are
willing to criticize the policy but only as a means to get power."

As we have seen over the past week, leading Democrats are all towing the
party line, unreservedly dismissing any notion of the possibility of
impeaching the President over Iraq.

The Congressman also stated that monetary policy will stay the same,
which can only mean bad news for the American economy.

" They all believe in the federal reserve, they are not going to get rid
of the IRS and the income tax. I think the dollar is going to keep
sliding, which means prices are going to rise, when currencies self
destruct, the end goes quickly. There are no signs that there is
anything being done in Washington to correct the problem. Spending is
going to continue and probably going to get worse, the deficits are
going to stay high if foreign policy is not going to change."

The Congressman agreed that the elite globalists within the US
government may not care about this too much because it means they can
blow out the economy and then come back and buy it up very cheaply.
These Internationalists care not about preserving and protecting
American sovereignty when there is a quick buck to be made.

"That's also part of the foreign policy to be in position to hold onto
natural resources, that's one of the major reasons why we're in the
middle east, so yes if there is a financial crisis, they're going to
have the guns, and they have control of the natural resources... It's
not a good scenario, because what usually happens when you wipe out a
currency is that you wipe out the middle class, and we already see this
happening. The standard of living is going down." Paul asserted.


(IMAGE)


Ron Paul's comments echo those of Former World Bank Vice President,
Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who two weeks
ago predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the
current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was
being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no," and also
drew ominous parallels to the development of the NAFTA Superhighway and
the North American Union.

What real Conservatism there was left in the House, to block such moves,
as well as Bush's amnesty program for illegals, is gone. With Pelosi at
the helm Ron Paul sees it as a forgone conclusion that such policies
will sail through.

"I think that's right, although I complain about the two parties being
exactly alike, I would say on this amnesty issue and what's happened
with the election, there probably was a difference between the two. It
is more likely with the Democrats in charge, and Judiciary and the other
major committees, and with the President not really fighting for our
national borders, he's always argued for some type of worker program,
yes I think there's a much greater danger that that is going to be
coming in the next session."

Commenting on strategies to defeat the North American Union, the
Congressman urged a continuance of educating people on the real issues
and reaching more and more Americans who care about preserving their
national sovereignty:

"You have to keep doing what you are doing, you are reaching a lot of
people, and they have to get to their members of congress, and in many
ways the current House has been pretty good with this. With the new
House we don't know exactly what is going to happen, but I had something
very encouraging come to my attention just this week. I had a call from
a young lady that won in Kansas as a Democrat, and in her literature she
put my whole article on the NAFTA super corridor in there... She is not
going to vote with Nancy Pelosi."


(IMAGE)


Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Congressman spoke on the
issue of going about demanding a repeal of freedom crushing legislation
such as the Patriot act and the Military Commissions act and the Defense
Authorization Act which essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus.

"We might have to hope that our Supreme Court helps us out a little. The
Court has been better than the executive branch and a heck of a lot
better than the Congress, because we've given the President everything
he's asked for and the President has been begging for all this
authority, so immediately we have to hope that the courts will save us
on some of these things. But once again ultimately its only when the
people wake up and say they don't like this... sometimes the people wake
up to late. Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you
have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration
camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that
there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you
up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now
part of the books, part of the law."

Take Ron Paul's suggestion up and contact your new or re-elected members
and demand a move to repeal legislation paving the way for fascist
government control in America today.

Yeah... This place where all hell can break loose in a split second.

There's drama here everyday and night. Enjoy your stay!!

I knew they we're a bunch of PuSSiEs... =^_^= meooowww.... LmAo

Trust me muh dear...

There are MANY of such people here... Patience ^_^

... And welcome!!

Woah 0_o I was eating popcorn when I saw this post. Now my popcorn
bucket is on the ground & popcorn everywhere.

Who cares what who thinks what about somebody?? If someone understands
you and is a good friend or what not. Then that's all there is.

Don't think about what others think of you. I for one don't judge and
wouldn't give a dam of what others think of me for that matter. I'm
going to live my life regardless and my life is mine to live and to
adventure.

But I'm happy you found your soulmate. Goodluck for the both of you and
be happy in life is all that counts ^_^

Always remember that, you don't need the approval of others nor to prove
yourself to others. Just be yourself regardless of what others think or
say!

