Should we go over every myth and reply?
This article would seem to dispute that nothing has been signed, for Harper they might be right, that doesn't mean there was not an earlier time (2005)when things were signed.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/north_american_union_already_starting_replace_usa.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1271
Correct me if I am wrong here, voters watch the elected politicians to make sure they only what they have been granted the power to. The watch-dogs being the ones who voted them into a position. One of the things they (elected ones) were to watch was business so that they acted the way they were supposed to for the (good of the voter). Businesses are supposed to take their orders from the ones who won the land they are operating on. The NAU reverses that, business now dictates to the elected ones how their voters will be treated, and when profit is the bottom line that does not bode well for those near the bottom of the corporate ladder. This isn't a study on what might be implemented, it is a time-table of the way things are going to be. Do you see any blogs from those who were at those 'secret meetings', did you watch the proceedings on any channel or live-cam?
It also specifically says NAFTA will stay in place just as written. In hindsight it wasn't all that well thought out, free-trade with 'tarrifs' ???? Nor is Canada's resources able to be held for Canadian consumption. Much like NFLD power being sold to Que. and them selling it to the US with the profits going to them rather than the original seller. The US would gladly install pipelines from the West as long as it was on American soil. When that resource crosses a certain boundary it becomes their property and they can do whatever they want to the prices, even when the final consumer is in Ontario or further East in Canada, they are buying an American product. Why do you think all our pipe-lines a being abandoned and not being rebuilt or enlarged.
To all the trolls who start to yell 'what a kook this guy is' anytime a thread like this comes up.
You don't know your own bosses. For example, increasing the oxygen level in a body has benefits as a cancer fighting agent. The FDA (or whoever) publishes a report that cancer is best beaten by undergoing radiation treatment. The side-effects of that radiation can be 'minimized' if oxygen theorpy is given. They just won't come out and say that the oxygen alone is the way to combat cancers. The Canadian counter-part is no better. On the subject of inhaling hydrogen-peroxide they say it is a no-no. They leave the reader thinking only about 35% food-grade. They don't bother to say that is cut to 3% and only a very few drops of that is taken at any certain time.
It's all in the wording and do I trust everything the TV says, no as they are under no obligation to tell the truth, nor do I trust the way the NAU would word things as not being in the same format as the two examples I provided.
