Alabama Adopts 1st State Ban on UN Agenda 21

[revelarts]

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21


Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law (http://www.openbama.org/bills/1059/SB477-int.pdf) protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21 (http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6945-what-are-the-uns-agenda-21-and-iclei). 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.
The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 (http://www.openbama.org/bills/1059/SB477-int.pdf) legislation, known (http://commonsensecampaign.org/site/index.php/-news-us-and-world/csc-active-efforts/271-sb477-due-process-for-property-rights.html) 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. 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.

"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 law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. ....

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

[Nukeman]

That is great news. EVERY state needs to do the same.

Some on here will call this a conspiracy and tinfoil hat time, I do believe this is a long term goal, with the over regulation and dumb-ing down of our education system. I see a lot of this coming to fruition right now....

For those of you that don't know anything about this initiative by the UN you really should look into it. This is a REAL program set forth by the UN and is VERY scary in its scope and breadth!!!

[gabosaurus]

Why are individual states voting on UN measures? :lame2:

[Nukeman]

Why are individual states voting on UN measures? :lame2:Since our federal govt won't take the steps to do it it is left up to the individual states. We do still have that right you know??? Just as Arizona picked up the slack left by the feds on the porous border in their state, even though its the federal govt's responsibility to insure its citizens are safe...

[revelarts]

Why are individual states voting on UN measures? :lame2:

Because they mandate "environmental" actions in States AND local and fed gov't.

Why is the U.N. making up agendas that should effect the U.S. period? Last I check we've got 4 layers of Gov't -local to fed- right here in the U.S. thank you.

[Thunderknuckles]

Why are individual states voting on UN measures? :lame2:
They aren't. They are voting to protect themselves from UN measures.

[ConHog]

Since our federal govt won't take the steps to do it it is left up to the individual states. We do still have that right you know??? Just as Arizona picked up the slack left by the feds on the porous border in their state, even though its the federal govt's responsibility to insure its citizens are safe...

actually, no states don't have the right. The US has signed a TREATY with the UN. Treaties are US federal law and thus according to the COTUS take precedent over state law.

Now of course if a treaty violates the COTUS states could presumably sue for relief, but that is a different tactic than passing a law which counteracts what is essentially federal law.

[revelarts]

actually, no states don't have the right. The US has signed a TREATY with the UN. Treaties are US federal law and thus according to the COTUS take precedent over state law.

Now of course if a treaty violates the COTUS states could presumably sue for relief, but that is a different tactic than passing a law which counteracts what is essentially federal law.

IF it Violates the COTUS (it Does) states don't not have to abide by it. Similar to soldiers not having to obey Illegal orders.

If the Fed gov't wants to Sue it can but States and local gov't's don't have to do Jack.
Often at that point the feds begin playing dirty and start blackmailing States, saying "IF you don't do what we say then will stop federal funds for -fill in the blank-. "

BTW it's not a treaty.

[ConHog]

IF it Violates the COTUS (it Does) states don't not have to abide by it. Similar to soldiers not having to obey Illegal orders.

If the Fed gov't wants to Sue it can but States and local gov't's don't have to do Jack.
Usually the feds begin playing dirty and start blackmailing States, saying "IF you don't do what we say then will stop federal funds for -fill in the blank-. "

Of course they don't have to obey it, unless a court rules otherwise; that is the system we use. A state doesn't like a law, they don't pass a counter law, that is in DIRECT violation of the COTUS. That's not the process. As I said, they take the federal law to court and get a ruling.

Using your analogy that would be like if you and were serving in the military together and I ordered you to shoot someone, you don't issue your own order to not shoot somoenoe if you feel its an illegal order. You go up in your chain of command and challenge the legality of the order. Now the analogy is off a little because in the military if you challenge an order and it's ruled lawful, then you've disobeyed a direct order and can get in quite a bit of trouble and I'm not sure a state would get in much trouble for wrongly challenging a federal law....

But the point stands, this is the WRONG tactic to take.

[revelarts]

Of course they don't have to obey it, unless a court rules otherwise; that is the system we use. A state doesn't like a law, they don't pass a counter law, that is in DIRECT violation of the COTUS. That's not the process. As I said, they take the federal law to court and get a ruling.

