Quantcast

Alabama forbids UN Agenda 21 in their State. Fair or foul?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/08 13:47:38
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Due Process Property Rights Act

Alabama Senate Bill 477
is brutally simple. Under its terms, neither the State government, nor
any county, city, town or village in Alabama, may take private property
to further environmental ends. The bill mentioned UN Agenda 21. (It also
named the 1992 Rio summit where George W. Bush, to his shame, signed
onto it.) But the bill further forbids such takings to further any other international environmental plan like it. Indeed, SB 477 broadly forbids furthering any “international law or ancillary plan of action,” for any goal, that “contravenes” the US or Alabama constitution.


The bill goes further still. It forbids State and local governments to enter into any kind of agreement with any
of the UN agencies and “non-governmental and inter-governmental
organizations” that the UN has set up to further UN Agenda 21.



The bill passed the Alabama Senate and House with unanimous
votes. Last month the governor signed it. And no mainstream media outlet
said a word about it.


Until two days ago. Then, James Delingpole, the bête-noir of environmentalists in Commonwealth countries, said that “Wisconsin and Alabama just helped save the world.” And he did not exaggerate.


UN Agenda 21 In Their Own Words
The United Nations, promulgator of UN Agenda 21

The flag of the United Nations. (Public domain as per UN policy.)


This page is the official gateway to UN Agenda 21 at the UN. Investors Business Daily today summarizes its real goal: to abolish private property.


Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled
by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the
market.


The Constitution says otherwise. Most people quote Amendment V to cite this linchpin of criminal defense:


[No] person…shall be…compelled to be a witness against himself.


But Amendment V also says:


[No] person…shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law. Nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.


How refreshing that a new State law actually mentions the Constitution and seeks to enforce those key words!


This map
shows how far the UN wants to go to turn the United States into a
gigantic wildlife preserve. It would leave very little land for humans
to live in, and that includes military reservations. UN Agenda 21
returns vast tracts of land, and connecting corridors, to the wild. So
we civilians must double up in our cities. Those cities must become more
dense than ever. Enter the “mixed-use building” (the dingbat
dormitory), with shops on the ground floor and apartments on the higher
floors. Or maybe Scortia and Robinson’s Glass Inferno, or Richard Martin Sterns’ The Tower. Those two books came out in 1974, and Irwin Allen turned both into a true cautionary tale.
In it, a 135-story mixed-use building (offices, apartments, and hotel
rooms) goes up in flames after the wiring system can’t handle the
electric load. When that movie first played, the critics missed the key
point: the “Glass Tower” was an urban renewal project! That shows how long this kind of dystopian dreaming has been going on. (And longer than that: recall Paolo Soleri’s Arcologies, the ultimate dingbat dormitories.)


James Delingpole was right, though even he did not mention all the
reasons to oppose UN Agenda 21. Alabama did just save the world, but
only if other States follow their lead.

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/08...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • SK-LIBERTY OVER EQUALITY 2012/06/08 14:36:08
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    SK-LIBERTY OVER EQUALITY
    +31
    AL rids illegals. great!
    AL tells the UN
    al rids illegals al
    GREAT!
    Maybe the rest of the states could learn a lot from Alabama!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • zapped The Bir... 2012/06/10 01:50:58
    zapped
    +1
    and yesterday ( there was only 5 pages ) I looked at all the choices (and all the comments ) and there was an indictaion of (fair (foul & (undecided ...but no foul comments .....and only seen 4 undecided ...not 7 ...???

    we already know the idiots are programmed !
  • Willl 2012/06/09 04:11:46
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Willl
    +3
    Simple concept that people have a hard time to grasp.
    We are a union of independent nations (states), just as European Union is a union of independent nations.
    The only difference is that we started this concept much earlier, speak the same language, and have one military for all the countries of the union.
    People tend to forget about it.
  • ProudPr... Willl 2012/06/09 15:46:27
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    No, we are not a union of independent nations. We are ONE nation in which some of the ultimate responsibilities of governing lie with state governments, but in which the Constitution, and any treaties ratified by Congress, are the supreme law of the land. States do not have the right to nullify Federal laws and states do not have the right to secede.

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
  • Wulfdane ProudPr... 2012/06/09 16:46:46
    Wulfdane
    +1
    You're right Treaties are indeed enforceable, that is so long as they do not violate any part of the Constitution. Including the 10th Amendment.
  • ProudPr... Wulfdane 2012/06/09 16:56:32
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    By definition a treaty cannot violate the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment gives to the states control of those powers not enumerated as belonging to Congress. The power to ratify treaties is specifically allocated to Congress. Therefore if Congress ratifies a treaty, it is "the supreme law of the land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
  • Wulfdane ProudPr... 2012/06/10 00:03:24 (edited)
    Wulfdane
    +1
    If you read the text it says, "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in *pursuance thereof*...." Meaning all laws and treaties are made in pursuant to the Constitution, they must be Constitutionally valid.

    The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue in "Reid v Covert", ruling that the Constitution supercedes international treaties ratified by the US Sentate. "This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of Constitution over a treaty."

    That is the end of it, case closed.
  • Wulfdane 2012/06/09 04:04:33 (edited)
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Wulfdane
    +4
    The idea of the UN meddling in our internal affairs violates our sovereignty and for the first I am started to support the idea of the US leaving the UN.

    I am grateful states like Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee are opposing this BS.
  • ProudPr... Wulfdane 2012/06/09 15:46:56
    ProudProgressive
    The UN is not meddling in our internal affairs. Agenda 21 has no legal effect on any state or the Federal government. It is an advisory resolution only.
  • Wulfdane ProudPr... 2012/06/09 16:36:19
    Wulfdane
    +3
    No matter how you Socialists try to paint it, the UN is still meddling in the internal affairs of the US.
  • ProudPr... Wulfdane 2012/06/09 16:44:06
    ProudProgressive
    How?
  • zbacku 2012/06/09 03:08:17
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    zbacku
  • ProudPr... zbacku 2012/06/09 15:48:12
    ProudProgressive
    z - you do realize, I hope, that Agenda 21 is merely an advisory resolution that has no force of law and has no effect on any law in any state or on any federal law.

    I hope you also realize that if there were a formal treaty, and if Congress were to ratify it, the states would be powerless to disregard it under Article VI of the Constitution:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.".
  • ProudPr... zbacku 2012/06/09 15:48:39
    ProudProgressive
    z - you do realize, I hope, that Agenda 21 is merely an advisory resolution that has no force of law and has no effect on any law in any state or on any federal law.

    I hope you also realize that if there were a formal treaty, and if Congress were to ratify it, the states would be powerless to disregard it under Article VI of the Constitution:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.".
  • JanHopkins 2012/06/09 02:47:46
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    JanHopkins
    +4
    Good for Alabama! I'm sick and tired of our government having the audacity to try and sell out our rights to some international BS organization.
  • potlatch 2012/06/09 02:42:06
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    potlatch
    +3
    Every state needs to do the same, when that starts happening Obama won't be able to fight it. When only one state makes a law against something Obama sics his legal team on them. Join together and fight his often illegal mandates!!
  • mwg0735 2012/06/09 02:28:47
  • ruru 2012/06/09 02:07:51
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    ruru
    +6
    "President Obama has already signed Executive Order 13575, establishing the White House Rural Council. The counsil is a list of the most aggressive agencies and departments in the U.S. government. The all inclusive council members represent the very agencies and departments most dedicated to forcing the subjugation of the US to United Nations control.." wordpress.com
  • Kat 2012/06/09 02:07:04
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Kat
    +5
    All states need to forbid it. The government doesn't own us or our private property. Obama doesn't own anything except his personal property. He is giving away a lot of things he doesn't own. Parts of our states to foreigners. Our rights to the UN. Needs to stop now.
  • Ukie 2012/06/09 01:24:23
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Ukie
    +6
    The U.N. does not belong here for any reason......PERIOD!! The rest of America better take note. The One Worlder's are after our Country and there are already fools here that support them! New World Order fascist reason period rest america worlders country fools support New World Order fascist New World Order fascist
  • Aqua Surf 2012/06/09 01:15:30
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Aqua Surf
    +7
    Alabama joins Arizona as a Stand Up state! Good for them. Take no shyt off the UN or our Marxist government.
  • Azrael-In GOD we trust 2012/06/09 01:11:28
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Azrael-In GOD we trust
    +5
    Good for Alabama and I hope the rest of the states follow behind her.
    This crap is this country has got to stop. The US needs to tell the UN to go take a hike.
  • rightside 2012/06/09 00:44:31
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    rightside
    +10
    The UN needs to be disbanded and tossed out of America on their butts.
    toss the united nations out  the united nations sucks
  • Red Branch 2012/06/09 00:33:16
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Red Branch
    +8
    Fantastic, not fair.
    Alabama is Fair/Fantastic.
    The UN is Foul.

