Killing with kindness : African Holocaust

.
While we focus on the OVERT killing, which makes the "news" ...
_______


Killing with kindness

There's lot of expressed concern on the part of the US, the UN and WHO about AIDS in Africa.

Oddly, other much more serious diseases and environmental problems in Africa are being ignored.

The solution to the "AIDS problem" in Africa?

Lots of immuno-suppressive drugs and the replacing of breastfeeding with infant formula.

One researcher called the west's anti-AIDS program in Africa "diabolical." This video explains why.

Excerpt from a film made by Gary Null Productions.

- http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/277.html


- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5959613277992277447&hl=en
(16 min 4 sec - Feb 16, 2008)

Gary Null: There is a paradox. In America we are told that it's the fast track to gays and the intravenous drug users most susceptible to developing AIDS. In Africa, we're told it's the heterosexual that is most susceptible to developing AIDS. Why the contradiction? Well, we haven't looked carefully at the facts. We've been told numbers ranging from 5 million to 25 million Africans have HIV and that there is going to be an enormous amount of death, but when you actually go to Africa and you interview the physicians working there, you find that these presumptive diagnoses.

Charles Geshekter, PhD, Professor of African History at California State University, Chico: One of the things that is important to emphasize from the outset is that the definition of an AIDS case on the African continent differs decisively from what constitutes an AIDS case in, say, North America or Western Europe. A definition was arrived at as a result of a World Health Organization sponsor conference in October of 1985. What resulted is what's known as the Bangui Definition. The Bangui Definition of an AIDS case in Africa is based on four clinical symptoms. The clinical symptoms are: high fever, a persistent cough, loose stools for 30 days, and a ten percent loss of body weight over a two-month period. By that definition, a Western researcher like myself has had AIDS, but having gotten on a plane and flown back to California, I'm not considered, of course, an AIDS case. So I think it's important to keep that in mind whenever one looks at the data - the epidemiological data - about what exactly we're counting when it comes to AIDS in Africa.

Val Turner: Tuberculosis is, for all intents and purposes - I hate to say it's an /// tuberculosis. So what the HIV theory of AIDS is essentially asking us to accept is that sometime in the early 1980s, all the traditional causes of AIDS diseases - especially the infectious diseases, the dysenteries, the malarias, tuberculosis, which are, let's face it, a symptom of poverty, poor sanitation, lack of immunization, lack of medical services, hunger, starvation - were in fact replaced by HIV as a cause of all these diseases. I mean this is not a likely scenario.

Geshekter: Where there have been good research reports, it's clear that these HIV tests render a ludicrously high rate of false positives when those tests are done among populations that already suffer from other kinds of endemic diseases, parasitic infections and malnutrition. It was a study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in 1994, for example, that made it quite clear that when they did these HIV tests on a population in Zaire, where there was widespread tuberculosis and leprosy, that the test results in 70 percent of the cases were false positive. If the test results are two or three percent false positive, a test is basically invalid - it's useless in terms of epidemiology. Now, what exactly they would be testing positive for is another question entirely; however, the numbers of AIDS cases are run together with projections of HIV sero-prevalence, or HIV infection. Usually these tests are conducted at a sexually transmitted disease clinic, maybe 100 or 200 people are tested. Where they're done at an ante-natal clinic where pregnant women are also tested, and from those samples, then projections are made about the rate of HIV and the rate of HIV/AIDS, which are run together customarily in Africa. Not only HIV/AIDS for an entire country, their projections can be made, as they were made at the AIDS conference in Geneva in 1998, projections can then be made for an entire continent of 650 million people.

Null: All over the world, entire nations are claiming that, "We also have an epidemic of AIDS." In India - especially in Bombay and Calcutta, in Thailand, in China, in Haiti, Guatemala, Brazil - therefore the idea of giving medications to everyone in a country - that doesn't seem reasonable. What would seem more reasonable is to give these people a type of infrastructure - a clean water, proper medicines, good healthy diet, and destressing them from the political conflicts and gross poverty so that they have some optimism in an adult immune system to look forward to a future. That is not being done.

