(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?