Friday, April 27, 2012

Senate Session (postal bill)

Apr 25, 2012

U.S. Senate
 S.1789 Allows closing of Postal facilities and move to a 5 day delivery after 2 years
needs 60 votes to pass.  final vote 62 - 37

U.S. Foreign Policy

Apr 25, 2012

Brookings Institution
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) spoke about U.S. foreign policy. In his remarks he called for stronger U.S. leadership and engagement globally. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who introduced Senator Rubio, called him a rising star in the next generation of foreign policy leaders. Following his speech, Senator Rubio answered questions from Marvin Kalb.

Vice President Biden on U.S. Foreign Policy

Apr 26, 2012

Obama Presidential Campaign
Vice President Joe Biden contrasted Obama administration foreign policies versus those Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has proposed. In his speech he used the phrase "Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive" several times as an example of the accomplishments of the Obama administration.

New York, NY
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Vice President Joe Biden will deliver remarks at New York University  to defend President Barack Obama's national security record and seek to draw a sharp contrast with GOP hopeful Mitt Romney's foreign policy positions.
In his speech, the Vice President will describe how, under President Obama’s leadership, the nation has confronted challenges posed by terrorists and improved alliances with countries overseas.
According to a White House statement, Mr. Biden will also "contrast the Administration’s record with the empty rhetoric of Governor Mitt Romney, who continues to distort and mischaracterize the President’s accomplishments on foreign policy and national security without offering policy alternatives of his own."
While campaigning, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been critical of the administration's foreign policy record. He has accused the White House of drastically cutting the defense budget, questioned current sanctions on Iran and  criticized Pres. Obama's approach to the U.S. currency policy with China.
The event is the fifth in a series of remarks that the Vice President has delivered across the country on issues that will be at the core of the general election.
This event is sponsored by the NYU College Democrats.

Green & Sustainability Degrees

 Can You Imagine, You can Now get a Degree In Sustainable Development.   is This just another way for government to take total control. To take away what we have and give to the rich. Take away our property, to make a living, to drive a car. Use a bike.  I have not much to say. 

What is a Green Job or Green Collar Job?

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the term Green Jobs has no specific definition. However, generally the term refers to those careers associated with environmental work. Often positions having to do with sustainability are included in the Green Jobs category as well.
"Definitions of green jobs are so broad at this point in time, it is impossible to generate a reliable count of how many green jobs there are in America today."1
Green Jobs can be found in all sectors of the economy from Business to Law to Government. As a result, increasing numbers of people have become interested in pursuing green degrees and/or sustainability degrees to further their education and be eligible for jobs in these fields.
In their report on the Clean Energy Economy, the Pew Foundation stated that "Driven by fiscal interests and concerns about energy and climate change, a growing number of public- and private-sector leaders are seeking to expand their share of the clean energy economy: jobs, businesses and investments that achieve a double bottom line—economic growth and environmental sustainability".2
Green jobs include positions in:
  • Government as policy makers and regulators
  • Private sector as planners
  • Environmental consultants who clean up environmental hazards
  • Environmental lawyers
  • Sustainability coordinators for businesses
  • Clean Energy businesses (especially wind and solar power)
  • Water and Waste Water management
  • Environmental Health programs
  • Environmental Education
  • Resource Management
Students in the Masters of Environmental Studies Program design their own unique environmental health degree program to help them achieve their goals in many of these green job sectors and more.
1. Middle Class Task Force, The Vice President of the United States, "Green Jobs: A Pathway to a Strong Middle Class," February 28, 2009, page 2.
2. Pew Charitable Trusts, 2009. The Clean Energy Economy.

What is a Degree in Sustainability?

The field of Sustainability is still developing and being defined. Unlike the fields of Biology, Economics, and English, but like the concept of a Green Degree, a degree in Sustainability is not easily defined by a specific set of criteria.
The EPA defines Sustainability as:" balancing a growing economy, protection for the environment, and social responsibility, so they together lead to an improved quality of life for ourselves and future generations."
Because the definition of Sustainability is not well defined and the careers available are found in diverse areas, Penn does not offer a sustainability degree or masters program.  Instead, the Masters of Environmental Studies (MES) program offers a wide range of course options that allow students to create a program specific to the requirements of the area of sustainability they are most interested in pursuing.  Prospective students interested in a sustainable development degree will find an Individualized concentration in the MES program allows them to choose a course of study that will make them uniquely qualified for the position they seek.

What types of positions might a person with a Sustainability Degree expect to obtain?

