• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another Step Toward a North American Union Dictatorship

A

Anonymous

Guest
Are you Canadians aware of this ?

PREMEDITATED MERGER
N. American Army created without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 24, 2008
1:45 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.


U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of USNORTHCOM, signs agreement Feb. 14, 2008, with Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command (USNORTHCOM photo)


The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration," Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the Canwest News Service. "We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites."

The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command.

"This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities," Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCOM website.

"In discussing the new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan established by USNORTHCOM and Canada Command, Renuart stressed, "Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering an mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment."

Lt. Gen. Dumais seconded Renuart's sentiments, stating, "The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command."

"Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century," he stressed, "and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends."


The statement on the USNORTHCOM website emphasized the plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada.

The statement then noted the newly signed plan was designed to facilitate the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.

As WND has previously reported, U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies.

Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and securities partners.

In Nov. 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series, detailing WND's on-site presence during the NORAD-USNORTHCOM Vigilant Shield 2008, an exercise which involved Canada Command as a participant.

In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.

In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Somebody better let Aminus know.....as he'll ' pop' a cap at the first RCMP Mountie he sees "a'coming acrost" his field!!! :lol: :lol:



The local tribe knows of this and they're about to have a hissy stroke over it....as Bush would loose a bit'o hair if he visited them before he left office!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Cal

Well-known member
OHMYGAWD.....THIS IS HORRIBLE!!!!! If we have an emergency, Canada can help us!!!! NONONONO....SAY IT AINT SO!!!!

Especially if we get nuked someday, we need to spend alot of time just ******* around.
 

jigs

Well-known member
I already have a similar agreement. if there is an emergency, I all Mrs Greg and we cuddle up on the couch and talk it out.

used to have the same deal with Kola, but she can not get enough Carbon Credits bought to fly her jet here very often.....
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
jigs said:
I already have a similar agreement. if there is an emergency, I all Mrs Greg and we cuddle up on the couch and talk it out.

used to have the same deal with Kola, but she can not get enough Carbon Credits bought to fly her jet here very often.....
Hmmmm,and all along I thought it was greg you wanted to cuddle with,I recall you wanna play with his toy :p :p


I looked up the North American Union in Snopes....says its false but I can't copy and paste it into here.

Also I really didn't see a huge issue with the above article,I feel like we're pretty good neighbors and should help and HAVE helped in civil crisis.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal said:
OHMYGAWD.....THIS IS HORRIBLE!!!!! If we have an emergency, Canada can help us!!!! NONONONO....SAY IT AINT SO!!!!

Especially if we get nuked someday, we need to spend alot of time just ******* around.

Well the conservatives must not trust GW- or whoever may follow him :roll: - as they are the ones raising the stink - and saying that treaties such as this need Congressional approval under the Constitution....
But we know GW threw the Constitution out the door long ago.... :shock: :(

Many Republicans seem to forget that when GW sets Presidential precedent- you open that same action up to be followed by whoever is in office following him-- be it Hitlery or whoever :shock:

One of the major concerns under the Patriot Act with Conservatives and constitutionalists is that the new rules the neocons passed give the President and the military powers that historically have been reserved only for civil authorities- and that could dangerously put too much power in the hands of the Federal government and military.....
Its another encroachment on state and civil authority by the Feds....

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (States, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
 

jigs

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
jigs said:
I already have a similar agreement. if there is an emergency, I all Mrs Greg and we cuddle up on the couch and talk it out.

used to have the same deal with Kola, but she can not get enough Carbon Credits bought to fly her jet here very often.....
Hmmmm,and all along I thought it was greg you wanted to cuddle with,I recall you wanna play with his toy :p :p


I looked up the North American Union in Snopes....says its false but I can't copy and paste it into here.

Also I really didn't see a huge issue with the above article,I feel like we're pretty good neighbors and should help and HAVE helped in civil crisis.
his "toy" is that big ass digger....do not read anymore into it!!
 

Cal

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Cal said:
OHMYGAWD.....THIS IS HORRIBLE!!!!! If we have an emergency, Canada can help us!!!! NONONONO....SAY IT AINT SO!!!!

Especially if we get nuked someday, we need to spend alot of time just ******* around.

Well the conservatives must not trust GW- or whoever may follow him :roll: - as they are the ones raising the stink - and saying that treaties such as this need Congressional approval under the Constitution....
But we know GW threw the Constitution out the door long ago.... :shock: :(

Many Republicans seem to forget that when GW sets Presidential precedent- you open that same action up to be followed by whoever is in office following him-- be it Hitlery or whoever :shock:

One of the major concerns under the Patriot Act with Conservatives and constitutionalists is that the new rules the neocons passed give the President and the military powers that historically have been reserved only for civil authorities- and that could dangerously put too much power in the hands of the Federal government and military.....
Its another encroachment on state and civil authority by the Feds....

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (States, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
Oh please, the left is the side constantly bitching about the Patriot Act, even though surveillance has been used in every war. It just isn't fair to have that advantage when hunting down enemies and terrorists....and do you remember that there are certain oversees calling patterns that trigger surveillance? You're grocery list hasn't been compromised. Your man Obama would never use something like this, so I think your safe....just focus on that free colonoscopy at the end of the liberal rainbow.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal- so when did Ron Paul become a LIBERAL :???: :wink: :lol:
True conservatives oppose giving the Federal government any more power- and realize the importance of maintaining the balances of power we now have- and the importance our founding fathers saw for them when they put them in our Constitution....


Reconsidering the Patriot Act
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?

Congress is scheduled to review those sections this year, but there is little chance any portion of the Act will be allowed to lapse. If anything, many members of Congress are eager to expand federal police powers.

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us – we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”

But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.

Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.

The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”

It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.

May 3, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Cal- so when did Ron Paul become a LIBERAL :???: :wink: :lol:
True conservatives oppose giving the Federal government any more power- and realize the importance of maintaining the balances of power we now have- and the importance our founding fathers saw for them when they put them in our Constitution....


Reconsidering the Patriot Act
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?

Congress is scheduled to review those sections this year, but there is little chance any portion of the Act will be allowed to lapse. If anything, many members of Congress are eager to expand federal police powers.

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us – we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”

But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.

Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.

The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”

It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.

May 3, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
So kill the Patriot Act...and when we get attacked again, or worse...he can explain how the terrorists got the upper hand.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal said:
Oldtimer said:
Cal- so when did Ron Paul become a LIBERAL :???: :wink: :lol:
True conservatives oppose giving the Federal government any more power- and realize the importance of maintaining the balances of power we now have- and the importance our founding fathers saw for them when they put them in our Constitution....


Reconsidering the Patriot Act
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?

Congress is scheduled to review those sections this year, but there is little chance any portion of the Act will be allowed to lapse. If anything, many members of Congress are eager to expand federal police powers.

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us – we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”

But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.

Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.

The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”

It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.

May 3, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
So kill the Patriot Act...and when we get attacked again, or worse...he can explain how the terrorists got the upper hand.

At least Dr. Paul is smart enough to know that when you're fighting a war- you can't have Homeland Security with wide open borders- and you don't leave your borders so anyone wanting to committ sabatoge or terrorist acts can just walk in- carrying suitcase nukes or whatever.... :shock:
But we can't have GW's elitist corporate buddies losing access to their cheap semislave labor can we
:???: ....


HOMELAND INSECURITY
Iraqis nabbed in Mexico, headed to U.S. with fake IDs
Authorities suspect European ring selling counterfeit Bulgarian passports for $10K

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2008
10:48 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Two more Iraqis with false Bulgarian passports were detained by Mexican officials in Monterrey – bringing the total to four this month.

Wisam Gorgies, a 34-year-old man, and Rana Nazar Peyoz, a 26-year-old woman, reportedly flew from Madrid and landed in Monterrey, according to reports in two Mexican newspapers today.

Following questioning, the pair admitted they intended to reach the United States. They were taken to Saltillo in the state of Coahuila, for final determination of their status.

Mexican officials said the are investigating "a network that could be made up of Mexicans operating in Greece who are selling false Bulgarian passports for $10,000 to European and Middle Eastern citizens."

Earlier this month, El Universal, a daily in Mexico City, reported two other Iraqis, Markos Ramy, a 25-year-old man, and Sollem Pate, a 20-year-old woman, presented Bulgarian passports upon arrival at the Monterrey airport after a flight from Spain.

They told customs officials they came as tourists for a couple days. But because they spoke no Bulgarian, their passports were determined to be fraudulent. The Bulgarian consulate did not acknowledge them as citizens and their hotel reservations proved to be phony.

Only after their cover story was blown did the couple admit to being Iraqis. They claimed to be fleeing the war.

Last year, dozens of Iraqis were discovered attempting to enter Monterrey with phony ID – 17 of them in a single event.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57010
 

Cal

Well-known member
But OT, they were only fleeing the war! If Obama or Hillary get the chance to surrender then there should be no more of this. And you know how those Democrats are pushing to get that fence built....oh wait, I mean to get that electronic surveillance going! :roll:
 
Top