Tag Archives: NAU

U.S. Troops Wearing UN Colors


U.S. Troops Wearing UN Colors

Chuck Baldwin

According to a report in World Net Daily, “Troops in the United States’ USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.

The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the UN.

“It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit’s service in North Africa in World War II.”

The report also states, “The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif.”

See the report.

As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command “created to respond to national emergencies in North America.” Readers should also be aware that the United States and Canada signed an agreement earlier this year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces of the other country during a “domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.” (Emphasis added.)

Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its sister organizations. This objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn’t paying attention — or has an ulterior motive for denying it.

In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this burgeoning North American Union on my website. I encourage readers to review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it here.

Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR’s Task Force report entitled “Creating a North American Community,” which was issued just prior to the Waco gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge, oversight, or consent of the U.S. Congress — or any Canadian or Mexican legislative body either, for that matter.

As the WND report states, “The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives — 10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries.”

In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush. (And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected last year.)

For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C., are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR’s philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military command as USNORTHCOM — and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch — without the slightest protest from virtually any U.S. Congressman or Senator, demonstrates the apathy of Washington elitists regarding America’s merger into a multinational governing structure.

Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education Association, along with the vast majority of America’s top educational institutions, and even America’s leading churchmen (for example, mega-church pastor and author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman, Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every major institution in America is betraying our country’s sovereignty and independence.

Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President Obama’s policy reversal to continue President Bush’s plan allowing Mexican trucks to roll down U.S. highways? Where is Big Labor’s opposition to Obama’s decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?

Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar, the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear mongering over super-hyped “pandemics” such as the Swine Flu, the push for universal healthcare, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing U.S. sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.

Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously, an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grass-roots Tea Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.

If America’s pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could — almost single-handedly — turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson’s “spirit of resistance” alive.

As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.

SOURCE

FEMA Takeover Test

FEMA Communication Takeover Test Scheduled for November 9

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com

FEMA, the FCC, and Homeland Security plan to commandeer the airwaves next month. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) will be tested at 1 PM EST on November 9. EAS alerts are transmitted over radio and television broadcast stations, cable television and other media services.

Local and state EAS components are tested weekly and monthly, but this will be the first national test of the system. It is significant that FEMA will conduct the mandatory test.

FEMA was created by executive fiat. EO 12148 was signed into law by a stroke of Jimmy Carter’s pen on July 20, 1979. FEMA is described as a federal agency designed to coordinate government response to natural disasters that overwhelm the resources of local and state authorities.

In fact, the federal agency was established as part of a martial law mechanism.

FEMA plans on suspension of the US constitution exposed during Iran contra hearings. Oliver North is questioned by Jack Brooks.

Under Reagan, FEMA was headed by Louis O. Giuffrida, the former national guard general who contributed to the Garden Plot and Cable Splicer, two sub programs under REX 84, a plan to establish concentration camps in America. Operation Cable Splicer is described as “the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.” For more information on these martial law programs, see Mary Louise, Stalag 17, American Style Plans For Civilian Internment (& Worst).

Giuffrida, a counterinsurgency enthusiast, focused the agency’s resources on the “civil disturbance” aspect of its charter and worked to undermine Posse Comitatus. In 1982, Reagan formally militarized FEMA with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 26). The result was a series of national training exercises led by the military. Under REX 82, civilian police from around the country received what FEMA euphemistically referred to as “military police methods” for quelling domestic political unrest.

Under Reagan, with Giuffrida at the helm, FEMA mutated “civil defense planning into a military/police version of civil society,” a plan on a collision course with Posse Comitatus.

“Hidden behind FEMA’s benevolent face as the body whose chief responsibility is disaster relief, another FEMA exists,” Ritt Goldstein wrote in 2002, referring to Bush’s effort to turn the agency into a counter-terrorism and “enemy combatant” detention outfit under the newly established Department of Homeland Security.

“At present, the final contents and disposition of the Reagan security initiatives, part of a national crisis plan, remains beyond public knowledge,” Goldstein writes. “But given the ‘War On Terror’s’ scope, even if a formal crisis is not declared, speculation exists that a de facto drift into an effective deployment of FEMA’s crisis powers could occur.”

Next month’s EAS test represents the public notification aspect of that national crisis plan. It is significant that EAS will be tested nationally. Natural disasters are usually regional affairs and do not require a nationwide response. The new national EAS system is designed for a more significant event that conforms to the implementation of martial law as envisioned under Garden Plot and Cable Splicer, a plan that was nearly revealed when Representative Jack Brooks of Texas grilled Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 (see the video above).

Texas High School Students Forced to Sing Mexican National Anthem and Pledge Allegiance to Mexican Flag

Worth 1000 Words
TX High School Students Made to Recite Mexican National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance
by Madeleine Morgenstern

Custom Search

Students in a Texas public high school were made to stand up and recite the Mexican national anthem and Mexican pledge of allegiance as part of a Spanish class assignment, but the school district maintains there was nothing wrong with the lesson.

It happened last month in an intermediate Spanish class at Achieve Early College High School in McAllen, Texas — a city located about 10 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Wearing red, white and green, students had to memorize the Mexican anthem and pledge and stand up and recite them in individually in front of the class.

That didn’t go over well with sophomore Brenda Brinsdon. The 15-year-old sat down and refused to participate. She also caught it all on video:

“I just thought it was out of hand, I didn’t think it was right,” she told The Blaze. “Reciting pledges to Mexico and being loyal to it has nothing to do with learning Spanish.”

She said she was particularly offended because the presentations in teacher Reyna Santos’s class took place during “Freedom Week,” the week after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and on U.S. Constitution Day — the same day as Mexico’s Independence Day.

“Why are we doing their independence when it‘s Freedom Week and it’s also Constitution Day?” Brinsdon said.

Brinsdon said she complained to the school principal, Yvette Cavazo, who told her it was part of the curriculum and that she should participate. Her father, William, also got involved, calling the school district superintendent to complain.

SOURCE

WikiLeaks Exposes North American Integration Plot

WikiLeaks Exposes North American Integration Plot
Written by Alex Newman
Monday, 02 May 2011 21:00

North AmericaAs early as January of 2005, high-ranking officials were discussing the best way to sell the idea of North American “integration” to the public and policymakers while getting around national constitutions. The prospect of creating a monetary unit to replace national currencies was a hot topic as well.

Some details of the schemes were exposed in a secret 2005 U.S. embassy cable from Ottawa signed by then-Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The document was released by WikiLeaks on April 28. But so far, it has barely attracted any attention in the United States, Canada, or Mexico beyond a few mentions in some liberty-minded Internet forums.

Numerous topics are discussed in the leaked document — borders, currency, labor, regulation, and more. How to push the integration agenda features particularly prominently.

Under the subject line “Placing a new North American Initiative in its economic policy context,” American diplomatic personnel in Canada said they believed an “incremental” path toward North American integration would probably gain the most support from policymakers. Apparently Canadian economists agreed.

The cable also touts the supposed benefits of merging the three countries and even mentions what elements to “stress” in future “efforts to promote further integration.” It lists what it claims is a summary of the “consensus” among Canadian economists about the issues, too.

Merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico

Integration is a little-used term employed mainly by policy wonks. But while it may sound relatively harmless, it generally describes a very serious phenomenon when used in a geopolitical context — the gradual merging of separate countries under a regional authority.

Similar processes are already well underway in Europe, Africa, and South America. And according to critics, the results — essentially abolishing national sovereignty in favor of supranational, unaccountable governance — have been an unmitigated disaster. But the U.S. government doesn’t think so.

