http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7mnQHeGPrw After 1980 most leaders and scientists were convinced that the planet was in the path to destruction with AGW,increasing pop,environmental degradation and the arms race.

Dr David Evans said that by the mid 1990's the theory of AGW was no longer supported by the evidence but this has not stopped the UN in bringing in this oppressive Agenda 21.It is described by the UN as the comprehensive plan of action to taken globally,nationally and locally by organisations of the UN Systems.

Dr Rima Laidbow and Michael Shaw give us an insight into this evil agenda.It elevates nature above man and endorses "the precautionary principle" ie you are guilty until proven innocent.Rights and freedoms in no case be contrary to the purpose and principles of the UN."

Some objectives using their socialist control mechamisms;
* End to all national sovereignity.
* Abolition of private property.(With the exception of the billionaires running it)
* Restructure of the family unit.Make children have a greater allegiance to principles of sustainable development ie Govt, than their families.
*Increasing limitations on mobility and individual opportunity.

So they also have now new concepts in maths and logic.Maths is now a man made and the rules arbitary.Good solutions are arrived at consensus and not by logic.Very much like our consensus about Global Warming.

What is not sustainable:private property,fossil fuels, golf courses and ski lodges,consumerism,irrigation,paved roads,commercial agriculture,herbicides,pesticides,farmlands,pastures,grazing of livestock,family unit.

Is this the "Brave New World" that you want to live in?

Arjay, who is this crazy woman (she's not your beloved Dr Laibow) in the youtube to which you refer us who says;

< …it contains something called the precautionary principle, where basically you’re guilty until you’re proven innocent… >

What an almighty absurdity!!

If we don’t observe the precautionary principle, what do we do? Observe the no-caution ‘principle’??

Arjay, whilst I agree with some of your interpretation of Agenda 21, it is most certainly a topic that needs much more public exposure. Not that the UN or its agencies would like to see this.

You only need to try to follow the cascaded threads of related UN policies to realize that the further down you go the less relevant and less official the whole thing becomes. Once you get to about third tier references you are into pure NGO stuff.

Agenda 21’s core mantra is to take from the developed nations and give to the “poor”. This achieved by forcing compliance with Sustainable Development which is the mechanism of “voluntary codes” (sic) designed to get developed nations to adopt Degrowth, Steady State Economies, Managed Recession and Rationing of all the physical resources that gave us growth in the first place.

The rationing is achieved by convincing member states that not only are these resources finite and exhausted at some stage, but that this is imminent. This mechanism is created and supported by reference to “peak” resources and the precautionary principle. These basic policies are all that was ever needed to create the CAGW phenomena.

If we ever need to know just how well this works, take a look at the EU!

<<So they also have now new concepts in math’s and logic. Math’s is now a man made and the rules arbitrary>>.

This is interesting because much has been written on this topic. The sciences have been “socialized” and you are right, science is now a distorted concept.

Essays by Raymond Tallis provide insight as to how this has been accomplished.

“The process of marginalizing science adopts a strategy of “narrative theory” which treats science, philosophy, literature etc., as simply a different mode of story telling and therefore opened science up by rhetoric to “interpretation” or the creation of objective truth”.

“…that scientific laws are the product of “consensus” and must be understood in terms of the prejudices, social pressures and power”.

(Now where have we heard this before?)

Spot on.

Arjay, have you been drinking the kool aid again?

UN Agenda 21 states that the international community should provide a supportive environment for sustainable development of undeveloped countries. It suggests four means of doing this. Liberalizing trade, making trade and environment mutually supportive, providing financial to developing countries in order to allow them to develop sustainably and encouraging macro-environmental policies that support development with least impact on the environment (e.g. reducing carbon dioxide emissions).

There is nothing about an end to national sovereignty, nothing about abolishing private property, nothing about restructuring family units – unless you consider family planning advice to be restructuring family units.

This is just all conspiracy mongering.

In any case, in the current economic environment Agenda 21 is likely to be ignored.

