Shocking!

U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of USNORTHCOM, signs agreement Feb. 14, 2008, with Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command (USNORTHCOM photo)

I found this on another blog, and I was shocked when I read it! The article was published today in the WorldNetDaily.

I thought it was important enough to bring it to the attention of others..I certainly had no idea that any such thing had transpired, so maybe a lot of others are in the dark about it, too.

All of the scenarios that come to mind should this ever actually take place, and a national emergency is declared, are horrifying!

PREMEDITATED MERGER.

American Army created without OK by Congress

U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies
Posted: February 24, 20081:45 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2008 WorldNetDaily
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.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of USNORTHCOM, signs agreement Feb. 14, 2008, with Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command (USNORTHCOM photo)
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."It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration," Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the Canwest News Service. "We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites."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."This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities," Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCOM website."In discussing the new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan established by USNORTHCOM and Canada Command, Renuart stressed, "Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering an mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment."Lt. Gen. Dumais seconded Renuart's sentiments, stating, "The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command.""Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century," he stressed, "and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends."

The statement on the USNORTHCOM website emphasized the plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada.The statement then noted the newly signed plan was designed to facilitate the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response. As WND has previously reported, U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies. Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and securities partners. In Nov. 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series, detailing WND's on-site presence during the NORAD-USNORTHCOM Vigilant Shield 2008, an exercise which involved Canada Command as a participant.In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement. In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.Media wishing to interview the author of this article, please e-mail Tim Bueler.


Jerome R. Corsi is a staff reporter for WND. He received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including his latest best-seller, "The Late Great USA." Corsi co-authored with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." Other books include "Showdown with Nuclear Iran," "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran."

Not My Messiah

Today, while surfing the net, I came across a blog with all of these articles, and many more. If you would like to check it out, go here: Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

"We have to fix our SOULS - Our souls are BROKEN"

We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the ONLY person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.Via "Michelle Obama's Vision of America" (Hugh Hewitt, February 15, 2008).

Friday, February 22, 2008

"Obama will DEMAND that you shed your cynicism"

Barack Obama WILL REQUIRE YOU to work. He is going to DEMAND that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage.
Barack will NEVER ALLOW YOU to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed – you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, YOU WILL HAVE TO BE ENGAGED.Michelle Obama, campaign speech at UCLA (links to video, audio @ Protein Wisdom)

"I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear"

BALTIMORE — Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings has held elected office for more than a quarter-century, so he's seen his fair share of politicians come and go.
But apparently he's never seen one quite like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
"This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world," he said as he introduced Obama last week in Baltimore.
"You do not get 13,000 people in this auditorium with a campaign."
As over the top as it may have sounded, Cummings' sentiments weren't all that unusual.
Because when it comes to Obama, hyperbole seems to be the rule, not the exception.
His charms seem tough to resist, even for some of Hollywood’s biggest names.
"He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere," George Clooney told talk show host Charlie Rose.
"I'll do whatever he says to do," actress Halle Berry said to the Philadelphia Daily News. "I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear."

The true believers can “Obama-ize” just about anything. Knitters for Obama crochet for him, Runners for Obama jog for him, and Hold 'Em Barack, well, they bet on him.
In Chicago, a recent art exhibit showed works depicting the candidate on canvas, paper and even in animated videos.
On Etsy, a crafts auction website, you can buy Obama jewelry, paintings, and even a homemade Obama Valentine. The card shows a sketch of the candidate with the text, "I want to Barack your world."
Last week, Obama attracted a crowd of 19,000 to the Kohl Center in Madison, Wis.
Four days earlier, more than 18,000 voters filled Seattle's Key Arena to see him.
The 3,000 that didn't get in waited in the cold for over an hour to hear a roughly two-minute version of his stump speech.
When Obama finally took the stage, the crowd roared so loudly that a local reporter in the press section covered her ears.
At an Omaha, Neb., rally the day before, supporters leaned perilously over railings, screaming and crying, trying to touch Obama as he passed.
During both speeches, a supporter yelled out, "I love you." This happens fairly frequently and Obama is always ready with a smooth answer.
"I love you back," he says, with a quick, almost cocky smile.
The campaign works hard to cultivate the rock star image. After he's introduced, Obama routinely waits about 30 seconds to enter the arena.
The excitement grows, until his entrance is perfectly timed with the soaring chords of U2's “City of Blinding Lights.”
"I can't really verbalize exactly what it is about him," says Avila. "Part of it is just beyond explanation."Lisa Lehrer, Politico Feb 20, 2008.

"I felt this thrill going up my leg . . ."
I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.Chris Matthews, MSNBC [MP3 Recording Video February 12, 2008.

One would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by Obama on the stump. It's not so much by what he says but it's the way the crowds respond to his words. When 16,000 people, without prompting, start shouting some of his keynote phrases as he delivers them, you know something special is going on.
The atmosphere at his events is such that one wonders if Obama is about to walk out with a basket with some loaves and fishes to feed the thousands.- Washington correspondent Geoff Elliott. The Australian February 9, 2008

"the source of new hope on a parched land -- as rain from a Kenyan cloud"

Barack Obama, . . . has come like rain on American politics.
His campaign theme - 'the source of new hope on a parched land' is a cleansing agent in a land weighed down by crusted blood of Iraqis murdered in their own territory by Americans who came to save them from "weapons of mass destruction".
Obama has come as rain from a Kenyan cloud that seeded in the plains of Iowa and fell in Hawaii, but refuses to be tied down as just another "black candidate" pushing primarily for the restoration of justice for African-Americans by reminding white America of its guilt.
Instead, he insists on the freedom of a collective American Messiah who has come to mobilise all disillusioned children of American democracy to open up a new frontier in politics. This is Obama's venture of building hope using the power of hope.
Like rain, Obama must rouse new winds that will blow away drought, which drought will not depart without a fight. . . .
Barack Obama is uniquely placed to support the fruition of this dream knowing, as he now does, the sublime challenges of conducting political rain on a scale as grand, in terrestrial and human space, as the United States of America. May his rain come down to sprout a Union of Africa. To which some Nigerians say "Amen."Okello Oculi, Daily Monitor AllAfrica.com. February 20, 2008.

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.January 7, 2008.

It is plain to see that there are many misguided people who think that Barack Obama is the one who will bring happiness, prosperity, and peace to the whole world--including Barack Obama, believing that he is chosen for such a time as this.

Seven Reasons For Turning Away From Obama

The following was published in Democratic Underground a few days ago. I found it to be interesting, especially in light of Michelle Obama's recent statement.

I am now a Hillary supporter, although I was an initial supporter of Obama late last year. Since then, I've done about 200 hours worth of research on all the candidates and their positions, including the Republicans'. For what it's worth, here is why I won't vote for Obama in the general election:

(1) His decision to have Donnie McClurkin campaign for him amongst religious constituents in South Carolina, and then defense of that decision in the interests of "unity," because "many voters hold his views." When challenged, he said McClurkin "isn't against gays who are happy being gay!!" This makes me question his commitment to civil rights. I am a straight woman, with lots of gay students and clients, and this is not a fuzzy issue to me. You either defend everyone's civil rights, or you don't.

(2) His commitment to increase the military by 100,000 soldiers, and to raise the military budget well beyond where it is now (which is IMHO too high, given the $78,000 which is each citizen's share tonight of the national debt).

(3) His decision to make a business deal with someone he's described as "a friend for 12 years," to allow that person (Rezko) to hold fundraisers for him, and to accept personal cash contributions to his campaign (of which he has returned 75% under pressure), and then to defend himself by saying he didn't do anything wrong. That isn't the point. Of course he didn't do anything illegal. The point is, I know no one who could befriend a man, have lunch with him for 12 years, whose spouse hung out with his spouse, who read the newspapers who were already investigating Rezko at the time, and somehow miss that he is an extortionist who is going to go to the big house for good reason. Who is Obama therefore likely to appoint to advise him in the White House?

(4) His nonverbal behavior during the debates toward Clinton (he does not look at her when she is speaking--and he's the only one not to, and she's the only one he doesn't look at...this does not unity make). How is he going to nonverbally interact with world leaders, or members of Congress, etc. with whom he does not agree? This is not conciliatory, and certainly "world leaders" are going to present much more of a challenge than Clinton does.

(5) His continual victim stance regarding ads against him...does he not realize this is a campaign? Does he not read factcheck dot org about what the lies his own campaign is spewing out? And is what he is saying about any of this going to inspire "unity"? Given that Clinton is his "enemy" at the moment, shouldn't he be treating this situation in a conciliatory way, given that that is his entire platform? Showing us he is capable of bringing together vastly opposing points of view? But that is not what is happening. Instead, he is splitting the world into good and bad.

(6) His determination (expressed clearly in the 2nd to last debate, and again yesterday) to pre-emptive invasion of Pakistan (a nuclear nation) if "intelligence" tells us that Bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan.

(7) His answer to the Columbus, OH Dispatch reporter about why he is the best candidate for President when it comes to foreign policy (part of a longer interview, with all candidates, just this week). McCain & Clinton gave detailed answers about their foreign policy experience, Senate Armed Services Committee service, Clinton's already established and positive personal relationships with dozens of world leaders, etc. Obama said he is the ONLY person who could bring world leaders together because he grew up in Indonesia (and therefore the Muslims will like and understand him), and because he has a grandmother in Kenya who has no running water (and therefore, people in poverty will like and understand him). In psychological terms, this demonstrates grandiosity and naivete (which tend to go together).

All of this is beyond inexperience. It certainly doesn't give me any hope at all, and it's not the kind of change I want.

Notice that we don't hear much about any of this in the media. It's all out there, verifiable, fact. I am really disappointed in Obama, but glad I discovered all this before voting. (And for God's sake, man, send your grandmother some money!)

I believe the question we would all be wise to ask ourselves is why were we so willing to be lied to before the Iraq war? Why didn't we act, if we all KNEW how bad an idea the war would be? Why didn't we DO anything? And is that tendency, to line up behind the media's point of view of the moment, operating now as well? Are we just a lazy country, unwilling to do the work to check out what's being fed to us? Doesn't that make us vulnerable?

* I, for one, will not be voting for Obama...but that decision was made long before reading this person's reasons for not voting for him.

I can think of a lot more than seven reasons not to vote for him., and just as many not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

When it comes right down to it, one hardly has the desire to vote at all, but then who really wins?

Whether Democrat or Republican, it will be interesting to see for whom we will get to vote in this election.