Positions such as Sustainability Coordinator are becoming quite common in the corporate, non-profit, academic, and government sectors. These positions typically require that all aspects of a business or group be examined to determine if they are being managed optimally.  Areas such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, waste reduction and recycling, storm water runoff, and use of sustainable products all fall under the umbrella of a Sustainability coordinator. A Masters Degree in Sustainability is not required for these types of positions, but a green degree such as the MES is often preferred over non-green degree applicants.
Penn is committed to sustainability issues both academically and in practice, so students seeking a Sustainability degree can benefit from both the rich diversity of MES course offerings and the sustainability programs run by Penn faculty and students on campus, in Philadelphia, and around the world.

What are Green Degrees?

Green Degrees encompass a range of degree programs from sustainability degrees to a sustainable development degree to environmental degrees such as Penn’s MES degree. The term Green Degree has been used to mean any degree in which students learn about environmental work, sustainability, clean energy (solar and air), or resource management. These Green Degrees might include programs in Environmental Policy, Environmental Management, Environmental Health, and/or Environmental Science.
The University of Pennsylvania’s Masters of Environmental Studies (MES) program is a "green degree" and is designed for students seeking leadership roles in environmentally related fields, in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. Receiving a green degree at Penn prepares students for green careers in science, politics, advocacy, and education with the theoretical background and practical skills necessary to succeed – and to make an important and lasting impact in their hosen fields.

Do I need a Sustainability Degree or Green Degree to get a job in the New Green Economy?

Although an undergraduate degree in an environmental related major or an undergraduate sustainability degree will allow a graduate to obtain an entry level position in the new green economy, most higher level and higher paying positions will require a masters degree. Green degrees and sustainability degrees at the masters level can be found at many universities including the University of Pennsylvania where the Masters of Environmental Studies program allows students to pursue green degrees of their choice in fields such as
Students interested in a masters level sustainability degree can design their own program by choosing courses from across multiple disciplines in the world-renowned schools and faculties at the University of Pennsylvania including the Wharton School of Business, the School of Engineering, The School of Design, the Law School, and the Fels Institute of Government.

Sustainable Development Degree: What is it and do I need one to work in the field?

There is no universal agreement on what is meant by sustainable development. The weight of the knowledge suggests that sustainable development has to do with discovering a path for growth that maximizes net benefits for society after taking into account the costs of environmental degradation.
Indeed the The Brundtland Report3 states that Sustainable Development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
The Masters of Environmental Studies fulfills the criteria for a Sustainable Development Degree by allowing students to take courses in environmental Policy, Sustainability, and Planning.
3. UN World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) "Our Common Future"

Agenda 21 and How it Effects You

The beginning of this video is food, but it gets to Agenda 21

Published on Apr 12, 2012 by
Greetings! I have been doing a lot of research lately on United Nations Agenda 21 or what they are calling the United Nations Plan for the 21st century. You may be surprised to know that this was originally a group effort of the countries of the United Nations and that the United States agreed to participate by the signature of President George H.W. Bush in 1992. That led the way for President Bill Clinton to begin the President's Council on Sustainable Development during his administration.

Agenda 21 is far reaching and is effecting each and every one of us on a local community level whether you realize it or not.

As a result of Agenda 21 we have had, what we would not consider familiar phrases creep into our everyday vocabulary. Phrases such as Sustainable Development, Green Belts, Urban Sprawl, Community Organizers, etc.

These are all methods to control an increasing population. The ultimate goal? To heard people into giant urban developments and get them out of rural areas which the Agenda labels "Urban Sprawl", because the large corporations will be taking over the outlying lands and using it for their own benefits.

Do you want to know what the 21st century will look like for your children's children? You only need to read books such as Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale or the more recent young people's novel The Hunger Games. If you think I am being dramatic, please do the research for yourself and form your own opinion.

Many of us have been steeped in the environmental movement from the time we were children. How many of us remember getting a subscription to "Ranger Rick" magazine? Woodsy Owl or the prolific Iron Eyes Cody commercials of the 70's where the wise native American stands on the side of the road with a tear streaming down his face at the sight of unspeakable littler and pollution. Yes, we have made inroads to keeping our environment safe and those movements were all done with great intention. However, it seems that those efforts have now been hijacked by the United Nations and are now being used against us for their Agenda 21.

The video that I have presented here is a good representation of how Agenda 21 will effect you. It is somewhat of a primer on the subject. There are other good resources available on this topic that I will be covering in the coming weeks. I hope this encourages you to do your own research.

Our best defense is education. Only than can we move forward together to stop this from becoming fully implemented.

Agenda 21 and How it Effects You, Agenda 21, United Nations Agenda 21, United Nations Earth Summit, Sustainable Development, Urban Sprawl, Rosa Koire, Behind the Green Mask, 21st Century Planning, Local Planning and Zoning, New World Order, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Maurice Strong, World Summit on Sustainable Development, Bilderburg, Alex Jones, Infowars, Food Storage, Preparedness, Self Sufficiency, Urban Farming, Homesteading, Homeschooling, Freedom, Constitution, Noreen, Atticus9799

These two facebook groups are anti- agenda 21

American Alert - Sustainable Development


Maurice Strong Speaks - Agenda 21 - 1992 Archive Footage

Maurice Strong Speaks - Agenda 21 - 1992 Archive Footage
Posted by Darin Moser
March 28th, 2012

Maurice Strong 1992

"We are now a species out of control."