I like burritos to. To bad I never had Taco Bell's yet.
Unfortunately, I cannot eat to many tacos for they give me poisonous bum
gas and would kill the nose of those close by X_X ha ha ha.

She sounds crazy psycho to me.

Trust me from experience... EMOTIONALLY MOVE ON while you still can and
let her be man.

Find a woman who will treat you right. Don't stick to an unhealthy
scenario such as this. Just Move On man!!

There's plenty of lady fish in the sea and soon. ONE you will catch will
be that special one who will love ya for life! ^_^

Go out and have a great time it's saturday man. Get those spirits hoppy
hop and flirt with some hot looking women in your area and you will
forget all about the crap you go threw now.

She moved on... NOW YOUUUU... move on with your life and find somebody
else who will treat you like gold bra.

The Chiz Man!!

Source: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52882

Truckers call for boycott of foreign-owned road
Union opposes tollway, Trans-Texas Corridor, Mexican drivers

-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted: November 10, 2006

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Truckers are being called on to boycott a decision by Indiana to lease a
highway to foreign investment groups.

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, OOIDA, has called for truckers to bypass the
Indiana Toll Road, which has been leased to a consortium composed of
Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transport, S.A., a Spanish
investment consortium with ties to Juan Carlos and the ruling family of
Spain, and the Australian investment firm Macquarie Infrastructure
Group.

In an article on the OOIDA website, Spencer argues, "This is a way to
send the message that as more and more roads are converted to toll roads
the secondary highways get more and more of the traffic. If that's the
life they want to live, they ought to be willing to embrace it right
now."

Spencer told WND the OOIDA is strongly opposed to converting U.S.
freeways to toll roads owned by foreign entities. The group's opposition
includes the Trans-Texas Corridor, the four-football-field-wide NAFTA
Superhighway parallel to Interstate-35 which Texas Gov. Rick Perry plans
to begin next year.

"The Bush administration is bending over backwards to accommodate
Mexican trucks coming into the United States," Spencer said. "The whole
goal is to get the absolute lowest cost of transportation, without
worrying about important safety and security issues using Mexican trucks
and Mexican truck drivers creates."

Spencer believes one of those security issues is terrorism.

"Worldwide trucks are the weapons of choice of terrorists," he
emphasized.

The Bush administration, Spencer contends, is not taking seriously
enough the risk of opening the U.S. to Mexican trucks.

"Who's going to check to see what's really in that truck? Nobody is
going to check. That's the problem," he said.

Responding to the Kansas City SmartPort plan to establish a Mexican
customs office in Kansas City, Spencer said: "We evidently have a lot of
people in the U.S. who have lost their minds."

Spencer stressed that once a Mexican truck crosses the border, there is
no real way to control where that truck ultimately goes.

"Just because you have a Trans-Texas Corridor and a Mexican customs
office in Kansas City doesn't mean Mexican trucks have to stay on this
route," he explained. "There won't be anything meaningful to stop a
Mexican truck from going wherever the driver wants, once the truck is
across the border."

When asked about enforcing a 20-mile commercial zone limiting where
Mexican trucks can go in the U.S., Spencer was dismissive.

"There's never been any 20-mile commercial zone in Texas that the Texas
Department of Public Safety enforces," he said. "Once a truck clears the
Mexican border with Texas, that truck is free to go wherever the driver
wants to go in Texas. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Inspector
General's office has conducted numerous investigations which show that
Mexican trucks go right on from Texas to other states throughout the
U.S.

Spencer stressed that U.S. law enforcement will have no way to enforce
U.S. law for Mexican trucks or drivers.

"In Mexico, there's no computer system at all to track commercial
drivers," he noted. "If a Mexican commercial driver's license is
suspended, there's no way to track it, here or in Mexico."

Spencer pointed out Mexico does not have the same medical requirements
for getting a commercial driver's license.

"There are no hours-in-service regulations for commercial drivers in
Mexico," he stressed. "There are no drug-testing regulations in Mexico.

The U.S. government says Mexican drivers crossing into the U.S. will
have to comply with regulations, but Spencer believes the demand is not
practical without a system in place with Mexico to verify enforcement.

