Sweet home Alabama.

[gsvol]

Alabama shows the way; tells the UN

Any ideas the United Nations had about taking over the State of Alabama are gone.

Both Houses of Alabama’s legislature unanimously passed Senate Bill 477 (SB 477) known around Montgomery as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act and by doing so sent a loud and clear message to anyone wishing to impose United Nations control on Alabama to back off!

While almost no Democrat media cheerleader mentioned the bill, the law will likely become the model for get tough push back efforts against the cowards on the Left who want the United Nations to do the “dirty work” of putting America under international socialist law.

Using strong and specific language SB 477 orders all state agencies to refuse to cooperate in any UN scheme to subvert the sovereignty of Alabama.

It says, “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 insidious Agenda 21 has been using many non-governmental organizations to work at the grass roots toward forcing World Government on the people of in many parts of the world.

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 ……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….

 

[therealUT]

Alabama shows the way; tells the UN

Does the interstate highway system run through Alabama?

 

[orangestorm]

Is this a big fear in 'Bama, that the UN is going to come in and force everybody to like soccer and eat scones?

 

[Danl]

Is this a big fear in 'Bama, that the UN is going to come in and force everybody to like soccer and eat scones?

Yes. That and making them marry outside of the immediate family.

 

[gsvol]

Yes. That and making them marry outside of the immediate family.

Does the interstate highway system run through Alabama?

Is this a big fear in 'Bama, that the UN is going to come in and force everybody to like soccer and eat scones?

You guys should apply for the lead roles in the next three stooges movie!

 

[BearCat204]

Yes. That and making them marry outside of the immediate family.

Incest is probably more prevalent in Tennessee

 

[PoochPunt3rdDown]

Incest is probably more prevalent in Tennessee

It's because our cousins are hotter!

 

[BearCat204]

It's because our cousins are hotter!

Fosho

 

[82_VOL_83]

It's because our brothers and sisters are hotter!

Fyp

 

[gsvol]

Don't let me interfere with you poster's discussion of your sex lives.

Rio Earth Summit of 1992 Was Wrong About Doom—And 2012's Will Be, Too | Mind & Matter by Matt Ridley - WSJ.com

Part of the preamble to Agenda 21, the action plan that came out of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, reads: "We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being."

In the 20 years since, something embarrassing has happened: a sharp decrease in poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy and a marked reduction in these global disparities. The conference that begins next week in Rio de Janeiro, on the 20th anniversary of the first Earth Summit, will nonetheless remain resolutely pessimistic about the planet's ecosystems and their capacity to support human beings indefinitely if economic growth continues. The reasoning has changed over time, however.

The original claim, based on the influential 1972 best seller "The Limits to Growth," by the Club of Rome, was that resources would have begun to run out by now. Instead supplies of minerals have increased, thanks to ingenuity, technology and demand.

Later the emphasis shifted to humankind's "ecological footprint," which, it was claimed, was exceeding the planet's carrying capacity. But this, too, took a blow when the most thorough assessment of the world's ecology, by Helmut Haberl of the University of Klagenfurt in Austria, found that people and their domestic animals were eating or damaging just 23.8% of the vegetation growing on land, and that in richer parts of the world they were enhancing the productivity of the remaining vegetation by almost as much through irrigation and fertilizer.

The Riocrats now have a new tack, which will dominate next week's discussion: planetary boundaries. An influential paper in 2009 written by Johan Rockstrom of Stockholm University and 28 colleagues argued that there are nine thresholds, crossing any of which will trigger collapse of the Earth's life support systems: land-use change, loss of biodiversity, nitrogen and phosphorus levels, water use, ocean acidification, climate change, ozone depletion, aerosol loading and chemical pollution.

The trouble with this approach, according to a new report by Linus Blomqvist, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute in San Francisco, is that, for six of these measures, "there are no global tipping points beyond which these ecological processes will begin to function in fundamentally different ways. Hence the setting of boundaries for these mechanisms is an arbitrary exercise."

A good example is land-use change. The Rockstrom paper suggested that if human beings convert 15% of the land surface of the Earth to cropland, the world will pass a tipping point, because as marginal land gets exhausted, a small increment in food demand would produce an accelerating increase in cultivation. Currently we cultivate about 11.7% of the land. Yet there is no evidence that anything special happens at 15%. In the words of Steve Bass of the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, "If anything, the opposite has probably been more true: Converting land for farming and for industry has clearly delivered a great deal of well-being."
---------------------------

The "boundaries" approach needs to incorporate the possibility that, thanks to technology, fossil fuels and minerals, people are already living more lightly on the land than we did in the past.

What comes from these people makes for some good material for a sci-fi book or movie script.

United Nation's Agenda 21 is about zoning private property out of existence and herding all the peasants into high-rise containment facilities where they can be inventoried and tracked more easily until the time for the Final Solution arrives.