-Maurice Strong

 The following video is archive footage from June 3rd, 1992 of Maurice Strong, the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) delivering his introductory remarks at the opening plenary of the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was at this conference that the forty chapter “Agenda 21” document was agreed upon and signed by the leaders of 178 nations of the world as a framework for the implementation of Sustainable Development globally.  Known as one of the leading founders of the Sustainable Development movement and long time bureaucratic functionary of the UN, Maurice Strong describes in his remarks the necessity for and goals of the United Nations plan to transition the entire world to sustainable development.

Many current planners and leaders simply scoff and dismiss concerns that Agenda 21 and sustainable development are Socialist/Marxist/Communist in nature, by calling names and labeling those expressing concerns as political extremists, “kooks”, and “tin foil hat wearing” conspiracy theorists.
Mr. Strong, however, seems content to highlight the socialist and controlling nature of sustainable development as he clearly advocates in his remarks unashamedly for the redistribution of wealth, population control, behavioral and social engineering, class warfare, and social justice.

In these video excerpts Maurice Strong, one of the foremost voices and architects behind the Marxist United Nations philosophy of Sustainable Development; reveals by his own message that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development aren’t merely the figment of “right wing” or Tea Party imagination. Rather this insidious philosophy of Sustainable Development and all of the associated documents and plans that have emerged from it over the course of the past twenty years, including Agenda 21, The Earth Charter, The Millennium Development Goals, the Rio+20 “Future We Want: Zero Draft document”, etc. are all at work to transition us as a nation as far away and as quickly as possible from our traditional American way of life to this all-out global plan of control and collectivization known as Sustainable Development.

Full Video -Maurice Speaks - Introductory Remarks at the Opening Plenary of the 1992 UNCED Earth Summit Conference in Rio


Establishment of the White House Rural Council

Executive Order 13575 of June 9, 2011

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to enhance Federal engagement with rural communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. 
Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
To enhance the Federal Government's efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.

Sec. 2. Establishment. 
There is established a White House Rural Council (Council).

Sec. 3. Membership. 
(a)   The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive branch departments, agencies, and offices:

(1)   the Department of the Treasury;
(2)   the Department of Defense;
(3)   the Department of Justice;
(4)   the Department of the Interior;
(5)   the Department of Commerce;
(6)   the Department of Labor;
(7)   the Department of Health and Human Services;
(8)   the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(9)   the Department of Transportation;
(10)   the Department of Energy;
(11)   the Department of Education;
(12)   the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(13)   the Department of Homeland Security;
(14)   the Environmental Protection Agency;
(15)   the Federal Communications Commission;
(16)   the Office of Management and Budget;
(17)   the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(18)   the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
(19)   the Council of Economic Advisers;
(20)   the Domestic Policy Council;
(21)   the National Economic Council;
(22)   the Small Business Administration;
(23)   the Council on Environmental Quality;
(24)   the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs;
(25)   the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.
(b)   A member of the Council may designate, to perform the Council functions of the member, a senior-level official who is part of the member's department, agency, or office, and who is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government.
(c)   The Department of Agriculture shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.
(d)   The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council.

Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council 
The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration's engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:
(a)   make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;
(b)   coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;
(c)   coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and
(d)   identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. 
(a)   The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council. Each executive department and agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.
(b)   Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii)   functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c)   This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d)   This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Signature of Barack Obama
Barack Obama
The White House,
June 9, 2011.
[FR Doc. 2011–14919 Filed 6–13–11; 11:15 am]
Billing Code 3195–W1–P

Agenda 21 For - Against You decide

These are videos and web sites for Agenda 21

ICLEI - How ICLEI Can Help Your Local Government

Local Governments for Sustainability

Triple Pundit is an innovative new-media company for the business community that cultivates awareness and understanding of the triple bottom line. We provide expert editorial coverage and group discussions on sustainable business in the 21st century.

Unilever Improves Supply Chain, Faces Challenges with Customer Behavior

Uploaded by on Nov 22, 2011
How can we make sustainable living more commonplace? We've created an approach that helps us motivate people to shift to more sustainable behaviours. Introducing Unilever's 5 levers for change.

These are videos that I suggest you watch. They are anti-agenda 21

Why You Should Be Concerned About ICLEI?  

Agenda 21 for lower living standards  

Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version  

Rosa Koire : UN's Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Deception ~ 4.06.2012  

Rosa is the mind behind DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21  


Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development*

This has been part of the United States Since Pres. G.W. Bush.   I am still doing research, but I am putting alot of links so you can do your own research.

United Nations

My feelings are still being formed. On one of the sites 'The ICLEI' there is a page you can go to and see if your city participates in the agenda for the 21st Century.
Please, Please do your research. Watch the videos, and go to your next counsel meeting
and ask questions.

A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I)

General Assembly

12 August 1992 


                  (Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)

                               Annex I


    The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,

    Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,

    Reaffirming the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972, a/ and seeking to build upon

    With the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership
through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of
societies and people,

    Working towards international agreements which respect the interests of
all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental

    Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our

    Proclaims that:

                             Principle 1

    Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. 
They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

                             Principle 2

    States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own
resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and
the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

                             Principle 3

    The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

                             Principle 4

    In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection
shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be
considered in isolation from it.

                             Principle 5

    All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of
eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable
development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and
better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

                             Principle 6

    The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the
least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given
special priority.  International actions in the field of environment and
development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

                             Principle 7

    States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve,
protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem.  In view
of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have
common but differentiated responsibilities.  The developed countries
acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of
sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the
global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they

                             Principle 8

    To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all
people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production
and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

                             Principle 9

    States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for
sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges
of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development,
adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and
innovative technologies.

                            Principle 10

    Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all
concerned citizens, at the relevant level.  At the national level, each
individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the
environment that is held by public authorities, including information on
hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity
to participate in decision-making processes.  States shall facilitate and
encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely
available.  Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings,
including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

                            Principle 11

    States shall enact effective environmental legislation.  Environmental
standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the
environmental and developmental context to which they apply.  Standards applied
by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social
cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

                            Principle 12

    States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international
economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development
in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. 
Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means
of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade.  Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges
outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. 
Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental
problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.

                            Principle 13

    States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation
for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.  States shall also
cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further
international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of
environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control
to areas beyond their jurisdiction.

                            Principle 14

    States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the
relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that
cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human

                            Principle 15

    In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities.  Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.

                            Principle 16

    National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of
environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account
the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of
pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting
international trade and investment.

                            Principle 17

    Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be
undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant
adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent
national authority.

                            Principle 18

    States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or
other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the
environment of those States.  Every effort shall be made by the international
community to help States so afflicted.

                                       Principle 19

    States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant
information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a
significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with
those States at an early stage and in good faith.

                            Principle 20

    Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. 
Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable

                            Principle 21

    The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be
mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable
development and ensure a better future for all.

                            Principle 22

    Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have
a vital role in environmental management and development because of their
knowledge and traditional practices.  States should recognize and duly support
their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation
in the achievement of sustainable development.

                            Principle 23

    The environment and natural resources of people under oppression,
domination and occupation shall be protected.

                            Principle 24

    Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development.  States
shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the
environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further
development, as necessary.

                            Principle 25

    Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and

                            Principle 26

    States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by
appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

                            Principle 27

    States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of
partnership in the fulfilment of the principles embodied in this Declaration
and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable

* * * * *
    a/    Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.73.II.A.14
and corrigendum), cha
peace cube - twin virtual light and colour cube, catalyst of peace

Agenda 21

peace cube - twin virtual light and colour cube - catalyst of peace
agenda 21 | rio declaration | alternative treaties | information ecology | information habitat
information, data & communication | access, participate & participation | educate, education & aware

Agenda 21: Arizona close to passing anti-UN-sustainability bill

Arizona House

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.

A final legislative vote is expected Monday on a bill that would outlaw government support of any of the 27 principles contained in the 1992 United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, also sometimes referred to as Agenda 21.

Senate Bill 1507 was passed by the state Senate last month and received an initial House affirmation Wednesday. It is sponsored by state Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, who also sponsored a state birther bill that Brewer vetoed last year.

"The bill is designed to protect the rights of Arizona citizens and prevent encroachment on those rights by international institutions," Burges told in an email. "We have three branches of government and when one branch preempts the process through executive orders, the balance of power is lost in the process. It is that simple -- no more, no less."

At a March 15 hearing on the bill, Burges said an executive order signed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993 started the implementation of Agenda 21 after the Senate refused to pass a treaty ratifying it.

"Any way you want to describe it, Agenda 21 is a direct attack on the middle class and working poor" through "social engineering of our citizens" in "every aspect" of their lives," she told the hearing.

But House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, has a different view.
“It’s the most poorly crafted bill in this state,” Campbell told “It’s so broad and overreaching, we’re not sure what it could impact.”

Among the U.N. declaration’s non-binding principles are calls for sustainable development, environmental protection, eradicating poverty, eliminating unsustainable production and consumption patterns, economic growth and the participation of women in government decisions. 

