Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label American Sovereignty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Sovereignty. Show all posts

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Canada, U. S. Agree to Share Troops in Civil Emergencies

Here's an interesting item from the Canadian press -- another Bush executive fiat, without the knowledge or consent of the United States Congress. Of course, we are supposed to believe that the Security and Prosperity Partnership (aka North American Union) is about nothing more than the uniform production, distribution, and sale of jelly beans.

From the National Post
David Pugliese, Canwest News Service

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 during a civil emergency.

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 on 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 Web site. "The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember -- Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

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. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008


From WorldNetDaily

By Tom Kovach

Voters and pundits alike are claiming that a potential Fred Thompson run for the White House could "save" the conservative movement that has been betrayed by President George W. Bush. Such a claim defies the facts, because Thompson's political pedigree includes Bush-like globalist credentials.

This column was prompted by near-record e-mail responses, the vast majority of which asserted that a previous WND column on this topic did not go far enough. Some of the material supporting this follow-up was provided by those WND readers, some of whom claimed to write from Lawrenceburg, Tenn. (Thompson's hometown).

Just as the favorite Republican non-candidate gets near-constant news coverage, even for saying nothing, many of Thompson's policies are revealed more by what he does not say than by what he does say. Even before the 9-11 attacks, President Bush was already trying to downplay even the word "amnesty." Similarly, the public statements of Fred Thompson do not reject amnesty for illegal aliens. Revelations about the design of the premeditated merger of the United States with Mexico and Canada prove that Bush and his Republican insiders harbored a long-time globalist agenda. Just who were those globalist insiders? Is Thompson one of them?

Tennessee's globalist connections

The core values of the average voter in Tennessee are very conservative. This fact has produced Democrats that voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan. But, out of misguided local loyalty, the conservative voters in Tennessee have also repeatedly elected homegrown globalists. Among them are prominent United States Sens. Howard Baker, Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander, and – yes – Fred Thompson.

All four of those Republican senators from Tennessee were members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations during their tenure in the United States Senate. (And, a Democratic senator from Tennessee – Al Gore, who became vice-president – was also a CFR member.) Baker, who mentored Thompson into politics in 1972, was part of the "Panama Canal giveaway team" during the administration of President Jimmy Carter – another CFR member. (Note that the linked CNN commentary was written by Robert A. Pastor, another CFR globalist. Pastor recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily, claiming to distance his North American Community plan from an assault upon American sovereignty.

The "lamestream" news media treats the CFR as merely some advisory think tank. But, the Council on Foreign Relations is much more than that. Going back almost a hundred years, the CFR mission is to establish a one-world government. Because of our historic role as a beacon of freedom, the United States is an obstacle to global domination. Therefore, CFR members must work – some openly, and some secretly – to steadily undermine American sovereignty. The recent news about the North American Union is only one phase of an unrelenting effort toward global government. To solidify elitist power, that effort includes a concurrent effort toward global currency. That effort toward a one-world money system is, in turn, linked to an effort to use RFID chips in commerce and marketing. Many people believe that the use of such chips is the "Mark of the Beast," as predicted in the Holy Bible. (And, the president of the company that makes the chips is another Republican CFR member, presidential candidate Tommy Thompson. (Is anyone surprised?)

So, CFR member Lamar Alexander used to work for CFR member Howard Baker, who mentored CFR member Fred Thompson. And, Thompson was elected to the Senate in 1994, the same year CFR member Bill Frist was elected to the United States Senate from Tennessee. Both Frist and Thompson joined the CFR in 2002. So, with several years of experience on Capitol Hill at the time they both joined, there is no way either of them could reasonably deny knowledge of the agenda and influence of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. ("What did Thompson know, and when did he know it?")

Is there any further Tennessee connection to a globalist organization and agenda? Let's see. The junior senator from Tennessee is Bob Corker, who was mentored by CFR members Frist and Alexander. (This writer personally spoke with Alexander at a fund-raiser for Corker.) Upon his inauguration, Corker was sworn in by CFR member Vice President Dick Cheney. There certainly seems to be a pattern.

By the way, during a 2002 speech at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in D.C. to his fellow CFR members, Vice President Cheney joked about getting elected by downplaying his membership in that globalist organization:

"I see a lot of old friends in the room. And it's good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations. As Pete mentioned, I have been a member for a long time, and was actually director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming – (laughter) – but it stood me in good stead." It seems that having something of a country-boy image is helpful to concealing a globalist agenda – whether in Wyoming or in Tennessee.

Will the new junior senator from Tennessee join the ranks of globalist CFR members? Frist and Thompson did not join the CFR until several years after they were in office. Both had already proven their globalist credentials by that time, having voted in favor of relaxed immigration and border security rules. Corker is already on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as were CFR members Baker, Gore, Thompson and Frist. What did these gentlemen from Tennessee – elected by conservatives – do while they were in office?

Baker helped to give away the Panama Canal. Gore's committee on aviation security eschewed probable terrorist connections to the downing of TWA Flight 800. Thompson voted to expand NAFTA, and to relax limits on migrant farm workers. Frist (as majority leader) refused to push a tough border-security bill through the Senate, even though H.R. 4437 – the "Wall Bill" – had passed in the House overwhelmingly.

Bob Corker talked tough on border security during his campaign, but couldn't quite shake allegations that his construction company had hired illegal aliens and had ignored warnings from INS officials. (Those allegations, by the way, came from Republican primary opponents, as well as his Democratic general election opponent.) So, it would appear Corker would be "encouraged" by globalist mentors such as Thompson to lean toward the CFR position on border security and alien workers.

And, with a political bloodline of CFR globalism behind him, doesn't it seem likely that Bob Corker would be the next CFR member senator from Tennessee? And wouldn't that scenario be far more likely if there was a President Fred Thompson to sponsor his membership? There is no doubt Thompson has a globalist pedigree. And, if he becomes a candidate for the White House, the pattern is already established for Thompson and his CFR-elite cronies to continue weakening the security of America's borders, turning a blind eye toward terrorist threats, and giving away America's strategic advantages. Regardless of his amiable personal qualities, can the United States really afford to elect a "Bush-button" globalist president such as Fred Thompson?

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. He recently published his first book. Kovach is also an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal and a former talk-radio host. To learn more, visit: