Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

[Bebe]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/rio-20...n-un-agenda-21

Written by Alex Newman


Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure’s approval as a significant victory against the UN “sustainability” plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up.

The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure — but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.

Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.

"The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to 'Agenda 21,' " the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure.

Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world — most notably a Germany-based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem, too: “the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from” any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents.

“This bill, that would bar the state from taking over private property without due process, is intended to shelter Alabamians from the United Nations Agenda 21, a sustainable development initiative that some conservatives see as a precursor for the creation of a world government,” explained Alabama GOP Executive Director T.J. Maloney when announcing that it had been signed into law. The Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted a resolution earlier this year blasting the global scheme and urging policy makers to oppose it, and state parties have followed suit.

Public support for the Alabama law was overwhelming and bipartisan as citizens who had been terrorized by Agenda 21-linked schemes targeting their private property spoke out. But according to analysts and state Republican Party officials cited in press reports, Gov. Bentley was originally hesitant to sign the bill — almost certainly due to concerns over the potential loss of some federal funding.

The U.S. Senate, of course, has never formally ratified Agenda 21. But the executive branch — in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels — has for two decades been quietly attempting to impose the plan on Americans by stealth, mostly using deceptive terms like “Smart Growth” and “Green.” And proponents of the global scheme consistently threaten that states seeking to protect citizens from the UN plot could end up losing some federal funds.

“Every time you take a dollar of federal money, there’s strings attached,” explained Ken Freeman, chairman of the Alabama-based group Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR), an organization that fought hard to ensure that the Governor signed the bill into law. “We were originally walking soft on this issue, to tell you the truth, because when things were going our way, why change anything?”

But when Gov. Bentley did not immediately approve the bill, Freeman told a reporter, ACR turned the activism up a notch, urging citizens to contact the Governor’s office and express their support for the measure. The grassroots pressure paid off: Alabama became the first state to be officially shielded by law from UN-linked anti-property rights scheming.

“It seems that Agenda 21 does actually bring people together in communities — just not in the way the U.N. had hoped for,” remarked Justice Gilpin-Green in a column for the conservative site Townhall, citing Freeman and other instrumental supporters of the effort. “Hopefully other states can mirror Alabama’s determined nature in passing their anti-Agenda 21 legislation. It was citizen awareness and direct action that finally brought about the needed changes last week and that same awareness and action will be needed for the future of every other state.”

Legislative analysts said the bill, sponsored by GOP state Sen. Gerald Dial, was extremely well crafted: protecting citizens and individual rights from UN decrees in a simple, straightforward manner that Agenda 21 advocates would have a hard time criticizing. Liberty-minded organizations and lawmakers are already examining the measure for potential use as a model in other states currently struggling to expel the global scheme and its myriad tentacles.

“Alabama House Bill 618 [SB 477] is a large step towards protecting Alabamians against UN meddling. It protects the due process rights of Alabamians. It keeps Constitutional Law above International Law,” noted Jason Baker, a Montgomery-based conservative pundit with the Examiner. “Now state after state awakens to the threat it poses to freedom and sovereignty.”

Across America, Tea Party groups, liberty-minded Democrats, libertarians, and a broad coalition of activists have been turning up the heat on Agenda 21. Tennessee, for example, adopted a bipartisan state resolution slamming the UN scheme as an “insidious” and “socialist” plot that is completely at odds with American traditions of limited government, individual freedom, private property, and self-governance under the Constitution. Numerous other states are pursuing similar measures.

A bill similar to Alabama’s seeking a complete ban on Agenda 21 and unconstitutional UN “sustainability” efforts in Arizona was approved overwhelmingly in the state Senate. The legislation died in the state House even after clearing several hurdles, however, when the legislative session ended before a final vote could be taken. New Hampshire is reportedly working on a bill to ban Agenda 21 that sailed through the state House last month.

Meanwhile, local governments across America — under intense pressure from citizens and activist groups — are slowly awakening to what critics call the “dangers” of the UN scheme. Dozens of cities and counties have withdrawn from ICLEI in recent years, and as awareness continues to grow, that trend is expected to accelerate.

The UN, however, is doubling down on its controversial plan. In June, governments from all over the world will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro for the so-called “Conference on Sustainable Development” — known as Rio+20 for short. According to official documents released by the global body, the summit, headed by Chinese Communist Sha Zukang, will be seeking to dramatically transform human civilization under the guise of environmentalism.

Production, education, consumption, individual rights, and even people’s thoughts will all be targeted under the global plan to create a so-called “green economy,” the UN admitted. But with the tidal wave of opposition in America growing stronger every single day, analysts expect fierce U.S. opposition — if not from the Obama administration, at least from the increasingly outraged citizenry.