Agenda 21 For Dummies    

Uploaded by on Jan 23, 2009
Agenda 21 explained very well. Including implications it will have on humanity. Opinions within the video come in some cases from those that were in on the negotiations. Truly an interesting watch.

“We wouldn’t be able to use CFL light bulbs in state buildings because that would be considered energy efficiency,” Campbell said.

Campbell also said that the state’s Economic Security Department, which handles unemployment and welfare benefits, could be outlawed because it has to do with eradicating poverty.
Also, Arizona universities have sustainability programs that could be banned if the bill becomes law, Campbell warned.

Arizona State University has a School of Sustainability, Northern Arizona University offers a master's in sustainable communities, and the University of Arizona has an environment and sustainability portal.

Brewer, who last spring vetoed Burges' bill to require presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship, typically does not comment on legislation until it reaches her desk, her spokesperson told Thursday.

About the Rio declaration, SB1507 says “the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerous independent, shadow organizations to surreptitiously implement this agenda around the world.”

Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, told supporters in an email that the U.N. declaration “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil,” the reported. “It’s very real and it is happening.”

The Times also reported that during House debate Wednesday, Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said the declaration is connected to the “occult” of sustainability.

"The tea party and conspiracy theorists run the state now, Campbell told

More older couples shacking up, skipping marriage

Mike Blake / Reuters
A pair of elderly couples view the ocean and waves along the beach in La Jolla, Calif. More couples over 50 are living together (minus the marriage certificate) and for many money is a big factor.

Shacking up. It's not just for the kids anymore.
The number of people over age 50 who are living together romantically has more than doubled in a decade, from 1.2 million in 2000 to 2.75 million in 2010, according to an analysis of government data done by Bowling Green State University.
The 50-plus group represents nearly one-third of the approximately 7.5 million people of all ages who were living together in 2010, the researchers found.
But while young people tend to be testing the waters for marriage, experts say older people aren’t necessarily living together as a step toward tying the knot. They're doing it for the money.
“(They want to) enjoy many of the benefits of marriage without the burdens,” said Susan Brown, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio who led the research.
Older couples may want to protect their individual nest eggs so they can pass the inheritance down to their kids. They also may not want to jeopardize a pension, Social Security payment or other benefit they are receiving because they are divorced or widowed. And they may not want to be financially responsible for the other person’s health care bills.
Some also may have a “been there, done that” mentality about marriage, Brown said. Her research found that 71 percent of older couples living together were divorced, and another 18 percent were widowed. On the other hand, she found, older people who end up remarrying are disproportionately widowed. (Brown has done other research looking at the surging divorce rate among older Americans.)
Tom Blake was 53 when his third marriage ended, and after the divorce was finalized he knew he wanted to start dating again. But he didn’t want to get married for a fourth time.
“I wasn’t looking for marriage, but I definitely wanted a relationship that was comfortable, enjoyable and non-confrontational,” he remembers.
Blake, who owns a deli in Dana Point, Calif., found that dating after age 50 was much harder than he had expected. His experiences eventually became fodder for a column and website that he’s been writing for almost 18 years.
Now 72, he’s been living with a woman for 11 years. They split their expenses evenly but keep their finances separate, an arrangement that he says has served them very well.
“What I learned for my own self was that I did not need to be married to be happy,” he said.
Some people prefer to keep their financial lives even more separate. Blake said he also hears from a lot of older people who are in long-term, committed relationships but don’t live together. He said some do that to keep the peace with their kids or grandkids who don’t like the idea of a live-in relationship.
Brown, the sociology professor, said the “living apart together relationship” is one she also knows exists but has had trouble quantifying.
“They’re very committed to each other (but they) don’t want to give up the autonomy that they have,” she said.
Although economics play a major role in these late-in-life relationship decisions, Brown said there are also noneconomic reasons older couples aren’t getting hitched.
Brown said some older women want a live-in relationship, but there’s something about actually getting married that seems stifling.
“They’ve taken care of one husband and raised one family, and they don’t want to do that again,” Brown said. “And they feel that if they get married that’s the underlying expectation.”

Full text of Paul Ryan’s remarks at Georgetown University

The full text of Paul Ryan’s remarks Thursday morning at Georgetown University.

Thank you so much for hosting this event. The challenges our country faces right now are complex and can be daunting, and the need for well-informed public discourse has rarely been greater.

That’s why this lecture series is such a moving tribute to the memory of Leslie Whittington. This policy dialogue elevates our debates, and I am truly honored that you’ve asked me to participate this year.

It is a pleasure to speak at Georgetown, America’s first Catholic university and one of over 3,700 Jesuit educational institutions around the world serving over 2.5 million students.
The Society of Jesus has a well-earned reputation for educational excellence, and I am grateful for the opportunity to join in conversation with you today.