In North America, integration has been proceeding rapidly for years. The New American magazine was among the first to report on the efforts to erect what critics have called a “North American Union,” encompassing Canada, the United States, and Mexico. But more recently, the topic has received more attention.

After the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — similar in many ways to the European Common Market that preceded the political union in Europe — the integration scheme has only accelerated. And the bipartisan efforts have been going on for years.

Under President George W. Bush, integration occurred through the little-known “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” And with the Obama administration, the process, now virtually out in the open, is only accelerating.

Back in 2005, the cable released recently by WikiLeaks explained how it would be done. And looking back, the document was right on the mark.

Moving Forward

The best way forward, according to the cable, is via gradual steps. “An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the cable states in its summary.

“Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both ‘security’ and ‘prosperity’ goals,”
the document claims, using the two key words that have been emphasized at every step along the way. “This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the options for continental integration.

Toward the end, the cable offers more advice on how to advance the integration agenda by tailoring the narrative. “When advocating [the North American Initiative to integrate the three countries], it would be better to highlight specific gains to individual firms, industries or travelers, and especially consumers,” the cable states, noting that it’s harder to “estimate the benefits” on a national or continental scale.

Unsubstantiated Claims

In a section headlined “North American Integration: What We Know,” the cable offers nothing but praise for the merging of the continent’s once-sovereign nations that had already been achieved.

Past integration (not just NAFTA but also many bilateral and unilateral steps) has increased trade, economic growth, and productivity,” it claims, despite the fact that countless economists disagree. Of course, true free-trade advocates also correctly point out that the thousands of pages of regulations making up the agreements should hardly be considered examples of genuine free trade.

So-called “security,” the other big integration selling point, is featured prominently in the document as well. “A stronger continental ‘security perimeter’ can strengthen economic performance,“ the cable states. “It could also facilitate future steps toward trilateral economic integration, such as a common external tariff or a customs union.”

And law enforcement “cooperation” is good too, the embassy and the U.S. ambassador claim matter-of-factly.

“Cooperative measures on the ‘security’ side, a critical focus of current bilateral efforts, can deliver substantial, early, and widespread economic benefits
,” the cable alleges, offering no evidence to substantiate the assertions.

“Security and law enforcement within North America have evolved rapidly since 9/11,” it continues. “Collaboration to improve these processes could yield efficiency improvements which would automatically be spread widely across the economy, leading to general gains in trade, productivity, and incomes.”



The Alleged “Consensus”

According to the document, “many” economists agree with the scheme. The cable says they support the principle of “more ambitious integration goals” such as a customs union, a single market, and even a continental currency to replace the dollar. On top of that, they supposedly believe such a union should involve all three major North American countries — the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

The cable cautions, however, that “most” of the economists believe the gradual approach is “most appropriate” — for now, at least. And all of them apparently agree that such an approach “helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them.

The embassy cable also included a summary of what it calls the “professional consensus” among Canadian economists on various issues related to integration.

“At this time, an ‘incremental’ approach to integration is probably better than a ‘big deal’ approach,” the document states under the “process” subheading, supposedly referring to the economists’ opinions. “However, governments should focus on choosing their objectives, and not on choosing a process.”

Next in the cable is the question of “border vs. perimeter,” as the formerly secret document puts it. “Even with zero tariffs, our land borders have strong commercial effects,” the embassy said. However, “some” of the effects — such as law enforcement and “data gathering” — are described as “positive.

“Canada and the United States already share a security perimeter to some degree; it is just a question of how strong we want to make it,” the 2005 document notes. Apparently Canadians’ main reason for seeking a perimeter approach to security and borders, as opposed to a border between the two nations, is to avoid the “risk” that “discretionary” U.S. decisions to stop terror or disease might impede commerce. And evidently, the nations’ rulers did decide to make the perimeter stronger.

As The New American reported in February, U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper met in Washington, D.C., to hammer out a deal on solidifying the common “perimeter” around the two countries. Also part of the agreement, which conspicuously bypassed both countries’ legislatures, was a diminished role for the nations’ shared border. The development of a biometric system to track North Americans was agreed to as well, as were numerous other controversial measures.

