Agenda 21: Arizona close to passing anti-UN-sustainability bill (seperate from fed land sale bill)

Arizona lawmakers appear close to sending to Gov. Jan Brewer a tea party-backed bill that proponents say would stop a United Nations takeover conspiracy but that critics claim could end state and cities’ pollution-fighting efforts and even dismantle the state unemployment office.

Hello All. I didn't see this posted anywhere so I thought I would share. Sorry if this is a repost.

This is quite interesting to me but I am not really sure what to make of it. Is it really about sovereignty as stated, or is it about trashing the land of my beautiful home to turn a quick profit? I wonder if this ties into their plans to attempt to force the federal government to sell most of the land they own in Arizona?

I'm all for forcing the fed out and really all for telling the UN to shove it, but all of my life experiences so far, tell me not to trust the motives of anyone in the government.

What do you think?

usnews.msnbc.msn.com...

ETA: This is seperate from the bill to force the sale of federally held lands

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
What do you think?

Having just read the bill, I agree with what was said in the article about it being way too broad.

Essentially, it BANS anything and everything having to with the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of the Rio agreement.

Since those agreements at the Rio meeting were sustainability, poverty reduction, environmental protection etc... then those activities will be outlawed under this bill.

Thanks for the reply Alfa1. I do wonder though if this is a misrepresentation of what the bill entails. I have not read the bill itself yet, and just the article.

The problem I see is that it just doesn't make any sense for a bill to be written that would ACTUALLY result in the loss of local environmental projects and unemployment. This article really sounds like fear-mongering itself. It just doesn't add up, IMO.

I have some work to get done but will be back later to check in. I also need to read the actual bill as this article is kind of fishy.

Thanks again.