I suppose some of you don’t know about the Methodist who went to heaven and met St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter gave him a tour, and they began by walking down a long hallway till they came to a door. They heard lots of laughter and singing, and the Methodist asked St. Peter, “What’s behind the door?” St. Peter said, “Oh, that’s the Presbyterians.”

A little later they came to another door where they could hear singing, praises and music. “What’s there?” he asked. “Oh, that’s the Baptists,” said St. Peter.

Further down the hall there was still another door. But just before they reached it, St. Peter warned the Methodist to be very, very quiet. “Why?” he asked. “Well,” St. Peter said, “that’s the Catholics. And they think they’re the only ones up here!”

I suppose there are some Catholics who for a long time have thought they had a monopoly of sorts… not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church. Of course there can be differences among faithful Catholics on this.

The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it. What I have to say about the social doctrine of the Church is from the viewpoint of a Catholic in politics applying my understanding to the problems of the day.

Serious problems like those we face today require charitable conversation. Civil public dialogue goes to the heart of solidarity, the virtue that does not divide society into classes and groups but builds up the common good of all.

The overarching threat to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict, has charged that governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are “living at the expense of future generations” and “living in untruth.”

We in this country still have a window of time before a debt-fueled economic crisis becomes inevitable. We can still take control before our own needy suffer the fate of Greece. How we do this is a question for prudential judgment, about which people of good will can differ.

If there was ever a time for serious but respectful discussion, among Catholics as well as those who don’t share our faith, that time is now.

As I go around Southern Wisconsin and visit with Americans across the country explaining that our debt is on track to cripple the economy – and showing people charts and graphs to back it up – they often ask, is it too late to save America from a diminished future? Is the American Experiment over?

It’s a difficult question. It’s one that gives me pause. Frankly, it’s one that keeps me up at night.

But the honest answer is the one I’m about to give to you: Nobody ever got rich betting against the United States of America, and I’m not about to start.

Time and again, when America has been put to the test, when it has looked like the era of American exceptionalism was coming to a close… we got back up. We brushed ourselves off. And we got back to work – rebuilding our country, advancing our society, and moving the boundaries of opportunity ever forward.

Churchill put it best: “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing – but only after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

Well, we have exhausted the other possibilities. After four straight trillion-dollar deficits, and very little economic progress to show for it, I think we know what doesn’t work.

We also have a growing consensus around the ideas that will work. But we lack willing partners at the highest levels to lead us, to unite us, and to address our defining challenge.

The President did not cause the crisis we face. Years of empty promises from both political parties brought us to this moment. But regrettably, this President is unwilling to advance credible solutions to the problem.

He has broken the promise he made during his last campaign to help us, quote, “rediscover our bonds to each other and get out of this constant, petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.”

He does not seem to understand that he can’t promote the common good by setting class against class, or group against group.

The divisive politics of the last three years have not only undermined social solidarity, they have brought progress and reform to a standstill at the very time when America is desperate for solutions to the coming crisis.

Today, we face a fundamental challenge to the American way of life – a gathering storm, whose primary manifestation is the shadow of our ever-growing national debt… and whose most troubling consequence is ever-shrinking opportunity for Americans young and old.

This shadow hangs over young people, who face a struggling economy and the rising probability of greater turmoil ahead. More than half of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed in this economy.

This shadow hangs over seniors, who have been lied to about their retirement security.
And it hangs over parents. We wonder if we will be the first generation in American history to leave our children with fewer opportunities and a less prosperous nation than the one we inherited.

This storm has already hit Europe – where millions are enduring the painful consequences of empty promises turning into broken promises. But for too many in Washington, instead of learning from Europe’s mistakes, we are repeating them.

Our descent down this path was accelerated four years ago, when poor decisions and bad policies from Wall Street to Washington resulted in a crisis that squandered the nation’s savings and crippled our economy.

What we needed then were policies to strengthen the foundations of our free-enterprise economy.

What we got was the opposite.

We needed a single-minded focus on restoring economic growth: After the immediate panic in late 2008 subsided, we needed to restore real accountability in the financial sector and just clean up the mess.

We needed to restore the principle that those who seek to reap the gains in our economy also bear the full risk of the losses.

We needed policies to control our debt trajectory so that families and businesses were not threatened by the shadow of an ever-rising debt.

Instead, the White House and the last Congress enacted an agenda that made matters worse.
They misspent hundreds of billions of dollars on politically connected boondoggles.

Then, when the country’s number one priority remained getting the economy back on track, the White House and the last Congress made their number one priority a massive, unwanted expansion of the government’s role in health care.

They even tried to impose a costly increase in energy prices in the middle of a recession.
And their idea of Wall Street reform? A blank check for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a new law that provided more protection and preferential treatment for the big banks, and gave more power to the same regulators who failed to see the last crisis coming.