[Bebe]

Believe it or not - I stole this from ChitChat!! JK3078....Thanks!

[randii]

I think this will just cause the individual planks of the policy to be driven from the bottom up... which IMHO is what is being done in most cases in the first place.

Originally Posted by Bebe

...prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21.

Are any of the folks assumed to be implementing A21 actually *citing* it as a source? Some of the concepts built in A21 seem parallel with common precepts for public planning, and some of those concepts date back to the 50s (enhance compact and efficient land use; decrease automobile use in general, etc.). Hell, prioritizing planning for good housing and living environments has been taking place since the mid-19th century, when populations and planners began reacting to industry embedded in cities. These reactions were locally driven, but States (both individually and United) undertook support for these basic ideas... and some even MORE basic principles, like equality for women and value for indigent peoples (oh, the horrors!).

Originally Posted by Bebe

The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies...

This is absolutely as it should be, and kow-towing to the UN is dumb and un-American, IMHO. That said, I hope the babies don't get tossed with the bathwater -- there are some good planks within the overall A21 ideology. As a whole, A21 sucks, but it has good bits, and lately, I see it being promoted more heavily as the boogeyman for the radical right, and less heavily as the solution to sustainability from the radical left.

The article loses credibility for me when I see that it comes from the John Birch Society. If JBS was too right-wing for Buckley, that makes it pretty darn radical, and I believe we need to start finding common ground in the middle, instead of plumbing the depths of either/both extremes.

Can we send this back to Chit-Chat and talk about issues that more directly affect Land Use?

Randii

[Bebe]

This affects Land Use entirely - based on the Wildlands Project which was revealed when this was first submitted to Congress for approval in the early 90's.

It's the implementation of these projects that are forcing the ideals of conservation easements, roadless areas, wildlife corridors etc. All have an effect in on the ground land use planning, and the gobbling up ie "Retention Policies" of the USFS and BLM.

As in all evils - there are "bits" that make sense for a growing population, but there are many more evils, like the stripping of Private Property rights.

Perhaps we all need a refresher in this video series which has been posted in this section a few times so yes, it is a "Repost".

http://takingliberty.us/TLHome.html

[Stonebone]

Right on... Lets hope this is just a start.

[JeepinJP]

word

[forbergler]

Originally Posted by Bebe

This affects Land Use entirely - based on the Wildlands Project which was revealed when this was first submitted to Congress for approval in the early 90's.

It's the implementation of these projects that are forcing the ideals of conservation easements, roadless areas, wildlife corridors etc. All have an effect in on the ground land use planning, and the gobbling up ie "Retention Policies" of the USFS and BLM.

As in all evils - there are "bits" that make sense for a growing population, but there are many more evils, like the stripping of Private Property rights.

Perhaps we all need a refresher in this video series which has been posted in this section a few times so yes, it is a "Repost".

http://takingliberty.us/TLHome.html

All shit sandwiches have a little sugar in them. That's how they get so many to bite into them before they know what they are swallowing. Take the Affordable Healthcare Act: there are some things that are benificial, but it does absolutely nothing to make healthcare affordable. Those who wish to decide what is better for us in every aspect of our lives try like hell to focus just on those "little bits" that sound great and make sense, to avoid the real intent. Agenda 21 is global government, where the powers know better than we do about what is good for us. Agenda 21 considers private property ownership a "social injustice", because not every one can own property due to their financial situation, and "they" consider that unfair. So private property ownership must go.
Well, not every one can afford, or even enjoys, four wheeling. Since it is something that does not apply to absolutely every one, it will be considered a "social injustice" and therefore will not be allowed. So this subject absolutely applies here in this forum. It's part of the bigger picture of how and why we are being attacked locally as far as access to public lands goes.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by forbergler

So this subject absolutely applies here in this forum. It's part of the bigger picture of how and why we are being attacked locally as far as access to public lands goes.

Amen!

[calcat430d]

stripping of private property rights . Got me thinking how do you take someones home away , their private property . look around i think they are already doing it . Think of all the foreclosures over the last few years and all people losing houses , that are now under control by the feds . with fannie and freddy , makes me wonder if this was whole reason to implode the mortgage industry , take a little piece at a time , and before you know it everything is gone , changed . Funny that word popped up , what was that campaign slogan again . ok i am done .

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by calcat430d

stripping of private property rights . Got me thinking how do you take someones home away , their private property . look around i think they are already doing it . Think of all the foreclosures over the last few years and all people losing houses , that are now under control by the feds . with fannie and freddy , makes me wonder if this was whole reason to implode the mortgage industry , take a little piece at a time , and before you know it everything is gone , changed . Funny that word popped up , what was that campaign slogan again . ok i am done .

Exactly - now that the banks own the majority of real estate....it's omly a matter of time.

Smart cookie you are!!!