Using your analogy that would be like if you and were serving in the military together and I ordered you to shoot someone, you don't issue your own order to not shoot somoenoe if you feel its an illegal order. You go up in your chain of command and challenge the legality of the order. Now the analogy is off a little because in the military if you challenge an order and it's ruled lawful, then you've disobeyed a direct order and can get in quite a bit of trouble and I'm not sure a state would get in much trouble for wrongly challenging a federal law....

But the point stands, this is the WRONG tactic to take.
Well I think there are several ways to do it. In one sense it becomes a staring contest.
With Obamacare the Virginia AG ruled parts of it unconstitutional. And has said that VA would not abide by it.
In some Counties County sheriffs have told Federal marshals, and other federal agency reps to leave or cease because they do not have jurisdiction or constitutional authority to do X in the county.

The federal ID, some states have said they will not implement the standards, partly because it's an unfunded mandate.

There are several areas where States are beginning to flex the rights outlined 9th and 10 amendments.

[Missileman]

actually, no states don't have the right. The US has signed a TREATY with the UN. Treaties are US federal law and thus according to the COTUS take precedent over state law.

Now of course if a treaty violates the COTUS states could presumably sue for relief, but that is a different tactic than passing a law which counteracts what is essentially federal law.

You need to post a link to the US Senate ratification of what you say is a treaty, otherwise Agenda 21 has all the clout of an OCA post.

[Abbey Marie]

At the very least, it's a good first step in getting the populace receptive to the idea of secession, if we continue going down the road we are on.

[Thunderknuckles]

At the very least, it's a good first step in getting the populace receptive to the idea of secession, if we continue going down the road we are on.
That didn't work out so good last time :p

[Abbey Marie]

That didn't work out so good last time :p

Different times, different reasons.

[logroller]

What's to keep the EPA from adopting the same standards as agenda 21? Wouldn't that be binding?

[ConHog]

You need to post a link to the US Senate ratification of what you say is a treaty, otherwise Agenda 21 has all the clout of an OCA post.

I was speaking in terms of IF the US agrees to this, to my knowledge they have not yet.

We don't sign on to everything the UN does you know.

[ConHog]

At the very least, it's a good first step in getting the populace receptive to the idea of secession, if we continue going down the road we are on.

Et tu Abbey? :rolleyes:

[Abbey Marie]

Et tu Abbey? :rolleyes:

Watching Obama circumvent the Constitution and do what he pleases has made me feel pretty itchy about things these days.

[logroller]

I was speaking in terms of IF the US agrees to this, to my knowledge they have not yet.

We don't sign on to everything the UN does you know.
We signed the unfccc, but never ratified. We could accede at any time, but as I stated previously, the EPA already has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, so it's a moot law IMHO.

[ConHog]

We signed the unfccc, but never ratified. We could accede at any time, but as I stated previously, the EPA already has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, so it's a moot law IMHO.

I actually believe we should leave the UN, they are a waste of money.

I am just stating that states do NOT have the authority to pass laws which directly conflict with federal law, the COTUS is pretty clear on that matter.

[revelarts]

What's to keep the EPA from adopting the same standards as agenda 21? Wouldn't that be binding?

Good question depends on the situation i'd guess. any Alabama resident or Alabama Biz could say I'm abidiing by state regs and might get the state to back them up. The EPA could take them to court and fine them i suppose but they'd have to have men in the streets to inspect/enforce it state wide, which they probably don't (and again county sheriffs have been telling feds to leave) so whoever got taped as a court case would be more of an example.. If the EPA won, or another precedence for state rights if they lost.

i suppose.

[gabosaurus]

Watching Obama circumvent the Constitution and do what he pleases has made me feel pretty itchy about things these days.

Obviously no other president has EVER circumvented the Constitution, right? :rolleyes:

[logroller]

Good question depends on the situation i'd guess. any Alabama resident or Alabama Biz could say I'm abidiing by state regs and might get the state to back them up. The EPA could take them to court and fine them i suppose but they'd have to have men in the streets to inspect/enforce it state wide, which they probably don't (and again county sheriffs have been telling feds to leave) so whoever got taped as a court case would be more of an example.. If the EPA won, or another precedence for state rights if they lost.

i suppose.
See Massachusetts et al vs EPA.(2007)

[revelarts]

See Massachusetts et al vs EPA.(2007)

ugh, California and Massachusetts etc. up to no good again i see.
"regulate me now, please... please.."

Crazy

[logroller]

ugh, California and Massachusetts etc. up to no good again i see.
"regulate me now, please... please.."

Crazy
No Good is a matter of opinion. Some people see pollution as no good.

[fj1200]

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

Agenda 21 has no impact on the US.

[ConHog]

Agenda 21 has no impact on the US.

Stop being so liberal. Obama bad he wants to bypass the Constitution with Agenda21. He may even cancel the election if it doesn't happen. :lol:

[fj1200]

Stop being so liberal. Obama bad he wants to bypass the Constitution with Agenda21. He may even cancel the election if it doesn't happen. :lol:

And, and, and, don't forget the gun one. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[ConHog]

And, and, and, don't forget the gun one. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Aint no niggah takin my guns.

The South shall rise again.

[logroller]

You guys forget he's not even eligible to be POTUS. So nobody has to do what he says.

[Mr. P]

Agenda 21 has no impact on the US.

Well then, this Alabama legislation is a non issue that sure seems to be getting a lot of attention...for a non issue.

And the load speaker blares..PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! Just sayin

[revelarts]

No Good is a matter of opinion. Some people see pollution as no good.

Sure so am I but CO2 is not pollution. but that's another thread.

[ConHog]

You guys forget he's not even eligible to be POTUS. So nobody has to do what he says.

Oh that's right. But I voted for McCain anyway, and I realize he needed a special clarification from Congress to even be eligible , but that's different............. somehow.

The Dark One is a traitor, I'm not a racist either by the way

[ConHog]

Well then, this Alabama legislation is a non issue that sure seems to be getting a lot of attention...for a non issue.

And the load speaker blares..PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! Just sayin

Au Contraire, it IS an ISSUE because unlike the situation out in Arizona where a state passed its own law that exactly mirrored federal law, this state is attempting to pass a law that over rides what could be a federal law, and whether the federal is needed or not is irrelevant to the COTUS.

Unless of course you are willing to concede that the COTUS can be ignored if the part we are ignoring is irrelevant, in which case I'd like to point out that having the right to own a gun is irrelevant to 99.99% of the population, guess we can ignore that to.

[logroller]

Sure so am I but CO2 is not pollution. but that's another thread.
The majority opinion disagrees. :dunno: regardless, the functional reduction of co2 reduces other pollution as well.

[Mr. P]

Au Contraire, it IS an ISSUE because unlike the situation out in Arizona where a state passed its own law that exactly mirrored federal law, this state is attempting to pass a law that over rides what could be a federal law, and whether the federal is needed or not is irrelevant to the COTUS.

Unless of course you are willing to concede that the COTUS can be ignored if the part we are ignoring is irrelevant, in which case I'd like to point out that having the right to own a gun is irrelevant to 99.99% of the population, guess we can ignore that to.

Of course it's an ISSUE but not a LAW. It's a UN agenda focused on pushing through regulations by legislation. Alabama has said..no one here will deal with those attempting to force such agenda ..not even the POTUS.. Simple.

[revelarts]

Agenda 21 has no impact on the US.
Stop being so liberal. Obama bad he wants to bypass the Constitution with Agenda21. He may even cancel the election if it doesn't happen. :lol:
And, and, and, don't forget the gun one. :eek: :eek: :eek:
You guys forget he's not even eligible to be POTUS. So nobody has to do what he says.

Chortle Chortle
ho ho hooo

Well since it has NO impact I guess the City council in Sonoma CA didn't get the memo.
Along with a lot of other U.S. cities that have voluntarily put themselves under Agenda 21 like standards in various ways.

"

....And the strategy for implementing Agenda 21 was much broader than ever attempted before by the environmentalist movement. They sought global treaties and national legislation, as in the past. They also sought to shame individuals and corporations into changing their behavior on a voluntary basis. That, too, was not new. But they began fighting for "soft-law" changes to consumers' living standards. "Soft law" is the use of centralized governments to bribe with aid either smaller government sub-units (states or localities) or private companies for following ever-more stringent eco-standards with tax breaks or outright cash "aid."

On the state and local level, the push for "soft law" is led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (http://www.iclei.org/), or ICLEI, which had been founded a couple of years before the Rio Summit. More than 1,000 state, county, and municipal government organizations around the world are ICLEI members, and are pushing this radical environmentalist agenda with bribes and stiffer regulations. In many American towns, local officials boast about the impact of ICLEI in the form of putting state rebate checks on display for properly following new environmentalist incentives.....http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6945-what-are-the-uns-agenda-21-and-icleiSonoma County Recognized as National Leader on



(http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/archive/2011/08/26/Sonoma-County-Recognized-as-National-Leader-on-Climate-Action)http://www.icleiusa.org/news/blog/topics/success%20stories
(http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/archive/2011/08/26/Sonoma-County-Recognized-as-National-Leader-on-Climate-Action)
Climate Action (http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/archive/2011/08/26/Sonoma-County-Recognized-as-National-Leader-on-Climate-Action)




by Emma Timboy-Pickering Aug 25, 2011
http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/library/images-phase1-051308/blog/sonoma%20county%20board_members.jpg/image_preview
The County of Sonoma's Board of Supervisors have shepherded the County's
national leadership and success on climate action. Supervisors, clockwise from
back left: Mike McGuire, Valerie Brown, David Rabbitt, Efren Carrillo, and Shirlee
Zane. Photo credit: County of Sonoma website
Sonoma County, CA, has joined a handful of leading local governments nationwide whose advanced climate action achievements place them at the vanguard of a movement. On August 23, the County received a Milestone Achievement Award from ICLEI USA’s Interim Executive Director, Michael Schmitz, in recognition of the County completing the fifth and final Milestone of ICLEI’s Five Milestones for Climate Mitigation (http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/climate_and_energy/climate_mitigation_guidance/iclei2019s-five-milestones-for-climate-mitigation) process.

What this means is that the County has quantified its climate action progress and has achieved one of its primary greenhouse gas reduction goals it set in 2003, thanks to a diverse range of initiatives and programs.
“The County of Sonoma is a vital part of the effort in California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Schmitz. “ICLEI is proud to acknowledge achievement of the important Milestone Five.”

Five Milestones for Climate Mitigation (http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/climate_and_energy/climate_mitigation_guidance/iclei2019s-five-milestones-for-climate-mitigation)

http://www.icleiusa.org/climate_and_energy/climate_mitigation_guidance/resolveuid/59164efbd7de0b58608a887f3d4464d3


ICLEI USA’s membership

http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/members/resolveuid/a89dd2cc2ce1b651cb13413b84fbcc12



It's all voluntary ...for now.. And it's for the environment, so it must be good. Always all the time.

[ConHog]

Of course it's an ISSUE but not a LAW. It's a UN agenda focused on pushing through regulations by legislation. Alabama has said..no one here will deal with those attempting to force such agenda ..not even the POTUS.. Simple.

Alabama has NO standing to tell the POTUS, nor Congress what treaties they may enjoin. Well, that's not quite true, they do have TWO votes just like every other state in deciding whether to approve a treaty or not.

And once again, just because we are in the UN doesn't even mean we will sign this resolution.

this is pure politics by Alabama. Their law would NEVER survive a constitutionality case and they probably know it.

[fj1200]

Chortle Chortle
ho ho hooo

Well since it has NO impact I guess the City council in Sonoma CA didn't get the memo.
Along with a lot of other U.S. cities that have voluntarily put themselves under Agenda 21 like standards in various ways.

Voluntarily by elected officials voting? The F' you say.

[revelarts]

Voluntarily by elected officials voting? The F' you say.

But I guess we see that it DOES have impact FJ.
correct.

{sarcasm Alert}
hmm
FJ maybe your right, It doesn't matter that local voting is driven by International benchmarks never agreed on or reviewed or confirmed locally. The experts at the U.N. know better. And Cities are getting Paid to move in that direction. Heck they have to Tax voters. If the local council does what the international groups says they might get some money and a prizes. that's win win, no cars and free money for sidewalks.

we should just ignore it. nothing to see here folks, climate change agendas good all the time Fj has set my mind at ease.

[ConHog]

But I guess we see that it DOES have impact FJ.
correct.

{sarcasm Alert}
hmm
FJ maybe your right, It doesn't matter that local voting is driven by International benchmarks never agreed on or reviewed or confirmed locally. The experts at the U.N. know better. And Cities are getting Paid to move in that direction. Heck they have to Tax voters. If the local council does what the international groups says they might get some money and a prizes. that's win win, no cars and free money for sidewalks.

we should just ignore it. nothing to see here folks, climate change agendas good all the time Fj has set my mind at ease.