Agronomist,

<< UN Agenda 21 states that the international community should provide a supportive environment for sustainable development of undeveloped countries >>.

Can't agree with that. It is specifically targeted at the developed nations who are required to "give" to undevelped countries. What would be the point of inflicting "Degrowth", "Steady State Economy", "Managed Recession" and "Resource Rationing" on nations that have none of these attributes? Sorry but you are not making sense.

You need to go back to Sustainable Development, it is definitely not the cuddly, socio-responsible, feely, touchy thing you seem to think it is.

Arjay is correct when he talks to the issue of loss of sovereignty. How else do unelected UN bodies of Regualtory Classes and Political Elites get to give Australia rules AND raise taxes we must pay them?

You are one of the best examples as of just why this topic needs a good airing.

Spindoc ,I don't think people want to see the reality.George Bush Senior initiated the concept of " New World Order".It has since been repeated on numerous occasions by little Bush,Tony Blair,Henry Kissenger, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama.To deny these leaders want a world Govt is to be an Ostrich.

Our own Labor Govt has dedicated 10% of the carbon taxes to the UN.This is how they will finance their world Govt.Bob Brown on many occasions has affirmed his belief in "Global Governance" Kevin Rudd is on the tails of the UN gravy train.Christopher Monckton at Cophagen warned of their plans for an unelected world Govt.

We have seen Bob Carr who now fratenises with Henry Kissenger turn half of NSW into a National Park.Farmers are being forced off their land with water restrictions and oppressive legislation yet coal seam gas miners can rape the land at will.

In the EU 85% of all new laws are passed by the unelected bureaucrats of the EU.We see Greece and Italy run by bankers.We see bankers get bailouts and steal money via stealth with impunity.

How much more proof do they need?

Here’s another truly staggering quote from your YouTube, Arjay:

< Sustainable development is the philosophy designed to bring human beings across the globe under the full control of a narrow human elite >

Wow!

This quote and the one in my previous post, along with other amazing dribble, appear in the first one minute of this nine and a half minute long piece, after which I felt no point in watching any more.

This YouTube is titled: Agenda 21 for dummies.

Um…… yes. It’s for dummies alright!!

So Arjay, why are you concerned about Agenda 21 now, given that it was released at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and has gained just about no traction around the world?

And pray-tell, why are you against this pretty damn good attempt to engender a sustainable future and a decent quality of life for all of us right across the planet?

Well spindoc, I decided to do some research and actually read what the UN agreed to as Agenda 21 and what I wrote is what is in the documentation.

I often find a little research on original sources, a little reflection of what I find and a little search for the actual outcomes helps to get a better perspective on the issue.

In this case, Agenda 21 was agreed to at the Rio Conference in 1992. That is 20 years ago. If it was intended to be a blueprint for taking over the world, surely there would be some evidence for that happening by now?

The fact that this hasn't happened, that all the predictions of Agenda 21 being a stalking horse for a new world order come from conspiracy-laden web sites that seem to operate in a separate universe, I really have to question the reality of these claims. Most of these websites are attacking Agenda 21 solely because it accepts that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change. I think this is also why Arjay has such fear of it.

Word to the wise, Agronomist.

You haven't quite got the hang of this conspiracy stuff yet, have you.

>>Agenda 21 was agreed to at the Rio Conference in 1992. That is 20 years ago. If it was intended to be a blueprint for taking over the world, surely there would be some evidence for that happening by now?<<

On the contrary, the very fact that we haven't seen any evidence of it is conclusive proof that it is happening, all around us, all the time. There have been literally dozens of examples - 9/11 being the classic - of where the elite banksters have been undermining democracy as we know it, in preparation for the New World Order. We hapless serfs don't realize that it is happening, because it is all so sooper-seekrit - and the reason this sooper-seekrit is still sooper-seekrit, is because the elite banksters are already in control.

Simples, eh?

Now I'm really creeped out...

The only explanation I can come up with as to how Arjay knows stuff which "is all so sooper-seekrit" is that he is one of David Icke's reptilians - and that he's revealling things as a cunning plan of double bluff to lull us all into a false sense of reality.

Agronomist, I’d like to say that it is all too easy to dismiss a lead article from Arjay because there is tendency to lead with conspiratorial themes. (Sorry Arjay, bare with me). This should in no way inhibit other posters from embarking on the discovery process for themselves and then contributing.

Adoption by western politics began much sooner than you state Agronomist.

Article 9 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948-66) states that all people “should promote sustainable development…….”

Sustainable Development as a political construct is not at all wholesome or friendly, it is a control mechanism born of the pessimistic Weltanschauung (“worldview”) we see in such pieces as Teddy Goldsmiths first editorial in The Ecologist , where he variously describes the human race as “parasites”, a “disease” and “swarming masses”; the Weltanschauung that that led the Club of Rome to declare in a 1974 report–“Mankind at the Turning Point”>>

By 1983 it had progressed to more formal inculcation of the new definition of sustainable development. Maurice Strong was appointed by Kofi Annan as the first director of the new UN Environment Program (UNEP). They produced a report called Our Common Future: also known as the Brundtland Report from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) which was published in 1987.

By the early 90’s we had Agenda 21 plan as part of the Rio Declaration in June 1992, under the auspices of the UNCED. The CSD was created in December 1992 with a five year review of Earth Summit progress in 1997.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) subsequently “strongly affirmed” the Rio principles in September 2002.

After 40 years of sustained adoption, the sheer volume of United Nations organizational bodies, committee’s groups, sub groups, reports, papers, definitions and abstracts is nothing short of astonishing. In addition to the dozens of front line Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 (country level implementation) SD bodies, almost every other UN body has adopted its own principles and charter in relation to SD

spindoc, even if I accept everything in your post as true, there is simply no evidence there that Agenda 21 is part of any new world order. At worst it is just another piece of paper written by another UN committee trying to invent a reason for its existence. You still haven't provided any evidence that it has achieved anything in the 20 years of its existence.

So why should we be unduly concerned about it?

It won't end all national sovereignty. It won't abolish private property. It won't limit mobility and individual opportunity. It won't restructure the family unit. It might waste a bit of money, but if we were worried about wasting money there are plenty of other areas to look at.

I can under stand and except arjay view.
But spindoc? Our Barry is straight from Menzies house, Liberal HQ and the home of this country's branch of the American Tea Party/ Radical Republicans.
Tony Abbott has us half convinced, with his climate change is crap!
It is real but we have a better way talk.
And one of the team has to? pee into the wind!
total oppression?
Total screamer! ROTFL!

Rima Laidbow is the wife of Major General Albert Stubblebine.He was head of all Army intelligence from 1981-4.He is not an intellectual lightweight and nor is Dr Laidbow.Dr laidbow has also done much work on Codex Alimentarious in which the big drug companies want to own any natural compound that helps human health.

There are millions of people around the planet very alarmed at the UN agendas.What right does our Govt have to sign us up to any UN Agenda?

A group of Wall St billionaires tried all this before and failed, the project was called the Soviet Union and it only lasted as long as it did because they kept pouring money into it.
If they couldn't get their NWO up and running with bloodthirsty thugs like Stalin and Beria at the helm they haven't a hope with the touchy feely Comrades Merkel and Putin in the Vanguard.

Sorry, pressed send too soon.
Cynicism aside and putting things very simplistically , if you work toward an NWO with a system which defies nature it's automatically got a clock on it's head, there's no evidence of unlimited human developmental potential,therefore Socialism is only practical in circumstances where it's consensual and Communism is certainly impossible.
I don't dismiss Arjay's views out of hand and I'm in agreement with most of what he posts, but as I said, human beings do not have the capacity to bring Communism into being any more than they would be able to bring about the Second Coming of Christ.