"Who is going to do a background check on a Mexican driver?" Spencer
asked. "All the Bush administration cares about is working with the
international business owners who want the cheapest cost of truck
drivers possible."

Spencer believes the tolls planned for the Trans-Texas Corridor amount
to a new tax.

"The toll that the Texas Department of Transportation has been
suggesting for a truck is 40 cents a mile," Spencer notes. "This is the
equivalent of about $2.40 in new fuel taxes. What happened to free-ways?
That was the whole point of the interstate highway system. Motorists
were to get the benefit of freeways, not new toll roads."

The TTC toll for an automobile will be just over one-quarter of the
truck tolls.

"These are tremendous new costs, and the toll revenue will be going to
Spain," Spencer said. "The end result will be a drag on the U.S. economy
with further damage done to the middle class."

Spencer agrees the Texas Department of Transportation will try to entice
trucks to use the TTC by establishing high speed limits, maybe as high
as 75 or 80 miles per hour. But he cautioned the state's DOT would force
traffic onto the TTC once the highway is built.

He points to the "no compete" clause in the Cintra contract, barring the
Texas DOT from making significant upgrades to parallel routes.

"You better believe that highway users will be forced to use the TTC
toll roads even if Texas has to close down lanes on existing highways,"
Spencer said.

He stressed that the only winners to the TTC would be the "investment
bankers who get fees up front, just like the politicians get their
campaign contributions first, before any toll road is built."

Who will be the losers? The U.S. taxpayer, Spencer contends.

"The Mexican truck drivers will not be paying U.S. income or Social
Security taxes, and Mexican trucks won't generally pay U.S. road taxes
that U.S. truck drivers pay," he points out.

Spencer said his union sees the TTC as a one-way street.

"Don't expect American drivers will ever want to operate south of the
border," he said. "Mexican law still currently prohibits American trucks
from entering Mexico. No U.S. trucking company has suggested a desire to
send U.S. trucks or drivers into Mexico."

The OOIDA currently has 145,000 members from all 50 states.
Owner-operators in the trucking industry are independent small business
people who own, maintain and drive commercial trucks they generally own.
OOIDA members are typically small business truckers defined as companies
operating six or fewer trucks, a segment that comprises close to 90
percent of the motor carrier industry.

Source:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/101106criticalissue.htm

(Please go to main source link above to see images, mainstream news
article links within actual live article..thanks!)


(IMAGE)


9/11 Truth Remains The Critical Issue

Democrat leadership treacherously joins forces with Neo-Cons to take
wind out of sails, massive effort to keep 9/11 truth at the forefront of
public thinking needs to be re-doubled

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Friday, November 10, 2006

9/11 truth is the make or break issue that will define freedom in
America for future generations. The steam-valve effect that the election
of the co-opted Democratic leadership which has already capitulated to
Bush has had on some areas of the 9/11truth movement is extremely
dangerous. We need to re-double our efforts to expose the 9/11 inside
job!

Our previous article, 9/11 Truth Is Dying Inside the Liberal and
Progressive Movements While Exploding World-Wide, provoked a firestorm
of reaction overnight, most of it positive, some negative, and some that
completely missed the crux of what we were trying to say.

Unlike the claims of previous 9/11 leaders who declared the movement to
be dead and jumped ship, we stress that 9/11 truth remains the central
and core issue of our efforts to apply the defibrillator paddles to
America and try and shock her back to life.

9/11 is not a dead letter issue, it will never be a dead letter issue
and just because the establishment changed its bird cage lining doesn't
mean we can switch off, go to sleep, and expect the Democrats to fight
our corner for us. It's not going to happen.

9/11 is the issue that will never die but Democrats have already openly
announced their intentions to capitulate to Bush and join forces with
Bush and the Neo-Cons - out of the gates both Pelosi and Dean have made
it clear that no impeachment proceedings will take place. No new 9/11
investigation and no inquiry into Iraq. The majority of Americans want
to see impeachment proceedings begin but the Democrat shills have
pledged to scupper any efforts to even investigate the high crimes and
misdemeanours of the Bush crime syndicate. An MSNBC poll today shows
that 86% want impeachment.