Giraldo: What they are finding is that poly-specific antibodies that are normally in people in Asia and Africa because of the sorts of conditions there. So they have been exposed to many parasites, so they have to have a lot of poly-specific antibodies in their blood and that is what they are measuring in the ELISA and Western blot tests.

Geshekter: These are the classic symptoms of urban crowding, of poverty, of malnutrition, and of underdevelopment which in fact affect men and women fairly equally across the African continent, however the value of Africa and this notion about heterosexual epidemic of AIDS in Africa I think was extremely important by the middle of the 1980s because it helped to shift the focus, and helped to shift media interest, to suggest that while AIDS cases initially may have been confined to a small cohort of urban gay men in the West, that what was going on in Africa was a hint of things to come, in which in fact AIDS would put everyone at risk and it would in fact become a heterosexually spread disease.

Joan Shenton, Meditel Productions, U.K.: We have had the honor of meeting many African doctors who seriously were worried that the whole of the AIDS grants was wrong, and they were not afraid to speak out, but it was very dangerous for them to do so, and they were certainly not going to receive any funding because, in Uganda for example, there were six million dollars arriving that year for sex counselling and condom distribution, and for malaria control, there were sixty five thousand dollars, so that's the whole news.

Geshekter: Once the notion got started that stopping AIDS in Africa, which was assumed to be a heterosexually transmitted set of diseases, it could be prevented or stopped by Safe Sex. Then I think early on in the going there was a considerable interest on the part of missionary and church-related aid groups who argued very strongly that monogamy and abstinence and safe sex were ways in fact to prevent the spread of this particular kind of disease. To that extent I think the WHO and the UN has found it very expedient and very practical, along political and ideological lines, to argue that the causes of these diseases in Africa, and the cure for those diseases, lies in the hands of the people themselves, rather than looking at the harder nut - the tougher nut to crack - which would be the historical and the institutional forces that make it such in Africa that many people do not have an adequate diet, few people have adequate sanitation throughout their lives, and the vast majority of people in Africa are subject to a wide range of diseases - all of which predated that of AIDS. So I think that's been a major motivating factor. You have to also understand that there's a reason on the African side to buy into this particular equation. With the end of the Cold War, Africa has found itself unable to play the superpower game - playing the United States or the Western powers off of the Soviet bloc - and so many ministries of health and many governments in general accepted that little dogma, or not get the kind of aid or assistance that the U.S. government, the United Nations, the World Health Organization and so forth felt very strongly that this is what these African governments needed.

Null: In early 2000, South African President Mbeki decided to host an AIDS conference that would give time, not only to recognize orthodox spokespersons on AIDS, but to dissenters such as Dr. Peter Duesberg. The mass media fired off numerous attacks excoriating the irresponsibility of them allowing a forum in South Africa for the people who challenge the HIV equals AIDS mindset. Members of the AIDS establishment even went to the length of earnestly calling for the prosecution of AIDS dissidents.

Neville Hodgkinson, Journalist/Researcher: When HIV positive people - children as well as adults - were given effective treatment for the conditions that they actually presented, which were things like TB or gastrointestinal infections - when they were treated for these conditions, they actually had a better life expectancy than non-HIV positive people, within the cohort study. That was because within the circumstances of these studies, they had undertaken to give medical support to people who tested positive. It was a condition on which the people allowed themselves to be tested. So given that medical support, these people have better health records than those people who have not tested HIV positive.

Geshekter: I think this drumbeat of hysteria, of panic, of alarmism, and of fear, is doing immense psychological and medical damage to many people in Africa. People who would otherwise have gone to a clinic to get treated for something like diarrhea or a persistent cough or a fever are terrified of going to a clinic, because instead of being treated for those kinds of symptoms, they're afraid that they're going to get an AIDS diagnosis which they understand to be a death sentence. When people do get just such a diagnosis based on those clinical symptoms, and they return to their villages, they return to the villages to die. They basically give up all hope. They lose the will to live. They become an outcast. They are in a culture like many African cultures in Southern Africa, where extended family is everything, to be rejected by your extended family, to be forced to live in a secluded, segregated hut, away from the rest of the family, to have only meager amounts of food, meager amounts of water given to you, is to prepare the person for death, and what do you think happens? The person dies, and when the person dies, they will say, weepingly, with atrocious photographs in the newspaper, he or she was another victim of the AIDS epidemic, which is everywhere in Africa.