Their reliance on government’s heavy hand with more borrowing, more spending, and unprecedented interventions into the private sector were not just bad policy.

They created tremendous uncertainty for businesses and families, as job losses continued to mount.

We needed solutions to restore the American Idea – an opportunity society, in which government’s role is not to rig the rules and aim for equal outcomes, but – in the words of Abraham Lincoln – “to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all,” so that all may have an equal opportunity to rise and freely pursue their happiness.

Instead, the White House and the last Congress exploited a crisis to advance a government-centered society – a massively expanded role for the federal government in our lives, higher spending to support this expanded role, and higher taxes to support the higher spending.
Higher borrowing, too. In three and a half years, debt held by the public has grown by roughly $4.5 trillion – a 70 percent increase.

As bad as this is, our debt is projected to get much worse, spiraling out of control in the years ahead.

This bleak outlook is paralyzing economic growth today. Investors, businesses and families look at the size of the debt and they hold back, for fear that America is heading for a diminished future.

And should that future arrive, it would mean real pain for all Americans. Much higher interest rates would make it harder for families to buy homes, students to go to college, and businesses to expand and create jobs.

But it would mean more than economic pain for you and me. If we remain on this path, bond markets in a state of panic will turn on us, threatening to end the American Idea.

Forced austerity – broken promises and sacrifices imposed from abroad – would put an end to that most fundamental of American aspirations… that in this land we are responsible for our own destiny… that on this continent we might forever be free from foreign powers who would impose their limits on our dreams for ourselves and our children.

If our generation fails to meet its defining challenge, we would see America surrender her independence to the army of foreign creditors who now own roughly half of our public debt.
It pains me to say this, but the President’s policies will guarantee that outcome if we don’t turn this around soon.

The good news is, there is a better approach – a budget, passed by the House of Representatives, that would lift the debt and free the nation from the constraints of ever-expanding government.

If enacted, this budget would promote economic growth and opportunity starting today, with bold reforms to the tax code and a credible, principled plan to prevent a debt crisis from ever happening.

The President is clearly threatened by this alternative vision.

He is hoping to win the next election by attacking our good-faith effort to secure opportunity for the next generation.

The President is not only wrong on the policy, but he’s wrong on the politics as well.
Americans resent being told what kind of car to drive and what kind of light bulb to use – and they certainly don’t think bureaucrats in Washington should be empowered to dictate their personal health care decisions.

A hallmark of the President’s government-centered agenda is that policy after policy takes from hardworking Americans and gives to politically connected companies and privileged special interests. Our budget calls this what it is – corporate welfare. And we propose to end it.

As we end welfare for those who don’t need it, we strengthen welfare programs for those who do. Government safety-net programs have been stretched to the breaking point in recent years, failing the very citizens who need help the most.

These aren’t just practical questions. These questions have moral implications as well. And since we meet today at America’s first Catholic university, I feel it’s important to discuss how, as a Catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the Church’s social teaching.

Simply put, I do not believe that the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government.

Look at the results of the government-centered approach to the war on poverty. One in six Americans are in poverty today – the highest rate in a generation. In this war on poverty, poverty is winning. We need a better approach.

To me, this approach should be based on the twin virtues of solidarity and subsidiarity – virtues that, when taken together, revitalize civil society instead of displacing it.
Government is one word for things we do together. But it is not the only word.
We are a nation that prides itself on looking out for one another – and government has an important role to play in that. But relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just hasn’t worked.

Instead, our budget builds on the historic welfare reforms of the 1990s – reforms proven to work. We aim to empower state and local governments, communities, and individuals – those closest to the problem. And we aim to promote opportunity and upward mobility by strengthening job training programs, to help those who have fallen on hard times.

My mentor, Jack Kemp, used to say, “You can’t help America’s poor by making America poor.”
This President’s failed economic policies have driven poverty rates to record highs, and the mountain of new debt he’s helped create, much of it borrowed from China or simply printed by the Federal Reserve, has made America poorer.

Those unwilling to lift the debt are complicit in our acceleration toward a debt crisis, in which the poor would be hurt the first and the worst.

Our budget lifts the debt, fosters a growing economy, and ensures that government programs make good on their important promises.

Instead of letting our critical health and retirement programs go bankrupt, our budget saves and strengthens them so they can fulfill their missions in the 21st Century.

The President likes to talk about Medicare. We welcome the debate. We need this debate.

What the President won’t tell you is that he’s already changed Medicare forever. His new health care law puts a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of cutting Medicare.

We should never turn the fate of our parents and grandparents over to an unaccountable board and let it make decisions that could deny them access to their care.

My mom relies on Medicare. We owe her and all of our seniors a better program – a program they can count on.