It's analogous to a fire starting in our home, we call the fire
department (the Democrats), they show up and instead of putting out the
fire they start barbecuing hot dogs on skewers. They have already sworn
to protect the Bush crime family and its associated gaggle of villains
from any form of criminal proceedings. How is this in any form a step
forward in getting justice for the victims of 9/11?

9/11 truth has just reached critical mass awakening, the vast majority
of Americans don't believe the official story, and it cannot be allowed
to die as a result of the naive apathy of trusting the treacherous
Democrat leadership.

We simply cannot allow the movement to lose momentum just because the
tires have been changed on the juggernaut of the one party system. The
fire of 9/11 truth is dying down, we just need to add more wood to the
fire!

We cannot let the enemy snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

The dictatorial martial law powers that Bush has put in place must
immediately be repealed and the criminals responsible for Iraq and 9/11
investigated for treason, otherwise the same gang of crooks will simply
orbit back into power in 15 years like the Iran-Contra crowd, and we'll
still be left with the architecture of fascism to be exploited by a
Hillary Clinton or a John McCain in 2008.

To put it bluntly, since Tuesday we have noticed the wind being taken
out of the sails of 9/11 truth - and we are pissed off about it.

Government sponsored terror is the zeitgeist of how populations are
enslaved throughout history and it remains the critical issue.

This is a rallying call to the troops, to not let 9/11 truth wither away
on the vine and die just because the establishment decided to play Team
B. Furthermore, hold the Democrats responsible in equal measure to the
Neo-Cons. If you know a murder has been committed and you give safe
passage to the perpetrators are you not also committing a crime?

Here's a sample of the negative comments we received and our response to
them.

"I'm sorry, but posting crap NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME is useless. It's
the sign of a parasite. No matter what happens it will be torn down.
Would they really be happier with a necon win? What would that entail? A
bloodbath. Maybe it's time to stop spinning chicken little tales and
start looking at reality and what is POSSIBLE. Personally, I've had
enough fucking pointing out of the obvious problems and am waiting for
some fucking solutions."

This individual has settled for the "lesser of two evils" and attacks us
for not offering solutions. We have clearly outlined our solutions -
lobby the co-opted Democrat leadership for repeal, investigation and
impeachment - or hold them responsible as collaborators. This individual
calls for solutions yet their solution is seemingly to let Democrats run
defense for the Neo-Con crooks. Will Democrats prevent a "bloodbath"?
Nancy Pelosi has vehemently expressed her support for the war on terror
and John Kerry based his 2004 election campaign around hyping a war with
Iran. Hillary Clinton, who is now likely to be the next President, fully
supports the war in Iraq. Do these Democrat kingpins have any motivation
to prevent further bloodshed?

"You should be at least grateful the Dems want to implement the
suggestions of the 9-11 commission, something the neocons refused to do.
Besides, these people haven't even taken office yet. Added to that, do
something productive with your 9-11 paranoia."

The 9/11 Commission was staffed by insider apologists Kean, Zelikow, and
Hamilton who went to great lengths to cover-up the most important 9/11
issues and refused to include anything in their final report which even
hinted at complicity. They also refused to take NORAD to task for lying
to them under oath until over a year later. The suggestions of the 9/11
Commission would have beefed up Bush's police state to a whole new level
so the fact that "the Dems want to implement the suggestions of the 9-11
commission," is more reason to distance ourselves from the Dems.

"OMG, you people... Leave something to be desired. 2 weeks ago it was
all about the neocons and 9-11. Now you have it twisted to the Democrats
and 9-11. What is it? Who is it? Who should be resposable? It sounds
like your confused about your own theory. So basicly, whoever is in
charge, you are going to somehow blame them and expect them to be
resposable for 911, even if these people we not even in power on 911.
Well, that sounds paranoid. You can only have it one way. What the hell
is up with you people. The whole time the Bush regime was in power you
begged for change. Now you have it, but your still complaining.

We have change? Pelosi and Dean have totally capitulated and promised to
protect Bush from any investigation and you call that change? Pelosi has
painstakingly kissed-up to Bush and agreed to work with him on the mass
amnesty program for illegal aliens - is that change? It's not about the
Neo-Cons and 9/11, it's not about the Democrats and 9/11 - it's about
9/11 - and any individuals that seek to sabotage bringing the
perpetrators of 9/11 to justice, whether they be Republican or Democrat,
shall be held responsible.

