Quote:
Originally Posted by tis
A lot of those on the Council in Rochester voted for Agenda 21.
|
The council vote in Rochester wasn't a vote for or against Agenda 21; from what I understand it was a vote on whether or not to accept a federal "sustainable community initiative grant," which some people apparently thought was part of an insidious plot to turn the good city of Rochester over to UN control. So, the city council said "no thanks" to the federal money. I guess some other community will get it.
tis, what specific part of Agenda 21 do you find most disagreeable?
Are there any parts of Agenda 21 that you are OK with? Maybe the part that says governments, "in cooperation with relevant international organizations, where appropriate, should promote proper planning, including environmental impact assessment where appropriate, of safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive waste, including emergency procedures, storage, transportation and disposal, prior to and after activities that generate such waste." I don't know, that sounds to me like a common sense thing to do. I can't imagine anyone who would be against that, except maybe for someone who owned a business that cleaned up after a radiological accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tis
The UN would like nothing better than to destroy our country.
|
I'm curious as to where you get this idea. I know that there are some UN member states that would like to see the United States destroyed, but they are a very small number when compared to the UN membership as a whole, and they have little to no influence on the overall organization. The US position as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council gives us veto power over any Security Council resolution. Therefore, the best thing is for the United States to remain in the UN, so when that inevitable resolution calling for the destruction of our country is introduced, we can veto it!