Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies
By Ottawa Citizen
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 website. “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.
Former Communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev told an audience at Lafayette College on Wednesday night that the United States’ economic problems heralded the need for a new American “perestroika,” defined by a “new world order” and a system of “global governance”.
Speaking to a crowd of 3,600 people during an event that was broadcast live nationwide, Gorbachev made reference to riots and demonstrations that have swept the world over the last two years, including the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States.
“The world needs goals that will bring people together,” he said. “Some people in the United States were pushing the idea of creating a global American empire, and that was a mistake from the start. Other people in America are now giving thought to the future of their country. The big banks, the big corporations, are still paying the same big bonuses to their bosses. Was there ever a crisis for them? . . . I believe America needs its own perestroika.”
How will this American perestroika manifest itself? As a “new world order” characterized by a system of “global governance,” according to Gorbachev.
“Others, including myself, have spoken about a new world order, but we are still facing the problem of building such a world order…problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, food shortages…all because we do not have a system of global governance,” he said.
“We cannot leave things as they were before, when we are seeing that these protests are moving to even new countries, that almost all countries are now witnessing such protests, that the people want change,” he said. “As we are addressing these challenges, these problems raised by these protest movements, we will gradually find our way towards a new world order,” added Gorbachev.
Of course, Gorbachev’s call for global financial instability to be used as a pretext for the further centralization of power into a sovereignty-stripping system of global governance will merely concentrate more influence into the hands of a tiny elite.
Gorbachev attempt to invoke the protest movement sweeping the globe and re-label it as a call for global governance is fundamentally disingenuous. A new world order means less democratic representation. Global government is the ultimate expression of autocratic rule, it is inherently undemocratic. Gorbachev’s American perestroika will not equate to more freedom and prosperity, it will result in a lowering of living standards and even less political representation.
The literal translation of “perestroika” means “restructuring,” but Gorbachev’s past comments overwhelmingly illustrate the fact that the former Communist icon is calling for America to experience a Soviet-style collapse before it can be re-absorbed as a vassal state that is subordinate to a UN-run global government.
The former Soviet leader has long been an advocate of transforming the United Nations and its affiliated offshoots into an architecture of global government, eviscerating American sovereignty in the process.
In September 2000, Gorbachev called for the UN to set up Soviet-style “central authority” to control the world’s business and environmental concerns. For decades he has consistently called for a “new world order” to replace existing nation states as the ultimate source of power.
Gorbachev and his fellow globalists like Zbigniew Brzezinski are clearly trying to exploit and hijack the collective disenfranchisement being expressed across the world as a tool to accomplish the long-held pursuit of global governance, handing even more power to the insiders who were responsible for the financial collapse in the first place.
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.”
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.
FEMA Communication Takeover Test Scheduled for November 9
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).
TX High School Students Made to Recite Mexican National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance
by Madeleine Morgenstern
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Canadian officials ‘secretive’ on North American perimeter security agreement
Unifying the once sovereign nations of North America under treaty law continues to move forward by stealth. And many Canadians are sitting uneasy about the secrecy.
Members of Canada’s CTV express concern in the following clip about a draft agreement for ‘integrated perimeter security’ between the U.S. & Canada that Canadian officials have refused to release. As one of CTV’s panel members points out, it seems the Canadian government has “put the cart before the horse,” intent on ‘first signing the deal, then discussing it.’ Another panelist quips he has a copy of the agreement that “doesn’t exist,” refusing to show it to viewers because officials were keeping it under wraps.
While some of the CTV panelists were not against the agreement, it was termed a ‘mini-NAFTA’ that could undermine sovereignty through its integration scheme. “Perimeter agreement could mean goodbye to the 49th parallel,” as one journalist put it, emphasizing that the plan utilized the word “integrate.”
According to The Globe and Mail, “The federal government wants members of the public to impart their “shared vision” for the security of the Canada-U.S. perimeter – it just doesn’t want to explain what that means.”
CTV interviewed Canada’s foreign minister Lawrence Cannon in recent weeks, who was reluctant to “speculate” on the non-yet-public North American perimeter security deal. Cannon instead told viewers to “breath easily” until such an agreement is signed, urging viewers to ‘keep worrying about the economy’ instead.
