Even though I have to trade in their federal reserve notes and or use their legal tender it doesn't mean I don;t know what the fuck is going on. I'm pisses as hell myself that our government kowtows to the globalist agenda and takes away what my ancestry fought and died for.
Peace, Doc On Mar 14, 9:45 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > those fuckheads in DC are already providing for and protecting Israel, > Georgia, Puerto Rico, and host of other countries and you don't expect > them to provide for and protect Mexico and Canada? > > they need to just go ahead and change our pledge of allegiance to: > I pledge allegiance to the flags of every country on the planet. One > world, a global village, with liberty and justice for all. > > dumbasses > > On Mar 13, 2:51 pm, Doc Holliday <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OpEdNews > > > Original Content > > athttp://www.opednews.com/articles/Updating-the-Militarizatio-by-Stephe... > > > March 13, 2009 > > > Updating the Militarization and Annexation of North America > > > By Stephen Lendman > > > Updating the Militarization and Annexation of North America - by > > Stephen Lendman > > > The title refers to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North > > America (SPP), also known as the North American Union - formerly > > launched at a March 23, 2005 Waco, Texas meeting attended by George > > Bush, Mexico's President Vincente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister > > Paul Martin. It's for a tri-national agreement, below the radar, for > > greater economic, political, and security integration with secret > > business and government working groups devising binding policies with > > no public knowledge or legislative debate. > > > In short, it's a military-backed corporate coup d'etat against the > > sovereignty of three nations, their populations and legislative > > bodies. It's a dagger through the heart of democratic freedom in all > > three, yet the public is largely unaware of what's happening. > > > Last April, New Orleans hosted the last SPP summit. Ever since, > > progress may have stalled given the gravity of the global economic > > crisis and top priority need to address it. Nonetheless, what's known > > to date is updated below plus some related information. > > > Last September, the Army Times reported that the 3rd Infantry's 1st > > Brigade Combat Team in Iraq would be re-deployed at home (October 1) > > as "an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade > > emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." > > > "This marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated > > assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide > > command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and > > coordinate defense support of civil authorities." > > > Then on December 1, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon > > will deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 "to help state and local > > officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe." > > Three "rapid-reaction" combat units are planned. Two or more others > > may follow. They'll be supplemented by 80 smaller National Guard units > > trained to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, > > high-yield explosive, and other domestic "terror" attacks or > > disturbances. In other words, homeland militarization and occupation > > are planned using troops trained to kill. > > > The pretext is national security. In fact, they'll be on-call against > > another major terrorist attack, real or contrived, as well as civil > > unrest given the gravity of the economic crisis, its affect on > > millions, and likelihood that sooner or later they'll react. Armed > > combat troops will supplement militarized local police in case > > security crackdowns are ordered or martial law declared. > > > "Catastrophic Emergency" procedures are in place to react to > > situations, "natural or manmade," according to DHS/FEMA's March 2008 > > "Preparedness for the Next Catastrophic Disaster" policy paper. Should > > conditions warrant, initiatives to suspend the Constitution and > > declare martial law are in place, but militarizing America for > > business is also at issue. > > > Last October 1, the Canadian Action Party posted a "COUP IN USA ALERT" > > after the Bush administration announced the homeland deployment of > > troops with "$100 billion (bailout) dollars" to do it. > > > What's Likely in Prospect > > > SPP efforts paused during the Bush to Obama transition, but "deep > > integration" plans remain. On January 19, Ottawa's Carleton > > University's Centre for Trade Policy and Law outlined an agenda for > > America and Canada going forward. It called for "early and sustained > > cooperation" at a time of continuing global crisis, to include > > security, defense, trade and competitiveness. > > > It said the "most pressing issue is the need to re-think the > > architecture for managing North America's common economic space > > (including) trade liberalization." It used language like "re-imagining > > (and) modernizing the border" that reads like erasing it and doing the > > same with Mexico. In a similar vein, it recommends "integrating > > national regulatory regimes into one that applies on both sides of the > > border." It called the arrival of a new Washington administration "a > > golden opportunity" to forge a "mutually beneficial agenda (that) will > > define global and North American governance for years to come." > > > It mentioned the specter of protectionism and need to avoid it given > > the current economic climate. It advocates a "more ambitious Canada-US > > Partnership" beyond NAFTA," in co-partnership with Mexico. > > > Titled "North America Next," a recent Arizona State University North > > American Center for Transborder Studies report called for "sustainable > > and security competitiveness" and deeper US-Canada-Mexico integration > > through "sustainable security and effective trade and transportation > > (to) make (the three nation) North America(n partnership) safer, more > > economically viable, and more prosperous." > > > Both Carleton and Arizona State University project participants want > > SPP initiatives invigorated under a new Washington administration, > > especially in a climate of global economic crisis when addressing it > > takes precedence. > > > Other Issues in Play > > > "The Canadian's" Mike Finch "North American Union (NAU) watch" reports > > that US and Canadian organizations want to end free flow Internet > > information. He cites an "net-neutrality activist group" discovery of > > "plans for the demise of the free Internet by 2010 in Canada," and by > > 2012 globally. > > > Canada's two largest ISPs, Bell Canada and TELUS, are behind a scheme > > to limit browsing, block out sites, and charge fees on most others as > > part of a 2012 "planned full (NAU) launching." Web host I Power's > > Reese Leysen called it "beyond censorship: it is killing the biggest > > (ever) 'ecosystem' of free expression and freedom of speech." He cited > > big company inside sources providing information on "exclusivity deals > > between ISPs and big content providers (like TV studios and video game > > publishers) "to decide which sites will be in the standard package > > offered customers, leaving the rest of the Internet unreachable except > > for fees." > > > Leysen called his source "100% reliable" and cited similar information > > from a Dylan Pattyn Time magazine article, based on Bell Canada and > > TELUS sources. Plans are for "only the top 100 - 200 sites making the > > cut in the initial subscription package," likely to include major news > > outlets at the expense of smaller, alternative ones. "The Internet > > would become a playground for billion-dollar content providers," like > > cable TV providers, unless efforts are made to stop it. > > > Leysen thinks US and global ISPs have similar plans that include free > > speech restrictions and privacy invasions. The stakes are high if he's > > right. Yet the profit potential is huge and friendly governments may > > oblige. Also involved are "deceptive marketing and fear tactics" (like > > citing child pornography threats) to gain public approval for > > subscription services masquerading as online safety. The time to stop > > it is now. > > > Earlier Plans to Rename SPP/NAU > > > Last March, Canada's Fraser Institute proposed it in an article > > titled: "Saving the North American Security and Prosperity > > Partnership" at a time of mounting criticism. It recommended > > discarding NAU in favor of the "North American Standards and > > Regulatory Area (NASRA)" to disguise its real purpose. It called the > > "SPP brand" tarnished so changing it was essential to continue where > > NAFTA left off by combining security with quality of life issues like > > food safety, global warming, climate change, and pandemic diseases. It > > also wants better communications to sell it to the public. Their idea > > is to fool most people until it's too late to matter. > > > Rumblings in America at the State Level > > > Running counter to "deep integration," News with Views (NWV) writer > > Jim Kouri headlined on February 23: "Individual States Declaring > > Sovereignty." He cites political strategist Mike Baker saying > > "Americans are becoming disenchanted with the federal government's > > lack of perspective on" matters like: "illegal aliens, crime, (and) > > economic turmoil - while intruding into the private lives of citizens > > with gun-control laws and other intrusions," issues our Founding > > Fathers "relegated to the individual states." Bothersome also are > > unfunded mandates that states can't handle given their over-stretched > > budgets and need to cut back. In addition, Washington's intrusion into > > local law enforcement is a big issue. > > > So far, nine states have declared sovereignty and another dozen or > > more are considering it. Enacted or proposed legislation varies from > > all states' rights to selective ones like gun control and abortion. > > > As of January 30, Washington State is one of the former under House > > and Senate bill HJM-4009 stating: > > > "The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States > > specifically provides that, 'The powers not delegated to the United > > States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are > > reserved to the States respectively, or to the > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
