Recently while listening to, The Warroom with Quinn and Rose, Jim Quinn reported that “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” (1). According to the report, “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.”
To begin with, I feel that anything that stops anything associated with the U.N. is a good thing. However, I had to ask, just what battle? What are people up in arms about? Is it the boogeyman of the U.N. plot for a One World Government? Or, is because the American people haven’t noticed that the so called Agenda 21 is just an international program that was established and has already been implemented here in the United States forty plus years ago (2)? Frankly, I feel it’s the latter rather the former.
I am going to take a look at the cited report and show the comparisons of a few things that has all ready been put into place here in the U.S.over the past forty plus years and compared them to Agenda 21. In order to avoid confusion between my comparisons and editorial comments and the original article, I have italicized. I will not only link but will footnote all references. Unfortunately, this may be a little lengthy, BUT bare with it if you want to learn.
“The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 (3) 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 (Maybe it’s because the Lame Stream Media know that the principles and practices of Agenda 21 have all ready been put into place by their Progressive (4) / Socialist friends and want the American people to concentrate on the U.N. while the Federal gov. slowly destroys the American way of life). 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.” (I agree that anything that stops something that is associated with the U.N. is a great thing, however, what about our own home grown scheme to take over private property. Does that mean that the idea of “eminent domain” where a town, county, state or even the Federal government can take a person’s land “for the good” of others causing the owners to spend thousand of dollars (5) is okay as long as there is no mention of Agenda 21? Where in the Constitution is this allowed. HOWEVER, according to this law, as long as the U.N. or Agenda 21 isn’t mentioned it is legal and acceptable.)
Does this new law include the “Growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led to sweeping amendments in 1972?” (Strange thing about 1972, this was the same year as the Rockefeller Commission headed by John D. Rockefeller, III (6) who also happened to be instrumental in organizing the 1974 United Nations World Population Conference, the first government-sponsored conference on population.(7)). With the admentments of 1972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). These 1972 amendments included 1) Established the basic structure for regulating pollutants discharges into the waters of the United States. 2) Gave EPA the authority (Who elected the EPA?) to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry. 3) Maintained existing requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. 4) Made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions. 5) Funded the construction of sewage treatment plants under the construction grants program. 6) Recognized the need for planning to address the critical problems posed by nonpoint source pollution.” Needless to say as with everything else in government, there were amendments “ that modified some of the earlier CWA provisions. Revisions in 1981 streamlined the municipal construction grants process, improving the capabilities of treatment plants built under the program. Changes in 1987 phased out the construction grants program, replacing it with the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, more commonly known as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This new funding strategy addressed water quality needs by building on EPA-state partnerships.
Over the years, many other laws have changed parts of the Clean Water Act. Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, for example, put into place parts of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, signed by the U.S. and Canada, (Uh OH, International implications) where the two nations agreed to reduce certain toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes. That law required EPA to establish water quality criteria for the Great Lakes addressing 29 toxic pollutants with maximum levels that are safe for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life. It also required EPA to help the States implement the criteria on a specific schedule.”(8)
Thank goodness the state of Alabama now protects its citizens against this from ‘Agenda 21’, “The widespread scarcity, gradual destruction and aggravated pollution of freshwater resources in many world regions, along with the progressive encroachment of incompatible activities, demand integrated water resources planning and management. Such integration must cover all types of interrelated freshwater bodies, including both surface water and groundwater, and duly consider water quantity and quality aspects. The multisectoral nature of water resources development in the context of socio-economic development must be recognized, as well as the multi-interest utilization of water resources for water supply and sanitation, agriculture, industry, urban development, hydropower generation, inland fisheries, transportation, recreation, low and flat lands management and other activities. Rational water utilization schemes for the development of surface and underground water-supply sources and other potential sources have to be supported by concurrent water conservation and wastage minimization measures. Priority, however, must be accorded to flood prevention and control measures, as well as sedimentation control, where required. (9)” Does anyone see any similarity between the CWA and ‘Agenda 21’? I’ll let you decide.
“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,” What is traceable to ‘Agenda 21’? I presume that as long as it doesn’t specifically state ‘Agenda 21’, then any REGULATION or EDICT that the EPA or God forbid, an EXECUTVE ORDER, deems necessary is acceptable, such as say, maybe stopping drilling off the Alabama coast or maybe stopping “fracking” in Alabama’s Talladega National Forest?
”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 Statesor the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure.” Shouldn’t the citizens of Alabama, and the Unites States ask, ‘Who elected the head of EPA?’ Wasn’t the EPA established LONG before ‘Agenda 21’ came on the scene or was Agenda 21 based on principles and practices developed here in America? Where in the Constitution is the authority for the EPA to tell the states what to do with their land?
”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 (10) 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.” According to the above statement, since the EPA is not defined in ‘Agenda 21’, then any ‘regulation’ the EPA decides to enact or enforce is perfectly acceptable with the state of Alabama. What are the citizens going to say when the cost of electricity ‘necessarily skyrockets’ due to ‘the cost of building an coal powered power plants will bankrupt the companies’ with Obama and the EPA’s war on coal fired power plants? Is this a case where ‘The Clean Air Act which was signed by President Richard Nixon on December 31, 1970 to foster the growth of a strong American economy and industry while improving human health and the environment. President Richard Nixon recognized the Clean Air Act as a beginning, stating, ‘I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America’. (11)’ Or is it this from ‘Agenda 21’, “Protection of the atmosphere is a broad and multidimensional endeavour involving various sectors of economic activity. The options and measures described in the present chapter are recommended for consideration and, as appropriate, implementation by Governments and other bodies in their efforts to protect the atmosphere.” They will do this by, Promoting sustainable development in Energy development, efficiency and consumption, Transportation, Industrial development, Terrestrial and marine resource development and land use, Preventing stratospheric ozone depletion, and of course Transboundary atmospheric pollution.(12)
“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. How about the sustainable initiatives that have been incorporated in the EPA? Oh, wait a minute, they don’t say ‘Agenda 21’ and were put in place by elected officials, like the “elected” head of the EPA.
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(What is to ratify? Where is the formal treaty). But the executive branch — in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels — has for two decades (What about on the Federal level? Would you like to say 4 decades., “The first major federal environmental law is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (12). In declaring a national policy “to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans” (42 U.S.C. § 4331(a)), Congress provided a statutory foundation for sustainability within the EPA. How about the Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the (EPA).) Or 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,” (Yes it does have strings attached, like the Federal Money the states receive form the Federal government for schools which is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus tells the schools what and how to teach, that’s worked out real well hasn’t it?), 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. (Are these local governments going to do anything to reign in an out of control EPA or will they continue to allow the federal government to violate the 10th Amendment.)
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 inAmerica growing stronger every single day, analysts expect fierceU.S. opposition — if not from the Obama administration, at least from the increasingly outraged citizenry.
As I stated previously, anything coming from the U.N. should be a must be stopped, however, why isn’t there any attempt by the state and local governments to stop the Federal government from continuing to implement the same things that ‘Agenda 21’ has adopted / adapted from U.S. policies after all “Although sustainable development was formally endorsed at an international conference in 1992, it was supported by the United States and is based to a significant degree on U.S. law and experience. Since that time, the United States has approached sustainable development in a manner that is somewhat different from other countries, particularly developed countries….. (13)”
Let me know what you think.
(13) Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA, 2011 www.nap.edu
(14) Ibid, Page 19