Here are comments from level-headed people who understood the message we
were trying to put across.

"I don't think the title of the article should be considered premature
melancholy, rather, its Alex's way of slapping our faces and keeping us
focused in the wake of a small victory in a huge battle. Keep
attacking!"

"It is true, the challenge is greater, the article is correct to convey
a sense of urgency. The danger now is that, as the truth about 9/11
emerges into the mainstream, those that are responsible for it are
moving into the distance and using their many disguises to throw off the
scent."

"You know there is something very, very wrong when the big winners of an
election (Pelosi, Dean & the Democrats) are the ones making the promises
& concessions!!!"

"Pelosi's lost the plot! Her declaration may fit the bill for the Dem's
platform of Corporate cowardice, but it won't wash against a tidal storm
of 9/11TRIAL! -reminders. Freeway bloggers, let's go! Redoubling our
efforts is clearly in order, and that call is resounding throughout the
politically savvy web-community."

"You just don't seem to get it yet! There is only one party, and it's
called the Demopublican Party. They take turns taking the hits and
appearing to oppose each other so they can stay in power."

"You are absolutely correct. Without investigation and punishment, mark
my words, history WILL repeat itself. To forgive corruption is to reward
corruption. Pedophilia, bribery and money laundering are pinpricks next
to the bloodbath of this illegal war. We have punished the Duke, Ney,
Foley, Abramoff and other bit players. The fascist warmongers
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands must be punished
proportionately. Now."

"The bottom line is that the people that are falling for this latest dog
and pony show were never truth movement members. This latest Democratic
"win" will only serve to slow things down. The "sleeping giant," as Alex
calls it, will continue to awake slowly, just as it always has."

"Absolutely dead on target. Today I witnessed many friends who were just
beginning to wake up suddenly rolling over and going back to sleep. This
latest (brilliant) maneuver by the elite was a direct attack on the
truth movement. We should not have been surprised."

"Let's not be fooled into into complacency! The same corporate/bank
interests are at the helm. This a challenge for 9/11 truth. Let's answer
the challenge by re-doubling our efforts!"

"There needs to be an organized flood of petitions to our senators and
other officials to open a new investigation into 9/11. I have to believe
that there are some good people in government who have not yet heard the
truth on this subject. I hope that those leaders in the 9/11 truth
movement can coordinate their efforts toward a movement like this."

"To those who seek truth and justice for America Don't be discouraged.
Those who genuinely seek the truth and strive to share it will never be
quelled or silenced. The fight to take back our country can be won one
small victory at a time. It was a victory for the Democrats to win
control of congress, because it shows that the American people have at
least recognized that problems in the Bush regime exist and change needs
to come to Washington. We are painfully aware that the Democrats are no
great saviors. We can not give up the fight, but we can claim victory
when we see small steps toward change. For it is with one step at a time
that we plod forward toward our goal of a once again free America."

This is a rallying cry to those out there who really want justice and
freedom for future generations. Are we to allow the Democrats to
toady-up to Bush and the Neo-Cons for their own egotistic selfish power
hunger and let the criminals walk away, only to return once more, or
should we hold their feet to the fire and demand repeal, investigation
and impeachment - which is it to be?

Long live 9/11 truth!

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1557842,00.html

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing
Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in
abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

By ADAM ZAGORIN

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the
troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed
next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal
investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S.
civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses
committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu
Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom
the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be
participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005,
Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by
Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to
obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government
reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation,
religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and
other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will
testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the
one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who
the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her
accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany
the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and
responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the
top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment
since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the
case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone;
former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant
attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense
William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick
Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing
are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen.
Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq
commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the
one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides
"universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and
related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a
similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004,
which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an
angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset.
Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a
big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely
impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not
attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to
be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day
before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue
the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and
courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that
circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's
resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose
the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover,
the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for
rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with
the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action
to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not
be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the
legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions
Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks
prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation
abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to
Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments
underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of
efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on
terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany,
investigations are underway in parliament concerning cooperation between
the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of
suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for
interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are underway in
both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war
criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for
example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup
was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and
held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate
seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and
returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges
against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes
against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush administration has rejected adherence to the
International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to
unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent
tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes
against humanity.

