https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20220616004
Why is this link to a Canadian news site? Why wouldn't Louisiana be promoting this equally? Why does this news release suggest that this is a "cultural" exchange (making it sound like it's about hosting an arts and crafts fair or something innocuous) until it finally says:
"the MOU will facilitate economic growth and business development, cultural and media exchanges, education, training and research opportunities"
How do you feel about having OUR culture, OUR children's education, OUR scientific research, OUR media being affected by Canadian perspectives and Trudeau liberal socialism?
When you see mutually binding agreements (however "weak" the binding purports to be) you are seeing a big problem for US sovereignity.
Is this the only MOU you have ever heard of? Because there ARE others.
Wanna bet nobody the average Louisiana voter knows nothing about this MOU? Remember: the Deep State functions internationally--it is a product of One World Government. The Deep State is hidden in plain sight in MOUs like this.
Shared culture is so fun, right? There's cajuns in LA and there's Frenchies in Canada. Sounds good. Maybe both could meet together and make food and do some ethnic dances, right? But those are just GUESSES as to what the press release means.
Remember this: "the MOU will facilitate economic growth and business development, cultural and media exchanges, education, training and research opportunities"
So you CHOOSE to see it as beneficent because the whole thing is vague. I choose to see it as a problem that the whole thing is vague.
That paragraph above suggests a relationship that is ILL-DEFINED by intentionally using vague wording. If there's one thing I learned from Q and Donald Trump it's that international agreements that affect sovereign American cultural, media, educational, scientific and business interests often do not benefit the USA.
You say: "It's vague. It's probably a nice thing that doesn't matter." I say: "It's vague and implies the power over every major sector of public life in the entire state of Louisiana. That's a big problem."
Maybe Agenda 21 and all of our United Nations agreements on climate are all good things, too? Maybe I'm just a little too much of a skeptic when it comes to the Deep State. Maybe I'm just too worried, so I want to know specifics before I sign a deal; Maybe I should be happy that a socialist nation and an American state have a vague agreement in place that can create cover for everything from foerign people going into children's elementary schools to Canadian scientists researching without oversight and with state government cover throughout the state.
Maybe. I guess that's just me. You're probably right, What could go wrong?
You're quoting a press release, not the actual document. It's a vague sentence because it's a talking point. It holds no legal sway or authority, the actual document is needed for any type of conclusion you want to draw.
Like the other poster said, this is most likely a lot of flowery language saying 'we have some shared roots and still genuinely like each other and want to remember our history, let's keep doing that'. It'll lead to some cute sister city ceremonies and trading of some plaques and flags in some parks. Some cross-promotion to boost tourism back and forth and get some extra dollars flowing. That sort of thing, and that's pretty much it.
So you saw the MOU? Wow! That must have been very eye-opening with all its specifics. Thanks for sharing! At first I thought you were just repeating what the first guy said that I already answered.
No, I haven't seen this document yet, but I do think you're drawing some wildly speculative conclusions.
A memorandum of understanding is essentially just a statement that two parties agree on something. It's not legally binding, and it's certainly not going to impact US sovereignty.
I see. A second repetition of the first response. I would add new information and further explain several MOUs and their intriguing significance (think: FBI and Armenia (and not just recent history).);however I imagine that topic will take the form of a new post. In reply, you needn't offer a fourth expression of the initial rebuttal, but I strongly suspect you might.