Whatever the official reasons for secrecy, the strategy is in keeping with leaked documents obtained in the U.S. from a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit, that reveals plans to achieve North American integration “by stealth.” The concept for the North American “perimeter security” comes directly from plans formulated at the 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership Summit and written about in Council on Foreign Relations documents:
The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005. The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.
The Canadian equivalent of FOIA has refused altogether to release documents about the agreement:
In a letter written March 4, Public Safety officials said: “The records pertaining to your request have been entirely withheld.” The department said the information could be injurious to international affairs, that it contained information developed for a government institution or minister, that it would provide an account of a government consultation, and that it is a matter of cabinet confidence.
This secrecy makes sense from the perspective that the CFR warned in Dec. 2010 that a 2011 push for U.S.-Canadian perimeter security would pose challenges: “While the initiative as outlined makes tremendous sense on both sides of the border, it will face significant opposition in Canada from those who fear that national sovereignty will be sacrificed on the altar of continental security.”
As Global Research points out on March 31, the Canadian government has since launched a website for public feedback after their secret negotiations became a hot topic:
“Since the Beyond the Border declaration was announced, the Canadian government has taken some heat for the bilateral talks being held in secret. In an attempt to try and curb some of the criticism, they launched a new website where the public can share their ideas on the planned security perimeter.”
While a general idea of the border security plan is being discussed, it would be hard for Canadians to weigh in with a fully informed opinion when the particulars of the agreement are being withheld. This point has been made by the Council of Canadians and other critics of the plan:
In a recent Action Alert, the Council of Canadians acknowledged, “no one can know for sure what ‘perimeter security’ means until the details, which are being developed behind closed doors, are announced in June. And we are being asked to suggest only improvements (not criticisms) of a plan we haven’t seen.
Moreover, joint action on the border with the United States may not be advisable (aside from secrecy and sovereignty issues), since it has all but admitted it refuses to enforce its own policies on the border. Today FOX News reports that border patrol had been told not to make arrests of illegal immigrants crossing the border:
US Border Patrol officials were ordered to reduce — and at times even stop — arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the US border, an Arizona sheriff claimed in a report published Friday by FOXNews.com
Whatever the merits of a border perimeter might be (i.e. increased “security” and “prosperity” under a one-world government of, by and for the corporations), there are no plans to release the details until June.
Chilean President Talks New International Order, Calls For Full Americas Integration Like E.U during Obama visit
During President Obama’s visit to Latin America last week was a call for further integration of the Americas, as well as extended cooperation with Asia under a Trans-Pacific Partnership, that went almost unnoticed in the media. This is par for the course, as plans for borderless, regional government have patently development “by stealth” (as the documents released under FOIA request by Judicial Watch revealed).
Chile’s President Sebastián Piñera was quite direct in calling for “a new international order.”
Air Date March 21, 2011
PRESIDENT PINERA: And in America, we are much behind that. In America, 20 years ago, President Bush, father, raised the idea of a free trade area from Alaska to “Fire Land” (Tierra del Fuego) generating a lot of enthusiasm in the region, but it never came true, never materialized. […] And in our view, that will call for a new international order that will replace that which emerged in Bretton Woods after the Second World War, and to be appropriate and adaptive to the needs and challenges of the 21st century, where the only constant thing we have is change.
With little fanfare and a world focused on other pressing events, President Obama and Chilean President Sebastián Piñera coordinated and furthered an agenda to integrate the entire Americas (both North and South) into a regional government. This agenda has been going on, really, for more than a century, as the Organization of American States (OAS) demonstrates. The creation of a North American Union is ultimately one stepping stone to a complete world government with a planned economy.
PRESIDENT PINERA: I want to tell you President Obama that when you announced your visit to Chile, Brazil and El Salvador on the occasion of your State of the Union address, you said you were coming to forge new partnerships for the progress of the Americas […] we have discovered that our two nations have a road of collaboration that can be built on rock and not on sand, because we coincide in that which is key — the values, the principles, the visions. That facilitates the road. And with that we can convincingly embrace this new alliance, this new partnership between the United States of America and the rest of the American countries — we are all Americans — an alliance that should be much deeper and forward-looking than the Alliance for Progress. And this partnership, this alliance is one of our times, of our 21st century, of the society of information and technology. […] That we may have a continent as we have dreamt it always from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean, that will become a land of freedom, of opportunities, of progress, but also a land of fairness and camaraderie as dreamt by the Founding Fathers of that great nation of the United States, like the case of Jefferson, a great patriot like Lincoln, but also like San Martin and O’higgins from our continent.
President Obama incorporated much of this message in his response:
[…] These events remind us that in our interconnected world, the security and prosperity of nations and peoples are intertwined as never before. And no region is more closely linked than the United States and Latin America. And here in the Americas, one of our closest and strongest partners is Chile. […] We’re moving ahead with efforts to expand trade and investment, as the President mentioned. Under our existing trade agreement, trade between the United States and Chile has more than doubled, creating new jobs and opportunities in both our countries […] So today we recommitted ourselves to fully implementing our free trade agreement to include protections of intellectual property so our businesses can innovate and stay competitive. We agreed to build on the progress we’re making towards a Trans-Pacific Partnership so we can seize the full potential of trade in the Asia Pacific, especially for our small and medium businesses.
During Questions, President Pinera even more boldly discused the plan for fuller-integration throughout the Americas:
RESIDENT PINERA: (As translated.) No doubt that insofar as integration of the Americas, we are lagging behind. And the best way to illustrate this is to compare what has happened in America with what happened in Europe. […] Last century, the Europeans had two world wars with a toll of more than 70 million casualties. But at some point, they had the wisdom, the courage to abandon the rationale of Line Maginot, or Siegfried Line and to embrace Maastricht Treaty. With the leadership and the vision of such renowned statesmen like Adenauer and De Gasperi, Housman, Truman — they began to build what today we know of as European Union.
And in America, we are much behind that. In America, 20 years ago, President Bush, father, raised the idea of a free trade area from Alaska to “Fire Land” (Tierra del Fuego) generating a lot of enthusiasm in the region, but it never came true, never materialized. […] And in our view, that will call for a new international order that will replace that which emerged in Bretton Woods after the Second World War, and to be appropriate and adaptive to the needs and challenges of the 21st century, where the only constant thing we have is change. […] No child should be left behind — I’ve heard this from President Obama. And here, we say in Latin America, no country should be left behind.
Free Shipping on food storage
Organization of American States (Pan-American Union)
Pan-American UnionThe Organization of American States (OAS, or, as it is known in the three other official languages, OEA) is an regional international organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States. Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the American Continent, although Honduras was suspended as a result of the June 28, 2009 coup d’état that expelled President Manuel Zelaya from office.
The notion of closer hemispheric union in America was first put forward by Simón Bolívar who, at the 1826 Congress of Panama, proposed creating a league of American republics, with a common military, a mutual defense pact, and a supranational parliamentary assembly. This meeting was attended by representatives of Gran Colombia (comprising the modern-day nations of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela), Peru, the United Provinces of Central America, and Mexico, but the grandly titled “Treaty of Union, League, and Perpetual Confederation” was ultimately ratified only by Gran Colombia. Bolívar’s dream soon floundered with civil war in Gran Colombia, the disintegration of Central America, and the emergence of national rather than continental outlooks in the newly independent American republics. Bolívar’s dream of American unity was meant to unify Latin American nations against imperial domination by external power.
The pursuit of regional solidarity and cooperation again came to the forefront in 1889–90, at the First International Conference of American States. Gathered together in Washington, D.C., 18 nations resolved to found the International Union of American Republics, served by a permanent secretariat called the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics (renamed the “International Commercial Bureau” at the Second International Conference in 1901–02). These two bodies, in existence as of 14 April 1890, represent the point of inception to which today’s OAS and its General Secretariat trace their origins.
At the Fourth International Conference of American States (Buenos Aires, 1910), the name of the organization was changed to the “Union of American Republics” and the Bureau became the “Pan American Union”.
FLASHBACK: Secretary Rice, CFR Usher in Pan-American Community
Trade Agreements for Peru, Colombia and Panama Have ‘Concluded’ Forming an “Unbroken Chain of Trading Partners from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle” that Will “Level” U.S. Wages
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport.com | October 16, 2007
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made remarks at the C.F.R. hosted Organization of American States event on October 9 that the “concluded” trade agreements with Peru, Colombia and Panama are a significant step towards the broader ‘vision’ of a Pan-American Community.
“The founding ideal of our Pan-American Community, borne across many centuries and carried by us still, is the hope that life in the hemisphere would signify a break with the Old World, and a new beginning for all mankind… and the creation of a new system of international politics, based on mutual respect and cooperation among independent nations.”