Bear in mind these people think the optimum population on earth should be 1/2 billion and if we now have a world human population fo 6 billion then11 out of every 12 is going to have be eliminated. How do you suppose they intend to do that?

To get the power to do that they are intent upon using false envirnmental propaganda to gain such a tyrantical accumlation of authority.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only throughchanged attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome

Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these 'Clubs' share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the 'main Club' is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

Read list of current menbers of the club at Rome:

The Green Agenda - The First Global Revolution

 

[DinkinFlicka]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x20h1bKILt4[/youtube]

 

[gsvol]

It's because our cousins are hotter!

Funny thing, I was driving out West End Saturday and passed a guy in a Vette with Alabama vanity tags that read; CUZ-1.

After glancing at his girlfriend I thought, no wonder the sheep are scared down there.

 

[orangestorm]

The main problem that I have with laws like this, is that they are nor nothing but to make people afraid.

Lets for the sake of argument say that GS is 1000000000000% correct and the UN's main goal is to get everybody into ghettos and then kill them off. How will this law in Alabama stop that? If the UN gets that powerful in America were they can implement their master plan, they will just repeal the law or get it ruled unconstitutional. This is just a bogeyman, be afraid and vote for us.

Both political parties love doing this because they can stay in power and not deal with any actual issue that actually effect their voters

 

[gsvol]

The main problem that I have with laws like this, is that they are nor nothing but to make people afraid.

Lets for the sake of argument say that GS is 1000000000000% correct and the UN's main goal is to get everybody into ghettos and then kill them off. How will this law in Alabama stop that? If the UN gets that powerful in America were they can implement their master plan, they will just repeal the law or get it ruled unconstitutional. This is just a bogeyman, be afraid and vote for us.

Both political parties love doing this because they can stay in power and not deal with any actual issue that actually effect their voters

It would be an interesting question for these folks; "How do you propose to bring the world population down from 6 billion to 500 million?"

Don't you think?

As for the Un becoming that powerful, I would say they pretty much are there.

Consider the EPA assertion just last week that they will assume domain over ever list little ditch and gully in America under the clean water act, claiming that eveerything that has water running through it is part of the navigatible waterways.

That pretty much means every square foot of our country.

Using the clean air act they are putting the coal industry out of business along with reasonable prices for electrical energy for public, business and home use.

Not to mention the creeping set of unreasonable rules under the endangered species act as it concerns both public and private land use.

Critics of Sustainability Hysteria Slam UN?s Anti-liberty Rio+20 Agenda

Amid the thousands of people assembled at the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development calling for global government and anti-market “solutions” to alleged planetary “sustainability” and “biodiversity” problems, a vocal coalition of environmental realists who refuse to buy the UN-backed agenda are calling for some sanity — market solutions, real science, and national sovereignty. Some have even proposed abolishing the controversial global institution altogether.

While the international press has largely ignored the stinging criticism so far, the small cadre of liberty-minded environmental experts, activists, and lawmakers seemed optimistic. The climate alarmism of a few years ago, for example, is virtually “dead” despite overwhelming media support.

On Thursday, following the stunning implosion of the science behind global-warming theories, the whole topic has largely taken a back seat to new UN allegations — overpopulation, decreasing biodiversity, and a lack of “sustainability.” But those overhyped fears may well collapse soon as well.
------------------

Other critics of the global body’s agenda offered even harsher criticism during the conference. Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science policy advisor to U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a well-known advocate for real science and human liberty, slammed the entire UN summit and declared that its dangerous agenda should fail.

He also highlighted the even-worse-than-usual secrecy surrounding the Rio+20 negotiations. “What have they got to hide?” Lord Monckton wondered, noting that, despite its claims, the whole summit had nothing to do with the environment. “It’s all about extending the power and reach of the global-government wannabes.”

Citing UN documents, Lord Monckton said the summit and the broader agenda were actually about the ambition of the “governing class” to “rule the world with as few constraints as possible.” Of course, there are real environmental problems, he added. But they should be addressed at the local and national level — and by the free market — not by out-of-control planetary bureaucrats he said were seeking to create a “world socialist” regime, he told The New American.

“Does anyone really think that the UN would be a better allocator of resources?” Lord Monckton wondered, noting that government consumes about twice as many resources to accomplish the same task as the private sector. What is going on at Rio+20, he concluded, is an “attempted coup on a global scale by the governing class against the people.”
------------------

More than a few critics of the agenda believe money has a lot to do with it. “The UN and the Greens are spoiled and want more,” noted Executive Director Craig Rucker of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a U.S.-based organization focused on development and environmental issues. “The operators currently running the show at the UN will not surrender their hold on taxpayer money without a fight.”
------------------------------

Rucker also expressed hope that the UN’s grandiose vision of increased powers for itself and more centralization at the international level would not come to fruition. Global warming, he noted, is the “dead elephant in the room.” And the latest “causes” will be exposed eventually as well.
------------------------

“Failure here is good for the world’s poor people,” Morano added, challenging billionaires like Virgin Group CEO Richard Branson in attendance to reduce their own “carbon footprint” before lecturing the planet’s neediest populations about their alleged harmful impact on the environment. “Carbon energy is one of the greatest liberators of mankind.”

