Perfect storm brewing?

Two seemingly unrelated news items appeared as links at WorldNetDaily.com the other day. The first dealt with the new, much ballyhooed, extensively reported-upon North American Army. What? You didn't hear about it? No kidding! That's because the news media was too busy chasing after Lindsay Lohan's slutty ass to be bothered with something that affects the lives and liberties of Americans.

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. (emphasis mine)

Isn't that special? So......let me get this straight. We can call in the Canucks any time we want to quash a "domestic civil emergency"? And we can do this even if Canada isn't "threatened" by said "emergency"? O-k-a-y.

It couldn't get any better than THAT, could it? Read this -- and try to keep your head from exploding.

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. (emphasis mine)

Okay, you're telling me that this "plan" was carried out without so much as a peep from our elected representatives? And doesn't this agreement fall into the category of a treaty, which, if I remember my 12th grade Civics, HAS TO BE RATIFIED BY THE SENATE? Once again, the Constitution is toilet paper to our elitist leaders.

And just what might this little "Army of North America" be used for? Maybe to keep uppity states like Montana in line.

Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.
...

The dispute goes back more than a century. Back in 1889, the settlers of the Montana territory struck a deal with the federal government: They agreed to join the union, and the government agreed that individuals had the right to bear arms.

That has worked fine for the past 118 years, but the Supreme Court is expected next month to hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the appeal of a federal court decision striking down the District's gun-ownership ban on Second Amendment grounds.

You may recall that just last month (as reported by me here) Traitor-in-Chief Bush's administration filed an Amicus brief for this case ON BEHALF of Federal gun control. In other words, Bush is thumbing his nose at us all, particularly Montanans.

But Montana can't secede! After all, didn't the tyrant Abe Lincoln see to that once and for all? There'd have to be military action against Montana, in the Lincoln tradition. But surely the American military would NEVER attack Montana now, not with prima facie evidence that they are in the right here. The Canadians..........who knows? It would certainly qualify as a "domestic crisis", would it not?

I'm just sayin'............