In terms of labor markets, the so-called “consensus” among the unidentified Canadian economists is also — surprise! — the pursuit of even more integration. “Many Canadian economists point to labor markets — both within and among countries — as the factor market [sic] where more liberalization would deliver the greatest economic benefits for all three countries,” the document states.

Next, the cable release by WikiLeaks highlights another startling proposition about how to achieve an end-run around the Canadian Constitution. “Inter-provincial differences [in regulation] are important here, since Canada’s federal government does not have the benefit of a U.S.-style ‘interstate commerce’ clause,” the document states. “While much of the problem is domestic in nature, an international initiative could help to catalyze change.”

Yes, the U.S. embassy referred to the wildly abused and misapplied “commerce clause” as a “benefit” that Canada lacks. And it actually suggested, hiding behind unnamed “economists,” that the constitutional “problem” could be minimized by foisting an “international initiative” on the Canadian people.

The cable also claims the “economists” support a customs union, a feature developed in the European Union once the integration process was well established. “A common external tariff, or a customs union which eliminated NAFTA’s rules of origin (ROO), is economically desirable,” it states.

And finally, the document summarizes the “consensus” on the subject of a currency union. It said the supposed economists were “split” on the issues of returning to fixed exchange rates or even abolishing Canada’s fiat dollar and replacing it with American Federal Reserve fiat currency.

The cable gives the final word on the topic of a currency union to the Canadian central bank boss. He is quoted as saying that “monetary union is an issue that should be considered once we have made more progress towards establishing a single market.”

Secrets, Backers

The scheme to merge North America into a political unit with its own legislature and currency is largely the brainchild of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. But though documents leaked earlier this year revealed that governments were trying to keep the process under wraps, integration is now proceeding out in the open for the most part.

Where the campaign will eventually end remains to be seen. But if North American Union advocates get their way, the U.S. Constitution and its Mexican and Canadian counterparts could soon be rendered irrelevant. After that, plugging the regional units into a global system would be a relatively simple matter, critics and supporters both argue.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/7336-wikileaks-exposes-north-american-integration-plot

Paper or Plastic? Canada Prepares To Introduce Plastic Money

Canada Prepares To Introduce Plastic Money


Apr. 13 2011 – 4:50 pm |
Posted by Mother Nature Network

Written by Melissa Hincha-Ownby

When I think of paying with plastic, I think of credit or debit cards. However, my thought process is going to have to change. Canada will soon join a growing list of countries that use a polymer-based plastic instead of paper for its cash. The new plastic money will be rolled out in phases with the $100 bill scheduled for introduction in November. In March 2012, a $50 bill will be added to the mix and the rest of the smaller bills will be introduced by the end of 2013.

There are several benefits to plastic cash – enhanced security, a longer life and the money is even cleaner. We all know how dirty money can be but the new bills are resistant to water, oil, sweat, dust and more.

“Further, scientific evaluation has shown that there is significantly less bacteriological growth on polymer banknotes, and that any bacteria which gets onto the notes quickly dies because of the lack of nutrients on the non-porous and non-fibrous material.” Source: Securency International Pty Ltd.

While the cleanliness factor is nice, the security benefits are one of the biggest draws of switching to plastic money. Australia has been using polymer-based cash for more than a decade and the country has seen a significant reduction in counterfeit bills.

The polymer-based money is also recyclable. The money is made out of polypropylene, which can be recycled and used to create new products including plumbing fittings, compost bins and other household items.

I can’t think of a downside to plastic money. I know that BPA is often associated with plastics but even our paper money is contaminated with BPA.

Melissa Hincha-Ownby blogs for the Mother Nature Network.

http://blogs.forbes.com/eco-nomics/2011/04/13/canada-prepares-to-introduce-plastic-money/