Jay of Melbourne.I don't think that the Western Oligarchs will achieve their NWO,however they have set in action opposing forces that may want to put an end to Western Imperialism for good.

China has a long memory and will not forgive the Brits for the opium wars and their oppression.China now talks of its own world order and that too won't be democratic.We now have Pakistan and India wanting to become full members of the SCO ( Shanghai Co-operation Organisation)They also have the BRICS nations for trading and now currency stability.

So if China,Russia,India,Pakistan etc see our weakness and sense military/domestic chaos,they may decide that now is the time to put us out of their misery.

The Oligarchs in the West by any yardstick are pathologically insane.They are driven by old Biblical prophicies of them being "god's chosen people" That in 2012 these prophicies will come to fruitition.

I think Putin has Russia's well being upper most in his plans.This is why the West hate him.Note that BP is being forced out of Russia and China look like buying BP's share.

The battlelines are drawn and only the common sense of ordinary folk will stop the insanity.

An interesting throwaway line, Arjay.

>>I think Putin has Russia's well being upper most in his plans<<

On what evidence do you base that view?

As far as I can tell from this distance, the Russian people plainly disagree with you, and are starting to demonstrate their discomfort.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/16/russian-police-putin-protest-moscow

And Mr Putin clearly recognizes this...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/348903/20120605/russia-protest-bill-vladimir-putin.htm

"The polarizing bill, backed by President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, passed through Russia's lower house of parliament. If passed, it will increase fines on unsanctioned rallies and gatherings from 5,000 rubles ($160) to 300,000 rubles ($9,000), making the punishment for civil disobedience more severe than that of prostitution, nuclear materials storage or performing an abortion without medical qualification. Anyone unable to pay the fines will face 20 to 200 hours of community service. Additionally, those organizing a protest without government permission face maximum fines of one million rubles, roughly $30,000, or up to three years in prison."

Mmmmm. Sounds peachy.

Never mind, Pericles.

I'm sure there was a typo in the thread's title.

It should read: UN Agenda21 = total "obsession".

Pericles I don't we can believe the Guardian when the very same is happening in the USA under Obama.NDAA,Preventative dentention.Legalised assassination,Patriot Act.I've seen hundreds of Occupy protesters bashed and gaoled in the USA and very little media reporting on our side.

They will do all in their power to demonise Putin because he did not fall in line with their NWO.http://www.rt.com/ is a more credible source of information today.

Whatever your view of The Guardian may be, Arjay...

>>Pericles I don't we can believe the Guardian when the very same is happening in the USA... .http://www.rt.com/ is a more credible source of information today.<<

...what leads you to believe that RT is any more accurate?

The fact that it does not report on the demonstrations, nor the Bill that is working its way through parliament to curb the demonstrators' activities, does not necessarily mean that they are not happening.

So, a pair of yes/no questions for you:

1. Do you believe that Moscow has seen some street demonstrations recently?

2. Do you believe there is a Bill going through parliament to drastically increase penalties for "illegal" street demonstrations?

If the answer to either of these is "yes", then you must lean towards The Guardian's description of what is going on.

If the answer to both of these is "no", then you must be prepared to believe everything that President Putin tells you.

I don't expect you to give a straight answer, of course. I gave up expecting that courtesy from you a long time ago.

But the confusions, like Russian dolls, must mount up when RT.com subsequently agrees with The Guardian – don't they Arjay?

Check out "150-fold illegal protest fee hike backed by Russian lawmakers" Published: 05 June, 2012, 23:42 at rt.com/politics/lower-house-illegal-protests-026/

It included this with respect to the submitted amendments to the bill before being passed through the lower house…

"The reaction from the supporters of the bill was fast and straightforward. “That’s simply like doing what soldiers do in barracks after the lights are out if they have not seen women for a long time,” parliamentarian Aleksey Mitrofanov described Fair Russia’s attempts to delay the passing of the bill."

If only we had such quality of argument in Canberra…

But the good news is that now you can be evenhanded on this topic and lean equally towards The Guardian and RT. Isn't that nice for everyone?

Except the protesters of course.

Pericles Vladmir Putin is here http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ he said that he told his intelligence agencies to warn the USA of an impending terrorist attack.Putin is amongst 3000 other professionals here asking for an open and honest enquiry into 911.

The Bush adminsitration were warned of impending attacks from all over the planet but ignored them.Anybody of power knew including the heads of our media.That's how the truth was subverted.

I would trust Putin above any Western Oligarch.

"That's how the truth was subverted." Huh… ?

So is Putin correct and it was a terrorist attack? Or are you correct and it wasn't?

Whatever…

I console myself that you're continuing to give us object lessons in how truth is subverted.

Arjay.
Yeah I follow your line of reasoning and agree with much of what you're saying but Putin is not one of the good guys, they've pretty much just locked up anyone who really disagrees with the NWO. Wen Jiabao, Merkel and Putin are just Faction East, Netanyahu, Obama and Cameron are faction West and there's the blurring of interests as you get down to our level of daily reality which is cacophonic and surreal to say the least.
Also don't be fooled by RT,they have some interesting stuff but as the other poster said, Russian dolls.
The only danger in alternative news and research is that people switch off altogether or through extreme cynicism become incapable of reading things like Infowars, Giza Death Star or RT and making up their own mind but I for one love these threads, keep 'em coming ;)

Jay of Melbourne,did you see Stephen Smith on Lateline tonight? He was visibly shaken when taken to task on being exposed on the intent of joining the USA in an attack on China.Smith denised it to Chinese diplomats and Lateline.

David Uran has written a book saying that Aust has a secret agenda to attack China if the US deems it necessary.This makes us a nuclear target as well as losing our biggest trading partner.Both Keating and Malcolm Fraser are critical of Labor policy.Labor don't have the balls to stand up to USA imperialism.

This whole war on terror was really about containment of China and the Russia.Their NWO is falling to pieces but our lunatic Oligarchs think they can win a nuke war.

Oh noes! Not another sooper-seekrit, Arjay...

>>David Uran has written a book saying that Aust has a secret agenda to attack China...<<

I sometimes wonder about your definition of a "secret agenda", when it is published in a book. Mind you, I commend your attempt to keep it under wraps by misspelling the author's name. Very cunning.

It also seems that the plan was indeed so sooper-seekrit, that the Defence Department didn't even know about it. And they were supposed to have written it.

They probably did so with their eyes shut, so they wouldn't be able to read it. Clever.

Whilst it is being ignored so far by both The Guardian and RT.com, some of the social media has been a-twitter with a 'real' conspiracy…

Apparently a Mrs Slocumbe hasn't been able to put her hands on her pussy since Tuesday evening. It's called Tiddles and is most likely to be caught napping.

Any reliable information - emphasis on reliable – should be sent to a Mr. Rumbold…

(Makes as much sense to me as some other conspiracies here)

WmTrevor,

Are you free?

Am I free?

Most certainly not! However, despite an exorbitant hourly rate, I have on numerous occasions been called cheap…

But I'm prepared to be honest enough to tell you that, for the life of me, I couldn't work out whether it was meant as a compliment or an insult.

WmTrevor,

Just posing a question on a thread about "oppression" - seemed to tie in quite nicely with Mr Humphries catch phrase.

Despite the momentary distraction of Mrs Slocombe's pussy, there is another image I just cannot get out of my brain - thanks for nothing, Arjay.

>>...Aust has a secret agenda to attack China...<<

Scene: [interior] A meeting of China's Central Politburo Standing Committee.

Central Military Commission General Guo Boxiong: I have news from our sources in the Kremlin. Apparently the Australian Defence Department is readying itself to invade our country. This is most... hey, guys, I'm serious. No, stop laughing, please fellas...

General Secretary Hu Jintao (wiping tears from his eyes) Thank you General Guo, we will take your report under advisement - now, can we get down to some serious business. How are the preparations of our glorious synchronized swimming team progressing, ahead of next month's Olympic Games...?