    The US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.
  • dasimon1 2012/06/09 00:21:23
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    dasimon1
    +4
    Tem great post... now all those lilly white progressives/liberellas are going to say NO that can';t happen but their daddy barry nsigned the executive order...not only property but all the water ways too !
  • USAISME 2012/06/09 00:20:05
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    USAISME
    +4
    Plain and simple. There will be no right by the U.N. or the U.S. government to take anything away from us considering that they cannot be trusted.
  • Tinka123 2012/06/08 23:58:59
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Tinka123
    +5
    They're a Sovereign State with sufficient power to pass the laws important to their states people. So long as said laws don't infringe on the rights of individuals, they're well within their governing capacity.
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/06/08 23:53:31
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    jackolantyrn356
    +3
    What does the UN think it gets its permission yo attack Staes of America for something we do not vote on otr even support. ?????? What ever Obama has secretly declared is gonna get hi9s ass impeached before the election
  • Murph 65 2012/06/08 23:30:19
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Murph 65
    +7
    And God bless Alabama for doing so. Now if we can just get the other states to follow suit. To paraphrase a great movie line, "We don't need no stinkin' UN rule here."
  • Cap 2012/06/08 23:20:44
    Undecided
    Cap
    Conceptually this law is clearly unconstitutional in that it purports to say that it, rather than the Constitution or any federal law is the supreme authority. However, the Constitutionality of most laws is determined not by all their flowery recitations, but by how they are applied. Certain of the language in this statute contemplates application of the statute against a provision of law that is separately unconstitutional; in that instance, the statute may somehow be read as a statute that fosters litigation against unconstitutional legislation; while that type of victory seemingly wouldn't mean much, it could be viewed as an instance in which the statute was "upheld". The bottom line is that the statute is insignificant in terms of being a tactical legal vehicle for opposing UN Agenda 21 (which I am no big fan of, I just don't think this statute accomplishes much of what its proponents intend); its value as a political vehicle remains to be seen - it may be eminently valuable, it may not..
  • Red Branch Cap 2012/06/09 00:35:32
    Red Branch
    +4
    This needs to be debated sooner rather than afterwards. I see your argument, however, there is a reason these treaties are being signed even though they are allegedly void or unconstitutional.
  • BwaHa Red Branch 2012/06/09 15:24:04
    BwaHa
    You're being too kind Red... Kindness ends when they tell me they want our PRIVATE property.
  • Red Branch BwaHa 2012/06/13 03:21:36
    Red Branch
    I am opposed to the signing anything created by the UN.
    Now the UN is trying to take over the internet. If we think we have problems with privacy now, it would get a lot worse.

    The US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.
  • BwaHa Cap 2012/06/09 15:22:23
    BwaHa
    +1
    "Unconstitutional" laws are quite often enforced, sometimes for decades, until repealed.
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/06/08 23:17:30
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    Rusty Shackleford
    +10
    I believe this upsets the progressives, my only question is, will they openly admit it?
  • PBUTTERBOY77 2012/06/08 22:33:56
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    PBUTTERBOY77
  • MR. 2012/06/08 22:26:15
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    MR.
    +11
    *TELL THE UNITED NATIONS TO PACK UP AND GET OUT NOW! *(AND DON'T EVER COME BACK! ****** COMMIES!!!)
  • templer003 2012/06/08 22:13:22
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    templer003
    +9
    GOOD FOR THEM !!!!
    Now I have to check and see what, if any UN 21 crap Ohio is trying to sneak in and try to put a stop to it...
    Why I do declare that LIBERTY TREE is looking awful thirsty....
  • ed 2012/06/08 21:39:16
    Fair. US governments have no right to hand our private property rights to the...
    ed
    +16
    I hope the government knows where they can stick agenda 21.
  • PBUTTER... ed 2012/06/08 22:37:10
  • BwaHa ed 2012/06/09 15:25:02
    BwaHa
    +1
    ...would obummer and his clan care? NOPE.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/26 01:02:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals