Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

North American Army created – without OK by Congress


Recommended Posts


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."

For more click the link

One step closer to an NAU.

Big deal or nothing to worry about? What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


why is this a surprise to anyone if I was telling you guys this a year ago? :laugh:

transatlantic union, north american union, south american union, asian pacific union, the united states of africa...etc...

it's nothing more than building blocks toward the reformation of the holy roman empire....

next up: either the building of the 3rd temple or China vs USA ( ww3 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realize how the military works? Congress or even the Commander in Chief, does not need to approve each time US troops do anything or leave the country. Major command headquarters can plan exercises or training anywhere in the world, or send them to go pick tulips in Holland without saying boo to Congress. As long as they don't send troops to combat, which would require Presidential approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The Truth of the Matter Regarding the U.S. Canadian ‘Civil Assistance Plan’

By Sean Osborne Tuesday, February 26, 2008

I’ve really had my fill of internet reporting from the Left and the Right blogosphere citing the recent U.S. NORTHCOM-CANADA COMMAND military-to-military agreement establishing the bilateral Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) as being the establsihment of a “North American Army”.

What a bunch of conspiracy nonsense and absolute hooey!

The Civil Assistance Plan is a signed document, a contingency plan (CONPLAN) which provides the legal framework for the military forces of the United States or Canada to assist each other if requested as necessary in supporting their nations civilian authorities in emergency situations which include but are not expressly limited to: floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters as well as the effects of a terrorist attack.

If you want to read the whole gamut of related conspiracy nonsense out there, by all means do so. Just google “Civil Assistance Plan.” The Lefties and even a few conservatives have made this agreement appear to be something that I do not believe it is - and that is it is not a mechanism establishing an armed force of Canadian or American soldiers charged with the enslavement of the citizens of the other nation by force. Neither is it an army of totalitarian conquest or an enforcer of a poltical union between them. Like I said, I’ve really have had my fill of this blatant rubbish. As a result of the indigestion it caused I felt the need to attempt to set the record straight with some salient facts.

This military agreement between the U.S. and Canada establishing a “Civil Assistance Plan” predates most of the partisan political discourse and conspiracy theorems regarding the so-called “North American Union” by at least 67 years. So that patriots on both side of the U.S.-Canadian border do not misunderstand where I am coming from, I’ll state categorically that there is something beneath the surface regarding the agenda of the SPP, that it might be a vehicle to a political union not unlike the EU - that is the agenda of the globalist elite if I am not mistaken.

However, while I’m not 100% sure about Canadian law, I do believe that the U.S. Constitution is the critical or principle legal obstacle to any economic or political union in North America. The establishment of a “North American Army” would of necessity have to undergo and withstand very significant legal (i.e. Constitutional) challenges. I’ll assume for the moment that the same is true for the Canadian armed forces.

And therein lies the rub, the difference between planning for potential military involvement in cross-border civil authority support contingencies and any possible “North American Pentagon.” The oath of enlistment for American soldiers is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and to obey all lawfull orders of their superior officers. Period. And speaking of globalist elites and their agenda, how many of you remember the 1990s Clinton-era brewhaha over US soldiers wearing UN blue helmets? Does U.S. Army Specialist Michael G. New ring a bell? That brewhaha revolved entirely on legal issues involving the service members oath to the Constitution.

Getting back to the CAP and the history behind it, there was a meeting held on August 30, 1940 in Ogdensburg, N.Y. between Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wherein a proposal was made for the creation of a joint defense board to handle continental defense issues.

As as direct result of that meeting the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD) was created with its focus to be “the defense of the north half of the Western Hemsiphere.” The choice of the word “permanent” was insisted upon by both PM King and President Roosevelt. The PJDB was not founded on any treaty or legislative action, nor was it established as a vehicle to devise future treaties or other agreements. The PJBDs focus was made clear by President Roosevelt who said that it was not just for the threats posed during WWII, but “to help secure the continent for the future.”

The PJBD led to the policy guidance set forth in t he joint U.S.-Canadian Basic Security Document (BSD) for planning processes as well as the long-established Combined Defense Plan for Canada and the United States. The military forces of the U.S. and Canada under these agreements have always treated each other as peer equals and cooperated formally and informally in planning for the defense of the North American continent.

In 1946 the PJBD led to the creation of a new bilateral military institution, the Military Cooperation Committee (MCC). The MCC then led to the creation of North American Air and then to NORAD in 1958.