Source: http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/101106Rotten.htm

(Please go to main source link above to see images, mainstream news
article links within actual live article..thanks!)


(IMAGE)


Conyers Toes Party Line: No Impeachment
Something Is Extremely 'Rotten In The State Of Denmark'

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, November 10, 2006

The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their
victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that
impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to
distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement
released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker
(Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the
table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is
off the table."

Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the
grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The
Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception,
Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and
later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance."

For a while Conyers was the darling of left leaning bloggers and readers
everywhere:

At this site, we are especially proud of the new Conyers Report, "The
Constitution in Crisis." By purchasing this book, you have the
opportunity to own a part of history and help the Congressman hold the
Bush Administration accountable. Your assistance in helping Congressman
Conyers become the next Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee will
bring us one step closer to getting the American people the answers from
this Administration that they deserve.
- www.afterdowningstreet.org

Conyers is so admirable. One of the very few in Congress who still has
integrity and principles. It is too bad that he does not get more MSM
coverage but why would they do that? He might upset the Republican and
Corporate plans for total control and could expose their nefarious
doings.
He is risking much by not following the official DNC program too, in
addition to challenging the Bushies.
- Huffington Post

In december 2005, upon release of the report, Conyers stated:

The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima
facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations
are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal
violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower
laws... The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the
level of impeachable conduct... In response to the Report, I have
already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution
(H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to
investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the
Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses.

So Conyers was already underway with setting up investigations into
impeachable offences, but now he says that impeachment is off the table?
Clearly he has been given orders to toe the party line or face the
consequences.

Despite the fact that 86% want to see the President impeached, leading
Democrats have already ruled this out. The same leading Democrats that
voted for the war in Afghanistan, for the Patriot Act, for Homeland
Security and against a bill that simply condemned torture of prisoners
in Iraq.


(IMAGE)


After Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, Conyers is the latest Democrat to
show us their true colours once in power.

Conyers and the other Democrats highlight precisely why we need to
regroup, consolidate and redouble our efforts in light of the theatrical
shift of power in Washington to the left. Because as soon as this
happened, overnight, the truth movement lost a great deal of support
from those that believe the job is now done.

Taking note of many reader comments over the past few days I have
noticed a startling uprise in the amount of negative and dismissive
feedback from some readers. Evidently those who expected us to be out
dancing in the streets at the news of a Democrat landslide in Washington
have been bitterly disappointed.

We have never once suggested that the solution to a corrupt and fascist
Neocon leadership is a passive and capitulating Democrat sideshow
leadership, so why is it any surprise that we are continuing on the same
course as before?

Comments such as the following emphasize my point:

"You can only have it one way. What the hell is up with you people. The
whole time the Bush regime was in power you begged for change. Now you
have it, but your still complaining."

Yes we are seeking change, but not a simple change of personnel as we
have witnessed this week. As we reported yesterday "There's no doubt
about it, to see frothing Neo-Cons who have been strutting around like
John Wayne for the past five years finally eat humble pie is a breath of
fresh air, but let's not be so deluded as to think that the Neo-Con
agenda, which took decades to craft, was simply brushed aside by the
victory of a party that has supported Bush every step of the way on
major issues."

Seeing Bush on TV admitting he'd took a hell of a beating was great, for
about five minutes, then he started laughing and joking about it and
talking about pushing forward to work closely with a new crowd.


(IMAGE)


Is rolling over and going back to sleep going to get Bush impeached?
Should we shut down the websites now and go save the whales or something
else we'd all love to be doing if we didn't have to relentlessly keep
fighting to stop our leaders killing our freedoms?

Within hours the Democratic elite have shown us that they don't give a
damn about holding the Bush administration up to scrutiny. With no
effective opposition in the form of a political party it is up to the
people to continue to demand justice and to continue to attempt to reign
in those who have heinously abused their power.

Thomas Jefferson described Congress as "a body to which the people send
one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything
and yield nothing."

In light of this how can any representative say something like
impeachment is 'off the table?