Christine Johnson: If someone came along and told them there is no AIDS - all there is are the same diseases that Africans have been dying of all along, then all of a sudden millions of dollars of funding would dry up, and African are colluding with this as well. Not very many of them, but there are a few African physicians who are able to collect a lot of this money. To heads of clinics or directors of public health services and people like that, there's an awful lot of money that can come their way as long as everybody thinks that Africa is besieged with a giant AIDS epidemic.

Geshekter: The pharmaceutical giants like Roche and Abbot and Glaxo Welcome and so forth have made offers to African governments, in which I think they expect to be subsidized for this ... they've made offers to African governments over the last couple of years - particularly to South Africa - to offer these so-called anti-retrovirals, which are a controversy in and of themselves, like AZT and the other nucleoside analog drugs, but to make those drugs available at what the pharmaceutical companies would consider a cut rate price. What they mean by cut rate would be that an individual's dose would cost about $200 a month. Well, the vast majority of people in Africa don't have a per capita income of $200 a year, so someone is going to have to subsidize these kinds of drugs, making them available in Africa, and I think that the pharmaceuticals will look toward state organizations or multi-lateral institutions.

Gannett: Here it is all these years later and it baffles me that not only is AZT still being used, but they are trying to expand its usage into the third world and into Africa, into poor countries, into poor communities in the United States, in spite of widespread evidence of its toxicity, widespread evidence that AZT in fact causes what we call AIDS.

Celia Farber, Journalist: They're taking the show to the third world and they're not only giving AZT to what would probably be millions of women in the third world, whether they're HIV positive or not, but they're also insisting that they stop breast feeding and start formula feeding - supposedly in an effort to stop transmission of HIV, which of course has never been isolated from breast milk - only antibodies, and even that only 25 percent or so - pretty much like semen data - but they are launching here what is bound to be a real disaster, a real serious loss of human life.

Geshekter: Mother's milk, which pediatricians around the world will tell you is the healthiest food that a newborn can have because of the immunological properties in mother's milk ... that women should in fact cease breast-feeding their young. Now this to me seems something more than just a crime. This is absolutely diabolical and evil, and I am at least encouraged that there's been some dissension and some skepticism for a change within the bowels of the WHO - an organization that's argued very strongly for breast-feeding - is now coming to grips with maybe one of the big contradictions in the whole HIV/AIDS construct.

Farber: I can't imagine that it'll work out any other way than that you're gonna see tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe even more babies dying, and they'll probably say they died of AIDS no matter what happens, so nobody will even be held accountable this time. Oh, here's the one thing they're doing, so they can demonstrate that this has nothing to do with any particular formula company making money off of this situation, they're insisting ... the WHO or UNAIDS or whoever it is is insisting that the formula gets shipped in bottles without labels.


- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5959613277992277447&hl=en

See also:
"Deconstructing the Myth Of AIDS"
- http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=923888&confid=2950

.

what will they say about Liberty then ... ?

.
What will be the mental state, 10, 20, 30 years from now, of the then-no-longer-young men and women who today are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and may by then have been to other places "in the name of Liberty" ...

... when their "liberty" to "own" livestock as a way of providing "subsistence" is limited to that of *stakeholder* relative to the "national herd" ?

"national herd" is not a new term in the U.S., but it now has the USDA "seal of approval" stamped squarely on it, and I read that term to mean something other that *private ownership*
- put another way, that term represents something unConstitutional.

Under NAIS, assembled with NO input from the public (much the same as NAU - UNdemocratic), within two months *ownership* of the "national herd" will have been acquired by the United States federal government, through a plan which is, of course, "voluntary at the federal level"

Never mind that if you will own livestock outside of the "voluntary" system, you WILL be *criminalized* and risk LOSING your entire "investment" with NO recourse under the law, once NAIS is finally "legitimized" through the same sort of processes which are converting our entire administrative law system into something *other than* U.S. in nature.