The establishment of the new American combatant command NORTHCOM is a logical after-the-fact of 9/11 and follows in the progression of the events of the past 67 years to fully integrate U.S. and Canadian military forces into the unified purpose of directing, planning and conducting defensive exercises and military civil support operations within the United States and Canada in light of the Nuclear, Chemical, Biological or Radiological threats from foreign or Islamofascist enemies.

Canada and the United States must stand united in purpose for our common defense or we will surely die divided and conquered by our enemies. Planning for civil emergencies and having “boots” planned into civil contingencies is probably a good, prudent idea. Whatever happens in the future at least those with the mission to assist civil authorities in a crisis have their ducks all in a row to do something they may or may not actually be tasked to do. Contingency being the operative word.

I believe General Renuart and General Dumais did make the purpose of the agreement very clear with respect to their assigned and specific military missions. But it’s not their purview to explain it to the public; not even their subordinate Public Affairs Officer would do an explanation justice. Even then certain ‘conspiracists’ would likely twist the explanation to suit their particular agenda. This is what both left and right have done in the past couple of days, and that’s what gave me indigestion.

I believe it’s actually the job of civilian media to do the due diligent research, to understand the implications and/or background of the agreement and then to provide John and Jane Q. Public with a certain level of assurance regarding their military missions - particularly in a time of war which has effectively demonstrated repeatedly that to the enemy there is zero differentiation between military and civilian targets. Shopping malls, financial district s, critical infrastructure or military bases - they all have an equal chance of being hit by the enemy.

Sorry folks, but a ‘North American Army’ was not created without U.S. Congressional or Canadian Parliamentary approvals. It simply does not exist except as a figment of the imagination in certain conspiratorial craniums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realize how the military works? Congress or even the Commander in Chief, does not need to approve each time US troops do anything or leave the country. Major command headquarters can plan exercises or training anywhere in the world, or send them to go pick tulips in Holland without saying boo to Congress. As long as they don't send troops to combat, which would require Presidential approval.

So why was this measure necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I was about to call 'source,' I found this:


The explanation of USNORTHCOM's role is pretty consistent with the WND description. Also, there is a blurb on the main page (home) that includes the picture and description in the original post.

At this point, there is simply to much evidence to be able to dismiss the NAU. But I'll still wait for the official announcement before taking up arms. :)

Guys, just a suggestion. If you're going to post something from worldnetdaily, dailykos, huffingtonpost, or whatever. Go the extra mile and try to find an unbiased supporting source. Not to say that those sites don't occasionally hit on a story and report it accurately (as appears to have happened here), but that's not consistently their M.O. If you can support your point without using such sources, or throw in additional supporting sources, you save yourself the trouble of being simply dismissed by the other side.

Just my :2cents: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why was this measure necessary?

In huge organizations like the military, you don't just up and do something. There are steps to take and approvals to get and on and on. This agreement is a facilitating device, if you will. It is something to point to when the US Army writes its next contingency plan for running a joint command post during wildfire, nuclear aftermath, monster hurricane, etc. "In accordance with the Civil assistance plan of 2008..." If a horrific event should occur, Canadian troops would be a welcome assist, especially if, God forbid, the event had temporarily mucked up our own command and control. Specifics of how to request, where to draw resources from, and command roles, are all things that are much better suited to being written at a liesurely pace, not just thrown together on the fly after a catastrophe. Hence the necessity of this measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, is it that no one cares if we become the NAU or is that no one thinks we will ever become the NAU?

no one cares because they are nothing more than pawns of the government and the higher up federal reserve bankers....

Some fight things like this out of civil liberty conflicts, others ( myself ) link it to the final 4 prophetic fulfillments prior to Christs return.....

AT LEAST 5 things of consequence have fulfilled prophecy in the past 100 years so if plotted on a prophetic timeline:

All we've got left is:

~A war that initiated from the Euphrates River ( Iraq mostly ) that spins out of control and kills 2 billion people ( ww3 ? )

~A finalized 1 world government

~the confermation of the covanent ( happening now ) / 3rd temple built shortl after

~and the attempted enforcement of RFID


Not a single one of those is IMPOSSIBLE this decade.....but it's doubtful anything except # 3 could happen will happen THIS year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it say in the bible somewhere that orange is the official color of the apocalypse? Or is it "The Apocalypse, brought to you by Sunny D," kinda like the Super Bowl halftime show? :laugh:
Excuse me, Coach Zorn, but I think that on this message board, we call that color gold. This is orange.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, Coach Zorn, but I think that on this message board, we call that color gold. This is orange.

This is gold. Not to be confused with yellow, which is here. Once you get this down, I'll explain to you the difference between maroon and burgundy. Someone else better show you black though, so I don't get myself in trouble again. ;) :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...