Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

December 26, 2014

Friday Free Forum

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on December 26, 2014

William R. Cumming Forum

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

11 Comments »

Comment by Joe Citizen

December 27, 2014 @ 5:08 am

….again, China wins!

Homeland Security? Thanks Barry Obama and a US Congress again failing to get the job done! Our border remains open to the South and by mid-late 2016, the crash will come and oh, the woes and wailing to follow….and only YOU to blame!

Preface:

The project’s importance has only grown since the U.S. delayed a decision on TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline that would take oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

TORONTO (AP) — Canada’s government on Tuesday approved a controversial pipeline proposal that would bring oil to the Pacific Coast for shipment to Asia, a major step in the country’s efforts to diversify its oil exports if it can overcome fierce opposition from environmental and aboriginal groups.

Approval for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project was expected as Canada needs infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production. The project’s importance has only grown since the U.S. delayed a decision on TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline that would take oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The northern Alberta region has the world’s third largest oil reserves, with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves.

Enbridge’s pipeline would transport 525,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta’s oil sands to the Pacific to deliver oil to Asia, mainly energy-hungry China. About 220 large oil tankers a year would visit the Pacific coast town of Kitimat and opponents fear pipeline leaks and a potential tanker spill on the pristine Pacific coast.

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Canada’s national interest makes the pipelines essential.

He was “profoundly disappointed” that U.S. President Barack Obama has delayed a decision on the Texas Keystone XL option, and spoke of the need to diversify Canada’s oil industry. Ninety-seven percent of Canadian oil exports now go to the U.S.

Meanwhile, China’s growing economy is hungry for Canadian oil. Chinese state-owned companies have invested more than $40 billion in Canadian energy in the past few years.

“They are watching this very, very closely,” said Wenran Jiang, an energy expert and special adviser to Alberta’s Department of Energy.

“They told us as recently as a couple of weeks ago that further investment will depend on whether there will be at least opportunities to ship some of this crude to China. Currently all of their investment and production goes into the U.S. They are currently living with that,” he said.

Jiang said Canada ships all its oil to the U.S. so it’s vital that Canada diversify its energy exports. Canadian oil is sold at a discount compared to the prices elsewhere.

The Harper government declined requests for comment on Tuesday, only issuing a statement.

________________

Thanks William Cumming for this Friday opportunity to make reference to reading about a subject matter which many Canadians and Americans are unaware of and will affect their nations:

The amero-dollar:

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of the most influential policy groups in Washington, has quietly launched a program titled the North American Future 2025 Project.25 Working in cooperation with the Conference Board of Canada, CSIS envisions the tri-national integration of agriculture, health services, transportation, and telecommunications. Banking and the financial world are fingered too, a move that surprises no one, as is Canadian fresh water access – a sore point for many north of the border.

Canada holds approximately 20% of the world’s fresh water,26 and this supply has been at the epicentre of a simmering bi-national struggle between US interests and Canadians. In fact, this tug-of-war goes back to the 1960s and the industrial giant Ralph M. Parsons Company (now the Parsons Corporation), which proposed the North American Water and Power Alliance and the diversion of Canadian river systems to the south.27 Now, over forty years later, CSIS is advocating that the US and Mexico gain access to this supply, with suggestions of “water transfers” and the “artificial diversion of fresh water.”

Obviously, as a country with some of the most to lose or gain in tri-national trade, one would think that Canadian voters would be seriously debating the pros and cons of a North American merger. But nothing of the sort has been evident. This despite the fact that in early 2002, Robert Pastor – a consultant to the US National Security Council and Vice Chair of the CFR task force on North American integration – gave testimony to the Canadian House of Commons, proposing a North American Parliamentary Group, a North American Development Fund, a North American customs union, and the implementation of a single monetary unit for the continent. Pastor also encouraged the Canadian government to help its citizens think as “North Americans,” with the implication that nationalism must be replaced by a broader mindset.28

Robert Pastor also gave a similar presentation to the Toronto meeting of the Trilateral Commission (TC) in the fall of 2002.29 After all, the Trilateral Commission was pursuing regionalism as a stepping-stone to globalization ten years before,30 and has an historical link into the European Union.31 Other Trilateral connections exist, including crossovers between the TC, the CFR Task Force, and CSIS.

One example is Wendy Dobson, a CFR Task Force member who along with Pastor discussed the North American union at the Toronto Trilateral meeting.32 Other Trilateral/CFR Task Force members include Allan Gotlieb, Carlos Heredia, Luis Rubio, and Carla A. Hills. Not only is Hills a member of the CFR North American group and the Trilateral Commission, she’s also the co-chair of the CSIS Advisory Board.33 Incidentally, one of the co-founders of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is a Counsellor at CSIS, which has been publishing the North American Integration Monitor since 2002.

If all of this seems like a cozy little club, that’s because it is a cozy little club. In fact, the CFR report Building A North American Community suggests the establishment of “private bodies that would meet regularly or annually to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg…conferences.”34 The Bilderberg conferences are renowned for their private, elite settings. So too, North American unification events are intentionally locked behind secured doors, such as the closed North American Forum at Banff, Alberta in 2006,35 and the multiple CSIS roundtables that started in Washington DC and ended on April 27, 2007 in Calgary, Alberta.36 By the way, in the fall of 2007, CSIS will be distributing their final North American Future 2025 report to all three governments in a bid to advance integration.