Young men and women who "volunteered" to serve after building their own "anti-Communist" persona ("Dad died fighting Communism, and I want to be just like Dad") who today fight *terrorism* - created as a speedy replacement to Communism in order to to prevent *bankruptcy* of the military-industrial-security

-nuclear-pharma complex - will find themselves locked out of any traditional role in American agriculture, and even the "real estate" of farming will be locked into a communistic system.


What will they say then about "liberty" ... ?

Of course if you are today 60 or older ...

-- quite likely you are only waiting for the Rapture --

... so none of this is important to you even a bit.

"You look marvellous after your shampoo," the recliner said to the sofa ...


See:
- http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreenA.htm
.

manufacturing consent the old-fashioned way ...

.
Having thought about it ...

The reason for "open borders" and the "flood of illegal immigrants" is simple.

As I have said before, the U.S. has had so-called "illegals" coming across the southern border for decades, but the "problem" was never a "crisis" until recently.

Media has been led, sometimes unwittingly, and most often with help, into developing the old "problem" into our current "crisis" and in some parts of the U.S. today, people would be little more aware than they ever were that a "problem" even exists except for hearing and reading about it constantly in the press and on radio and television.

Today, one of the most "urgent" issues in America is "redesigning" our forms of identification - primarily driver's licenses - for which "proof" of citizenship now hinges upon having a Social Security Number.

In other words, you and I cannot get the "new" driver's license in any state without having, and providing, proof of our own Social Security Number.

Now some states have tied SSN to issuance of DL's for a number of years, even in the face of citizen protests - primarily those of us who recall the "original promise" that a Social Security Number would not be used for "identification"

The "finest generation" which objected most strongly to using SSN for ID is rapidly disappearing, and the few who remain are too feeble care any longer about matters of "identification."

Their children are of an age and condition for which they mostly seem content to argue with each other about who is to blame for the "failure" - from government itself all the way to the "undocumented border crossers" themselves - so that the real agenda being served does not even occur to them.

A new generation has been fully "indoctrinated" to provide SSN for just about any perceived "need" and even offers the information when SSN is not needed for anything at all, as if they never knew SSN was not to be used as and "identifying number."

So the "final push" in solidifying SSN as an *American Identification Number* is now under way, meeting little resistance in face of the threat of "terrorism" and a need to *secure* the U.S. against "foreign invaders" such as those "undocumented" people who come into the U.S. any way they can.

In other words, the "crisis" was manufactured to disguise the purpose of making SSN the "legal ID" number for all Americans, and it seems to be working very well.
.

Pope condemns climate change prophets ...

.
Good for him.
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

.
Reading what the Pope said as displayed on a web page highlighting "The Bitch Factor" displaying an image of Fergie "WITHOUT her make-up" and profoundly revealing that: "The Spice Girls are vain, ambitious and desperate for publicity..." is NOT the way I choose to spend my precious time on any day of any week, but this was brought to my attention anyway.
_______

According to Simon Caldwell, writing for the Daily Mail, Pope Benedict XVI has:

"suggested [my emphasis of a weak word] that fears over man-made emissions
melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing
more than scare-mongering."

As Pope, could it be said that "Benedict XVI" might be an authority on "scare-mongering" ... ?

Just a question, and I leave it to you to decide for yourself.

"The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement."

Will the Pope next "suggest" that the "international community" ought also to base its policies issues such as abortion ...

"on science rather than [on] dogma" ... ?

Life is full of surprises, it is.

"The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind."

What priority should be given to "animals and plants" ?

If "animals and plants" no longer have a place to "live and prosper" on planet earth, how is it possible the "human animal" will survive ?

Has the Church purchased a new planet already ?

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances."

The Pope seems to be speaking my language - I want to hear more.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations."

Future generations of ... whales ?
- Polar bears ?
- Monarch butterflies ?

Without question there are costs involved, and most of the true costs seem to be seldom factored in to the full equation of SURVIVAL on this planet.

What is a truly "just distribution" of the commodification of Planet Earth ?

Certainly we must "accept responsibilities" at a time when "postponing decisions" has continued far too long.

Joint decisions toward "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances" ought to have been arrived at decades ago when it became clear that we were facing possibilities which threaten our survival, but unless "solutions" are profitable, they are not included in any "consensus"
- and that is a factor which most needs changed.

Washington's denial that "global warming" was a threat continued until a "consensus" was found in which pollution could be sold or traded for profits, and since then it has been a crisis deserving of millions of dollars in advertising and legal fees
- environment commodified simple as that, but of course that is not the Pope's doing.

Dialogue is always preferable, but at some point one has to, as they say, "shit or get off the pot"
... only in this case, the "talkers" have already shit, only to find out there is no way to flush.

There has been far too much "talk" about our environment - about the only home humans have on which to live - and precious little action, and I see nothing of particular substance in this Daily Mail article to move humanity toward any particular PROGRESS, but it is comforting to know the Pope is concerned about the issue.

As I see it ...

.

if you love wealth better than liberty ...

.

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

-- Samuel Adams 1776

no god-damned corporation gets to censor us !!!

.
Okay, so send this message to everyone you know, right now:

“If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars
in the first place.”

Attribute that line to Sally Field who had courage last night to say it in front of the entire world.

Whatever is Fixed News' role in diminishing Field's statement is their problem.

We will not accept censorship !
- Americans w i l l n o t a c c e p t c e n s o r s h i p


Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to what Sally Field said last night.

What Sally Field said last night has nothing to do with religion

Wars are conducted every day in spite of religion - in spite of God.

If you believe God is alive, do you really think God approves of WAR ???

Sally Field spoke truth, and no god-damned corporation gets to censor it
- period !!!

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Ftq9N4fzo

.

10 reasons to Stop the SPP ...

.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)

10 Reasons to Stop the SPP
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwAZOxKbi3I
(10:17)


Transcript from SPP Public Forum
- Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of The Council of Canadians, speaking:
Ottowa, August 19, 2007


Video Caption: "10 Reasons to Stop the SPP"

(applause)
Delighted to be here - thrilled at this wonderful turnout, thrilled at the march we had together, the feeling of solidarity, of love, dare I say it.

The feeling that we are going to win this thing was just overpowering. (applause)

Have to tell you this reminds me very much of the MAI fight - the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investments - and people were going around saying "what the hell is an MAI" and pretty soon we had 600 groups - 600 MAI-free zones across the country, and we won it, and may I remind the people who think that this agenda is just fine and nobody is going to interfere with us, the WTO is on its knees, the free trade areas of the Americas is dead. The only people who do not know this model of globalization is over and done with are the people heading our countries and the big business community telling them what to do, and it's time they listened.

Very quickly, because I want to get substance in here, I want to give you the ten reasons to oppose SPP, and I want to do it fast because we only have a few minutes each.

Number One: The SPP is profoundly anti-democratic. The North American Competitiveness Council, made up of the CEO's from 30 major corporations, including WalMart, General Electric, Merck, and Lockheed-Martin ... and with the three heads of state drafted all of SPP's 300 initiatives. No other sector in our society has been on the SPP and elected representatives in all three countries have been frozen out of the process.

Number Two: The SPP extends George Bush's war on terror, with its fixation on bombs, borders, and bibles, to Canada and Mexico. Canada has now merged its no-fly list with the 5 million Americans on the master U.S. list, regularly returning back refugee claimants from Latin America to take their chances with the Bush administration, and its silence on the abuses in Guantanamo Bay and the foreign sites of "rendition" and torture.

Number Three: The SPP set the stage for a common, continental foreign policy because it assumes a common approach to external threats. That is the fundamental basis of the deal. In order to keep goods flowing across the U.S. / Canada border, Canadian and Mexican authorities must adopt a common notion of defense. Canada is clearly and openly now in Afghanistan and supports the battle in Iraq, and as continental defense operability increases, the chances for an independent foreign policy decrease.

Number Four: The SPP has adopted continental regulatory convergence. Twenty cross-border working groups, using the definition of "smart regulations" with emphasis on "risk-assessment" over the cautionary principle, have been tasked with "harmonizing" standards, regulations, and practices in areas as diverse as the environment, health, food, intelligence, transport, law enforcement, traveller security, and regional competitiveness. This, with a super-power where political appointees now supervise the work of regulators in all federal agencies to ensure that regulations are "market friendly."