Another critic and skeptic of the UN process and the mega-“Green” groups behind it, Icelandic journalist Magnus Gudmundsson, highlighted the blatant environmental deception and its tragic effects on the world’s most vulnerable people. “Communities have been destroyed economically and socially,” he explained, pointing to Native American villages in the far North that have been completely devastated by bogus propaganda produced by Greenpeace and other groups.

Gudmundsson has studied the impact of environmentalist campaigns — particularly in the arctic — for more than two decades. “It brings in a lot of money for them,” he said about the propaganda schemes. But the results are generally horror and destruction for the affected communities. More than 100 people out of less than 1,000 in just one village he visited, for example, committed suicide following a deceptive propaganda campaign to stop their traditional seal hunting.

“Communities have suffered incredibly, all in the name of saving the Earth,” Gudmundsson told The New American. “Of course, it has no impact on saving the Earth, but a big impact on their wallets.” Ironically, the vicious anti-seal hunting campaign actually ended up hurting the environment, he noted: The increase in seals caused a drop in the supply of fish and threw the traditional ecosystem off balance. The local human community was virtually destroyed. And the seals were never even endangered in the first place.

 

[gsvol]

The main problem that I have with laws like this, is that they are nor nothing but to make people afraid.

Lets for the sake of argument say that GS is 1000000000000% correct and the UN's main goal is to get everybody into ghettos and then kill them off. How will this law in Alabama stop that? If the UN gets that powerful in America were they can implement their master plan, they will just repeal the law or get it ruled unconstitutional. This is just a bogeyman, be afraid and vote for us.

Both political parties love doing this because they can stay in power and not deal with any actual issue that actually effect their voters

Laws like this aren't fear based, what they do is preemptively face a real and ever present threat to American freedoms.

Furthermore Alabama is completely within it's rights to pass this legislation.

States rights still do exist.

Other states, California is the best example, completely buy into the UN agenda.

More climate idiocy from California | Watts Up With That?

Source: US Department of Energy

California’s Department of Water Resources will not renew a lease with the coal-burning Reid Gardner Power Station in Moapa Valley, Nev., as part of a recently released climate action plan.

The department aims to cut carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and the Reid Gardner plant, which has served the State Water Project (the water system that diverts water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta), accounts for one-fourth of DWR’s total emissions, according to The Sacramento Bee. Water Resources will purchase more energy from renewable energy sources, the California Independent System Operator and Lodi Energy Center, a natural gas plant beginning operations this summer.

Reid Gardner had accounted for about 10 to 15 percent of DWR’s energy for the past 30 years. The contract with the company expires in 2013.

BTW, Obama's radical agenda guided EPA has just put 750+ more Kentucky coal miners in the unemployed lines.

And then there are all the small businesses that depend of buisiness from the coal miners that will have to tighten their belts or go out of business.

 

[gsvol]

The main problem that I have with laws like this, is that they are nor nothing but to make people afraid.

Lets for the sake of argument say that GS is 1000000000000% correct and the UN's main goal is to get everybody into ghettos and then kill them off. How will this law in Alabama stop that? If the UN gets that powerful in America were they can implement their master plan, they will just repeal the law or get it ruled unconstitutional. This is just a bogeyman, be afraid and vote for us.

Both political parties love doing this because they can stay in power and not deal with any actual issue that actually effect their voters

This isn't about political parties.

This isn't about fear or courage.

This IS about personal property and states rights.

What is most amazing is that so many people are so oblivious to those factoids.

 

[therealUT]

This isn't about political parties.

This isn't about fear or courage.

This IS about personal property and states rights.

What is most amazing is that so many people are so oblivious to those factoids.

Does the Federal Interstate Highway System run through Alabama?

 

[gsvol]

Does the Federal Interstate Highway System run through Alabama?

Odd question.

How do you tie this in with Agenda 21?

You want the UN to run the Interstates?

 

[therealUT]

Odd question.

How do you tie this in with Agenda 21?

You want the UN to run the Interstates?

In principle, how is Federal Government usurpation of private land through eminent domain clauses different from Agenda 21?

Both of these things are lowering individual rights of citizens in order to promote the greater/common good. Does it matter, as an individual, if it is the US who is stealing your land as opposed to the UN?

 

[BigPapaVol]

In principle, how is Federal Government usurpation of private land through eminent domain clauses different from Agenda 21?

Both of these things are lowering individual rights of citizens in order to promote the greater/common good. Does it matter, as an individual, if it is the US who is stealing your land as opposed to the UN?

Yes, it matters.

 

[therealUT]

Yes, it matters.

Do you think that the US has a right to your land?