North American Army and Dr. Paul

Elegy

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
75
I'm sure you have heard the news from today about the North American Army. If not, the link is below. Dr. Paul needs to be vocal, I mean raise hell about it. Besides the fact that it is darn scary and needs to be addressed, this issue would not only get him air time, but would also bring him major support IMO from people that are apathetic to this race and pissed off conservatives. We, at least, those of I've talked to in my unit are infuriated. This is the issue that people will respond to, like the Dubai port deal.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ba99826e-f9b7-42a4-9b0a-f82134b92e7e
 
Yep throw in those FBI flyers about labeling people that are "for the constitution" as "terrorists" and you have a slam dunk case for outspread anger at the administration on it's management policies.
 
I still get it to come up.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ba99826e-f9b7-42a4-9b0a-f82134b92e7e

Canada-U.S. pact allows cross-border military activity
Deal allows either country to send troops across the other's border to deal with an emergency
David Pugliese, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, February 23, 2008

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation in a civil emergency.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:

* *
* *
* *
* *

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

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

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

"Are we going to see [U.S.] troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries whether military assistance is requested or even used. He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond."

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations.


© The Vancouver Sun 2008
 
.... last step before martial law.... U.S. troops would never put down constitutional citizens... foreign troops however?
 
NORTH AMERICAN ARMY CREATED WITHOUT OK OF CONGRESS good article on
wnd.com There is also an article on the gov. website northcom.mil I made several calls to D.C. They did not seem to know about this. I even called Duncan Hunters office because he has been on the Armed Service commitee forever...they are looking in to it!!! I just wonder when Americans finally get their heads out of their butts, how angry are they going to be when they discover the betrayal and how much the media has hidden.
 
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin431.htm

In part:
Over the weekend, Dr. Jerry Corsi reported that a new North American Army has been created, without the approval of Congress or any mention by the American media. In World Net Daily, Corsi reports, "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.

"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."

Corsi further writes, "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."
 
I think we all need to contact our congressional representatives and senators and demand an explaination.
 
THOSE Flyers

Yep throw in those FBI flyers about labeling people that are "for the constitution" as "terrorists" and you have a slam dunk case for outspread anger at the administration on it's management policies.

Been keeping the copies since August of 2000.

flyerpg1.jpg

flyerpg2.jpg
 
What are the details if dismembering to get the attention of DC?

What is the protocol for organizing to force the government to obey the Constitution after it becomes apparent they don't want to give up their power?
I know the military is not supposed to be allowed to side with the government in such conditions but the recent article "Rule by fear or rule by law" in the SF Chronicles shows Bush is trying to put something in place to obstruct any action!
I have been working on sites all over just to organize people to this link:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ron7285/petition.html
 
Last edited:
I have demanded an explanation! I get an email about another issue or nothing at all

They don't think they have to answer to us anymore!
 
“Domestic terrorism is defined as: Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.

What kind of definition is that??? So, violence has nothing to do with it, eh?

I guess those who participated in the Boston Tea Party really were terrorists, eh?

And lobbyists? I didn't realize Jack Abramoff was being tried as a terrorist. And McCain was engaged in terrorism when he was in bed with that lobbyist?

WTF???
 
Are Republicans and Democrats domestic terrorists? Sounds like it to me!
 
I just found this, the SPP(The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America), has anybody heard of this?

http://www.spp.gov/

SPP Background

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.

This trilateral initiative is premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing. The SPP recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade.

The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships. It energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, our food supply, and our public health.
 
Back
Top