[Fade]

So, Poirot, not a double but a triple whammy comment… congrats.

But the bigger picture now is that I am imagining things and inexplicably can't get the scene of the Chinese Politburo Standing Committee out of my head – for some reason they are in matching one-piece Lycra, bad eye make-up, hair buns and nose clips paddling in time to a konghou, yangqin and ruan combo whilst simultaneously beating off kangaroos in slouch hats.

I mean fending off kangaroos.

I need a lie down…

It was David Uren.Typing error.The point is this.With the Smith agenda we become first targets in a nuke war and the USA get to do some bargaining after an intitial strike.

Some ex CIA agents have put this forward as one of their options.The plan is to initiate a nuke a war and force China /Russia to the bargaining table economically.We cop the initial brunt of the attack by backing the USA.Thus they achieve their New World Order.

The USA have these defence shields and HAARP run by the Navy and Airforce it seems,has something to do with this missile defence.This is why many within the CIA are convinced that a nuke attack will happen.

Add into the mix our economic dependancy on China and things are worse.This will make China look for enery/resources elsewhere.

The USA has since WW2 has attacked or invaded Vietnam,North Korea,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Libya,Serbia/Croatia,Somalia,and interferred with the the politics of scores of Govts.Currently they want to invade Syria and Iran.Who has the track record for war?
They have attacked or bombed over 20 countries since 1941.

Why was Stephen Smith so visibly shaken?

Arjay, you have it completely wrong. HAARP is not part of a defence shield, it is being used to cause climate change http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/haarp-conspiracy-foiled control minds http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1345.cfm and control population http://educate-yourself.org/mc/mctotalcontrol12jul02.shtml . I am sure I can squeeze a few more conspiracy theories in there if I look hard enough. Now was HAARP responsible for 9/11?

WmTrevor,

"...for the life of me, I couldn't work out whether it was meant as a compliment or an insult."

Neither, m'dear - just me being preoccupied and racing off a comment I didn't think much about.

Agronimist,Just like the Manhattan Project,we don't really know what secret weapons the USA has got.I've looked at alternative theories in regards to HAARP.It produces micro waves to the power of a billion watts.It can interfer with commmunications and some say bring down satellites.Why are the Navy and Airforce in charge of an such a seemimgly innocuous project.

China and Russia clearly do not want war and we should not be encouraging the USA to be so aggressive.

For the USA to be so aggressive they must think they have a big edge.
It is better to ring alarm bells and stop war than be ignorant and fearful of being wrong.

Know the reality; http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Nurse has just been in with the medicine trolley… so I thought I'd check back here. Que, Poirot?

Here's me thinking I was supplying a two line joke – or was that really you in the wonder woman costume and mask calling me cheap? You tease, you. There are no refunds by the way, nor discounts on future services... out-calls only remember.

Before this thread falls off the list or gets diverted even more. The following link seems to validate the concerns expressed by Arjay.

Alabama has legislated to ban Agenda 21 and cites the precise issues raised by Arjay. If it is of sufficient concern to legislators in the US is seems unwise for us to dismiss at least a debate on this subject.

http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11592-alabama-adopts-first-official-state-ban-on-un-agenda-21

I wouldn't take much notice of what Alabama is up to spindoc. It is full of Tea Party Republicans. They like their conspracy theories with most of them being birthers.

The law is really designed as a means to stop local government from interfering with development on conservation grounds.

Agro, you really do need to start thinking for yourself and throw away the IPCC’s book of canned responses. Then you can stop being predictable and start to develop some indications that you are capable of original thought.

<< I wouldn't take much notice of what Alabama is up to spindoc. It is full of Tea Party Republicans. They like their conspracy theories with most of them being birthers. >>

Your response is direct from;
16. Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation and credibility of the presenter.
(Yep, you shoot the messenger, trivialize their contribution and accuse them of being (insert as appropriate) Full of Tea Party, Republicans, conspiracy theorists and birthers?)

20. It creates a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world and other perspectives.
(Yep, you “Tea Party, Republicans, Conspiracy theorists and birthers, Flat Earthers” have no intelligence and are mentally ill)

21. It supports extreme obsessiveness regarding the group orthodoxy, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
(Advocates seem to devote their waking hours to finding ever more reports, research, blogs, links and opinions which are supportive of group think. It has become a true obsession.)

31. The use of thought-stopping techniques, (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism. Denial of rationalization or justification, embraces wishful thinking.
Yep, what could Alabama Senators possibly know about their legislation when they didn't check with you first?

I guess that regardless of your personal wishful thinking and opinion of why these government legislators did what they did, it must have hit you very hard to realize that they are endorsing Arjay’s points and not yours.

Ah, praise the Lord and pass the mustard. Alabama has enacted a Bill that protects them from the predations of the iniquitous Agenda 21.

The citizens of Tuscaloosa can sleep soundly in their beds tonight, thet's fer shure.

The lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee at its wording. They'll be able to put a down-payment on that new double-wide in no time. It starts off a little slow, but comes to life in Section 1 (b):

"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'"

http://legiscan.com/gaits/text/645326

It wouldn't take even a moderately gap-toothed lawyer long to find some peachy material in Agenda 21 to work with.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

Coupling the vague words of the Bill with the even vaguer words of Agenda 21, they'd be on a gravy-train for life.

I wonder if anyone voting the Bill through had actually read it? With or without moving their lips while doing so.

Here's another thought. The US Senate has not ratified Agenda 21, and shows no signs of doing so. Which puts Alabama SB 477 in the category of State political posturing, does it not. Nothing wrong with that of course, we do the same in Australia, but it does rather dilute its macho, AL vs. World attitude into something akin to dog-leash laws.

(Giggling with hand over mouth) I asked me hown-dawg what he thought of them thar dog-leash laws…

"Ruff" he said.

He only responds to dog-whistle politics.

Spindoc, have you read the legislation? Or are you just spouting what you read elsewhere?

“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, process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to "Agenda 21,"

That is about as broad as it can be. Who is responsible for determining whether any policy recommendation is traceable to Agenda 21. No new policy can be enacted to manage development without falling foul of this law. Any lawyer worth their salt is going to be able to use this bill to argue against any policy by any political entity in Alabama that might just change the way property can be managed.

The writer of the bill has bought into the conspiracy theories surrounding Agenda 21 and convinced his fellow lawmakers to do the same. This is what T.J. Maloney, executive director of the Alabama Republican Party had to say about the legislation:

“Governor Bentley also signed Senate Bill 477, sponsored by Senator Gerald Dial of Lineville. 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.”

So yes, some of these far right government legislators did agree with Arjay. That does not make Arjay correct, or this legislation effective.

Thanks Agro that was much better.

I did preface my earlier posts by saying that I agreed with “some” of Arjay’s interpretation of Agenda 21, that it is a topic worthy of much more public exposure, that Arjay does tend to lead with conspiratorial themes but that this should not inhibit other posters from embarking on the discovery process for themselves and then contributing.

It matters not if in the end we agree with the UN, Alabama Senators, you, Arjay, me or anyone else’s perspectives however, from the comments posted here in response, it is self evident that Agenda 21 is not well understood, its potential impact is not well known and the extent of its inculcation is not known.

It’s interesting that as the public goes about their discovery process into CAGW and tries to trace it back to its origins, the trail keeps leading back to Agenda 21, which makes it significant and just as worthy of debate as CAGW itself, possibly more so. This is after all a debating forum. So if some posters try to trivialize other opinions or to try to close down their debate, there are some who might suggest that this in itself is good enough reason to keep investigating and exposing any issues.

Is growing public knowledge of, and exposure to, Agenda 21 a threat to CAGW alarmism and if so, why?