Number Five: The SPP will help reintroduce the defeated Multi-lateral Agreement on Investments back into North America through TILMA - the Trade Investment and Labor Mobility Agreement - already in place between Alberta and British Columbia. The SPP plan for regulatory convergence is made more difficult by the fact that the provinces have a lot of authority over over rules affecting the economy. TILMA gives corporations the right to sue for compensation if they run into higher standards in other provinces. If all the provinces sign up to TILMA, which is the plan, then the job of continental regulatory convergence is much easier.

Number Six: The SPP is an energy grab, and will accelerate the destruction of energy reserves on the continent. A five-fold increase is built into the SPP process, and the U.S. energy companies and the White House want to cut any red tape or environmental concerns connected with this project. Prime Minister Harper bailed out of Kyoto accords to pave the way for massive new energy production in Canada, to provide for U.S. "energy security." Mexico's independent energy policy will be the next item on the table.

Number Seven: The SPP paves the way for American control of Canada's water supply. This is confirmed by the three think tanks hired by the government to design a policy blueprint for the documents called North American Future 2025 Project. These documents, in several closed door meetings last Spring, clearly stated that water exports and commercial diversions are a serious topic of negotiations. Assurances by the Harper government Canada's water is not for sale sound very much like assurances made by Brian Mulroney twenty years ago, that Canada's energy was safe from NAFTA.

Number Eight: The SPP promotes the fast-tracking of cheap imports from Asia, set to grow exponentially in coming decades, to the expansion of super-ports, particularly Halifax and Vancouver, and trade corridors, including a NAFTA super-highway that will include multi-lane highways, railway lines, electrical grids, energy and perhaps water pipelines, connected to natural gas terminals - all to facilitate the explosion of imports. There are nowhere near enough inspectors in North America at present to deal with these imports now. The SPP will make the situation more dangerous.

Number Nine: The SPP will weaken labor standards. The North American Future 2025 Project calls for labor flexibility to respond to the new demands of the transitional markets in order to keep this new bloc competitive. This is codespeak for disbanding unions, lower wages, and precarious working conditions, for which North America will need increasing seasonal and migrant workers from Mexico, and indeed Canada's migrant program to be expanded as protections for these workers weaken.

Number Ten: The SPP will encourage regional integration in "free-trade-zones" like Cascadia and Atlantica ... already touting the lower labor standards and harmonization of regulations right across all the provinces of the Atlantic area and the Northeastern states of the United States involved in this project. As east/west links are broken and economic and security considerations move to the fore, the links that bind us as a people will weaken, as will the social contract that we have made to one another.

Now I said this was ten, but I have one more minute left and I would say there probably is one more, and that is this model is the absolute wrong model for the world. This model is not only profoundly anti-democratic but is guided and led solely by trade and economic interests. We are not opposed to trade, we are not opposed to the economy - but we believe it must serve people and communities, and when it gets turned upside down, and people and communities and resources have to serve the agenda of these large corporations, something is terribly wrong in our world ... and we are here to say that we are not going to accept this.

I expect this model, as an executive agreement which bypasses the legislature, is a model they would like to impose around the world, and don't forget, it was the Canada/U.S. free-trade agreement which became the model for NAFTA which became the model for all the bilateral agreements which became the model for the WTO, so this may be the breeding ground again for the next level of this corporate power, corporate takeover of our world.

Well, we've been working with the The Council of Common Frontiers and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and other groups. It's very very hard to get the word out around Canada and across the continent, and I can tell you it is happening. We're getting calls and hits on our website from all over the world and suddenly this issue has come to the fore, and we are going to stand up loud and clear and say NO to this agenda, not just because of Canadian environmental concerns and Canadian workers concerns and our concerns about health and safety ... nor just about the issue of democracy, but because if we allow this to happen on this continent, its going to be the blueprint for the world, and we are not going to do that, again.

Thank you very much for being here.
(applause)

- http://canadians.org/

- http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/

.