Rev, that's the way our democracy works, we elect REPRESENTATIVES who vote for us. Now I suppose you could argue that we didn't get to vote on who our UN ambassador is, but perhaps people should start factoring those things in when electing officials instead of just voting on a select issue or two; but it is completely impractical to have a national vote on every issue, and quite frankly there are folks out there who do enough damage just voting on who will represent them without also letting them vote on issues.

[Mr. P]

Alabama has NO standing to tell the POTUS, nor Congress what treaties they may enjoin. Well, that's not quite true, they do have TWO votes just like every other state in deciding whether to approve a treaty or not.

Moot, since there is no treaty to sign. It's an agenda.

And once again, just because we are in the UN doesn't even mean we will sign this resolution.

What UN resolution are you talking about? Agenda 21 is just that, an AGENDA.

this is pure politics by Alabama. Their law would NEVER survive a constitutionality case and they probably know it.

Nope, not pure politics at all, it's preemptive legislation to prevent the imposition of UN agenda on sovereign U.S./ Alabama citizens.

It seems you are arguing a different subject altogether.

[logroller]

But I guess we see that it DOES have impact FJ.
correct.

{sarcasm Alert}
hmm
FJ maybe your right, It doesn't matter that local voting is driven by International benchmarks never agreed on or reviewed or confirmed locally. The experts at the U.N. know better. And Cities are getting Paid to move in that direction. Heck they have to Tax voters. If the local council does what the international groups says they might get some money and a prizes. that's win win, no cars and free money for sidewalks.

we should just ignore it. nothing to see here folks, climate change agendas good all the time Fj has set my mind at ease.

We shouldn't ignore it; we should participate in the process, educate ourselves on methods and results to bring about more sustainable society. Will every endeavor be stellar? Few are, but we learn more from our errors. The overdependency on fossil fuels and personal transportation are demonstrative of errorant ideology. Regions and states implementing their own unique projects is likely to result in better results than nationwide or internationally implemented programs. Unfortunately, many regions are dismissive of the problem, preferring instead the passage of laws like we see in Alabama. That reckless disregard of their responsibilities leads to more of the overreaching federal authority you despise.

[Kathianne]

We shouldn't ignore it; we should participate in the process, educate ourselves on methods and results to bring about more sustainable society. Will every endeavor be stellar? Few are, but we learn more from our errors. The overdependency on fossil fuels and personal transportation are demonstrative of errorant ideology. Regions and states implementing their own unique projects is likely to result in better results than nationwide or internationally implemented programs. Unfortunately, many regions are dismissive of the problem, preferring instead the passage of laws like we see in Alabama. That reckless disregard of their responsibilities leads to more of the overreaching federal authority you despise.

I followed you up to the bold. Then I got lost. Can you clarify?

[ConHog]

It seems you are arguing a different subject altogether.

I am?


Hmm, seems as if the US, and other countries, routinely sign treaties with the UN.

''http://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=1


once signed those treaties have the authority of federal law and are thus superior to state law.

[Nukeman]

Rev, that's the way our democracy works, we elect REPRESENTATIVES who vote for us. Now I suppose you could argue that we didn't get to vote on who our UN ambassador is, but perhaps people should start factoring those things in when electing officials instead of just voting on a select issue or two; but it is completely impractical to have a national vote on every issue, and quite frankly there are folks out there who do enough damage just voting on who will represent them without also letting them vote on issues.
Funny that you respond to rev here and chastise others for responding to statements made to others in other threads.. Why do YOU get the pass to answer in place of others!!!!

did you or did you nto post this in another thread?


and the response you quoted wasn't to you either. so not sure why you thought it was

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35589-Conhog-challenges

[logroller]

I followed you up to the bold. Then I got lost. Can you clarify?

Ideally the EPA is nothing more than a central accountant, with states implementing varied plans for reduction. If not all states implement a program, however, reductions in one state may, and likely are, undone by increases in emissions in another. Because of this, the Feds need take a more pragmatic role.

[ConHog]

Funny that you respond to rev here and chastise others for responding to statements made to others in other threads.. Why do YOU get the pass to answer in place of others!!!!

did you or did you nto post this in another thread?



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35589-Conhog-challenges

What? In that post I was DIRECTLY making a comment about another poster, a third poster mistakenly thought those comments were directed at her. Also, I didn't chastise anyone I merely noted that I wasn't commenting about HER and I wasn't sure why she thought I was.