Our budget keeps the protections that have made Medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years. It makes no changes for those in or near retirement.

And in order to save Medicare for future generations, we propose to put 50 million seniors, not 15 unaccountable bureaucrats, in charge of their personal health care decisions.

Our budget empowers seniors to choose the coverage that works best for them from a list of plans that are required to offer at least the same benefits as traditional Medicare.

It sets up a financial support system designed to guarantee that they can always afford coverage.

And it says that if a senior wants to choose the traditional Medicare plan, then she should have that right.

Our idea is to force insurance companies to compete against each other to better serve seniors, with more help for the poor and the sick and less help for the wealthy – or, as the President calls it, “Social Darwinism.”

Of course, we disagree with that characterization. Our plan offers the best way to guarantee quality, affordable health care for all of our nation’s seniors for generations to come.

The President also likes to talk about taxes. We welcome the debate. We need this debate.

The President remains committed to taking more and more from the paychecks of working Americans – not to pay down the debt, but rather to chase ever-higher government spending.

We believe there is a better way forward. A world-class tax code should be fair, simple and competitive. The U.S. code fails on all three counts.

We propose a total overhaul of the code. We lower rates across the board. But revenue goes up every year under our budget, because we propose to close those special-interest loopholes that go primarily to the well-connected and the well-off.

When we lower tax rates by closing special-interest loopholes, we’re saying we in Washington don’t need to micromanage people’s decisions through the tax code.

Let people keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Let them decide how to spend it.

The Path to Prosperity budget passed the House earlier this spring. The Senate has gone another year without a budget, and the President has hunkered down into campaign mode.

People are right to look at how polarized our politics have become and wonder if we’ll ever fix this mess.

The political class feeds the pessimism. The voices of cynicism have given up on American renewal. They say America’s time for leading the world has passed, and our most important task is now to manage the nation’s decline.

I reject such defeatism. America has been here before. We didn’t give up then, and we won’t give up now.

Maybe the cynics don’t remember 1980 – another moment when so many in Washington had given up on the American people.

As Ronald Reagan put it, “They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.”

But America did something that we as a people are famous for – we refused to listen to our “betters.”

We voted for a man, but more than that, we voted for an idea – the idea that if we took power from bureaucrats and returned it to the people, that Americans working together could restore the principles of American exceptionalism and build a future they and their children could be proud of.

These principles are not exclusive to one party. The patient-centered Medicare reforms and pro-growth tax reforms we have advanced in the House have a long history of bipartisan support.

Medicare reforms based on choice and competition have their roots in the Clinton administration’s bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

And in recent years, I’ve worked with Democrats to advance these same kinds of reforms.
Tax reforms based on lowering rates and closing loopholes go back to the Reagan administration, when Democrats served as the congressional co-sponsors of the landmark 1986 tax reform law.

More recently, the chairmen of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission put forward a plan for lower rates and a broader base as the best means to simplify the tax code and spur economic growth.

It makes sense that these ideas have attracted leaders in both parties. Patient-centered Medicare offers the only guarantee that Medicare can keep its promise to seniors for generations to come.

And pro-growth tax reform, by lowering rates for all Americans while closing loopholes that primarily benefit the well off, can eliminate unfairness in the tax code and ensure a level playing field for all.

The coalition for reform must attract Americans from all walks of life. But progress will require the removal of certain partisan roadblocks: a flawed health care law that must be replaced, and an insistence from some in Washington on tax hikes and tax gimmicks instead of tax reform.

Only with the right leadership in place can we move forward with ideas that renew the American promise of leaving our children a stronger nation than the one our parents left us.
Look, it is rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract. But that is exactly where we are today.

One approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hard-working taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commits our nation to a future of debt and decline. This approach is proving unworkable – in Congress, in our courts, and in our communities.

This path fails to do justice to either subsidiarity or solidarity. It dissolves the common good of society, and dishonors the dignity of the human person.

Our budget offers a better path, consistent with the timeless principles of our nation’s founding and, frankly, consistent with how I understand my Catholic faith.

We put our trust in people, not in government. Our budget incorporates subsidiarity by returning power to individuals, to families, and to communities.

We draw inspiration from the Founders’ belief that all people are born with a God-given right to human flourishing.

Protecting this equal right of all persons is required for solidarity – trusting citizens, not nameless government officials, to determine what is in their best interests, and to make the right choices about the future of our country.

The choice before us could not be more clear: Continuing down the path we’re on would mean becoming the first generation to break faith with the American legacy of leaving the next generation with more prosperity and greater opportunities than our parents left us.
If there’s one thing you hear me say today, hear this: This will not be our destiny.

Americans won’t stand for a shrunken vision of our future.

We will get back on a path to prosperity.

It is not too late to get this right.

Thank you.