Through all of this, Canadian politicians have been strangely silent, with the exception of the National Democratic Party. Ironically, while the NDP opposes a North American Union, it’s a staunch supporter of global governance as espoused by the Socialist International, the largest body of socialist leaders on the planet, and one that the NDP holds a full membership in.37

But what does the average citizen think? Besides the fact that most are wholly unaware, a CFR poll shows Canadians support deeper integration.38 However, as someone living on the Canadian prairies, I’ve been conducting my own poll of sorts: I’ve been asking friends and neighbours where they stand on this issue. Granted, this may not be the most scientific method, but it did elicit interesting responses.

One friend who’s a grain buyer sees a US-Canadian amalgamation as inevitable, and remarked that we’re owned by American-led multinationals already. Farmers had mixed opinions, but the majority believed they would simply be pawns in a game of high finances and government dictates; views that are not groundless.

Another friend looks forward to a union, hoping Canadian socialism dies in the process, but is equally fearful that the outcome will be something worse. Others have been horrified by the thought of a blended continent, and had hoped that the present Canadian Conservative government wouldn’t be bent so easily by big dollar politics.

No matter whom I discussed this with, pro or con, all seemed leery. Few believed that a merger would deliver on the altruistic promises of “Security and Prosperity,” especially without shredding national independence. Little institutional trust exists, at least in the rural areas of the Great Plains.

Ironically, I’m a “NAFTA product.” My great-grandparents on both sides immigrated and emigrated back-and-forth between all three counties, and for some of my kin this was done multiple times, switching nations as they bought and sold land and farms. But bureaucracy was minimal then, and governments and communities welcomed anyone willing to work and add to the progress of society. Now bureaucracy is strangling, with governments overburdened by hefty entitlement programs, massive debt loads, and a bewildering maze of regulations.

A different breed, however, stalks today’s North American landscape. As it stands, continental unification is being driven by trilateral elites tightly bound to the world of banking and multinational corporations, and by government leaders who typically flirt between a life of public administration and privileged financial and corporate boardrooms. It’s a landscape of intertwined big power and money interests.

This raises some serious questions. Will another layer of management, this time at a regional level, fix our institutional deficiencies? Or will it add more bureaucracy and less accountability? And who stands to win or lose in this game of integration; the trilateral movers of North America, the sovereignty of each individual nation, or the common citizen blissfully unaware of the coming continental shift?

Let me guess where you’re placing your amero-dollar bets.

Carl Teichrib is a Senior Fellow with The August Review [www.augustreview.com], and Chief Editor of Forcing Change [www.forcingchange.org].

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 27, 2014 @ 4:00 pm

FEMA international relations section once identified over 300 US/Canada agreements not having TREATY status but impacting EM!

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 28, 2014 @ 2:46 am

Meanwhile, the US government took the lead in restoring Baghdad’s sewer system at a cost of $7 billion!

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 28, 2014 @ 2:52 am

With CRS estimating that the costs of the post-9/11 US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exceed $1.6 Trillion has this effort promoted HS and US resilience?

Should this question be debated in the 2016 Presidential campaign about to start?

Is the Armed Forces of the USA about to be drastically downsized as irrelevant to the DEEP STATE?

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 28, 2014 @ 9:37 am

N.B. My last FFF! Will enjoy reading the posts and comments of others! Thanks to all for allowing my uncensored participation for the last decade on HLSWatch.com!

Come visit!

Comment by Philip J. Palin

December 28, 2014 @ 10:39 am

Bill: Ite in pace!

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 28, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

P.S. A permanent link to the 2014 Annual National Preparedness Report:

http://fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/fema/natprep-2014.pdf

In reading this report for the third time again impressed with the graphics but not the metrics.

I define PREPAREDNESS differently than some do. IMO PREPAREDNESS = planning, equipment, funding, personnel, mobilization arrangements, logistical systems, all adding up to ACTUAL CAPABILITY! E.G. ability to operate 24/7 for weeks or months.

Check out the metrics in the 2014 report and add the modifier CONTAMINATION to the puzzle. Think through events where there has been wide-scale CONTAMINATION complicating RESOPONSE and RECOVERY!

What does the 2014 report tell US about the ability to operate in CONTAMINATED AREAS?

I understand from U.K. friends that BIOTERRORISM is the highest risk fore the U.K.!

Perhaps for the US CORRUPTION?

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 29, 2014 @ 7:19 am

Extract from Title VI of the Stafford Act:

“Emergency Preparedness – The term “emergency preparedness” means all those activities and measures designed or undertaken to prepare for or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population, to deal with the immediate emergency conditions which would be created by the hazard, and to effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency restoration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by the hazard. Such term includes the following:
(A)Measures to be undertaken in preparation for anticipated hazards (including the establishment of appropriate organizations, operational plans, and supporting agreements, the recruitment and training of personnel, the conduct of research, the procurement and stockpiling of necessary materials and supplies, the provision of suitable warning systems, the construction or preparation of shelters, shelter areas, and control centers, and, when appropriate, the non-military evacuation of the civilian population).
(B) Measures to be undertaken during a hazard (including the enforcement of passive defense regulations prescribed by duly established military or civil authorities, the evacuation of personnel to shelter areas, the control of traffic and panic, and the control and use of lighting and civil communications).
(C)Measures to be undertaken following a hazard (including activities for fire fighting, rescue, emergency medical, health and sanitation services, monitoring for specific dangers of special weapons, unexploded bomb reconnaissance, essential debris clearance, emergency welfare measures, and immediately essential emergency repair or restoration of damaged vital facilities).”

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 29, 2014 @ 9:09 am

Sec.602 {c} of Stafford:

Cross Reference – The terms “national defense” and “defense”, as used in the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to this title.

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 29, 2014 @ 9:11 am

I posted today on RECOVERY DIVA blog a somewhat long comment on today’s post on Critical Infrastructure and RESILIENCE!

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 30, 2014 @ 11:01 am

FINIS!

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>