So, I'm not sure what your beef here is.

[Nukeman]

What? In that post I was DIRECTLY making a comment about another poster, a third poster mistakenly thought those comments were directed at her. Also, I didn't chastise anyone I merely noted that I wasn't commenting about HER and I wasn't sure why she thought I was.

So, I'm not sure what your beef here is.not a "beef" but a point made that not every comment has to be answered by you. If rev answers a question or statement by FJ it is up to him to answer NOT YOU!!!

[ConHog]

not a "beef" but a point made that not every comment has to be answered by you. If rev answers a question or statement by FJ it is up to him to answer NOT YOU!!!

I'm not aware of any rules about me only posting to certain things, so deal with it.

[Nukeman]

I'm not aware of any rules about me only posting to certain things, so deal with it.Jesus!!! Do YOU need a "rule" to not be a jerk in most threads. Are you telling me you have no restraint UNLESS there is a rule????

[ConHog]

Jesus!!! Do YOU need a "rule" to not be a jerk in most threads. Are you telling me you have no restraint UNLESS there is a rule????

I certainly don't believe that I was being a jerk in this thread... Nor the other one where YOU attacked me, nor............... well you get the idea.

[revelarts]

Ideally the EPA is nothing more than a central accountant, with states implementing varied plans for reduction. If not all states implement a program, however, reductions in one state may, and likely are, undone by increases in emissions in another. Because of this, the Feds need take a more pragmatic role.
So you really don't believe locals SHOULD have control and do what they believe is in their best interest. Federal control, only the feds can handle it, really? But it's really a world wide problem isn't Log... a world body NEEDS to "take a more pragmatic role"?

the environmental movement has been co'oped for control, man-made global climate issues and CO2 are BS wedges for the purpose.

[logroller]

So you really don't believe locals SHOULD have control and do what they believe is in their best interest. Federal control, only the feds can handle it, really? But it's really a world wide problem isn't Log... a world body NEEDS to "take a more pragmatic role"?

the environmental movement has been co'oped for control, man-made global climate issues and CO2 are BS wedges for the purpose.

Yea, that was clarifying something for kathianne. Go back a read my response to you; you completely misunderstand me. I think state and local is best; if they shirk their responsibilities; then the feds step in. You're bing foolish if you think carbon rich fuel sources aren't damaging to the environment. A necessary evil to some degree; but it's not all good.

[Kathianne]

Ideally the EPA is nothing more than a central accountant, with states implementing varied plans for reduction. If not all states implement a program, however, reductions in one state may, and likely are, undone by increases in emissions in another. Because of this, the Feds need take a more pragmatic role.

So you are addressing the narrow rather than the broad? I'm certainly not arguing that states should make energy policy, but you seem to be conflating that with their interests. Maybe I'm missing something here?

[revelarts]

Yea, that was clarifying something for kathianne. Go back a read my response to you; you completely misunderstand me. I think state and local is best; if they shirk their responsibilities; then the feds step in. You're bing foolish if you think carbon rich fuel sources aren't damaging to the environment. A necessary evil to some degree; but it's not all good.
the time has come for a rant... sorry

But Log you point to Alabama as "shirking" and now you mention the "Feds stepping in" ( or on?) wouldn't that mean loss of local control.
And please tell me why yours or the supposed majorities view of the dangers and the U.N./Fed plan is the best and ONLY way to deal with environmental issues. and MUST be implemented BY force, in the form of federal edicts. Not much room for differing opinion or differing solutions.

I'm concerned about the environment however an agenda that includes taking people's property and telling them how to live on a daily basis or else is outright fascist Log and your not thinking clearly if you don't see that. Green police, mean Police. What's the real difference between a Sharia and possibly draconian environmental laws. not much. I only stretch it slightly. AL Gore wants everyone to sacrifice but he Pays carbon indulgences so he can live the life he pleases. Will You be able to do the same? Where's that money going anyway? i didn't know that the environment could take a check?

There are plenty of very real enviro problems CO2 aint one. Pharmaceutical drugs in the drinking supply is one. Heck enough water period. the Dwindling fish count is another. the trash in the oceans.
Air quality is a problem as well Carbon Monoxide and other vehicle emissions are a problem but just a few super tankers crossing the ocean once spew as much exhaust as the cars in several states for a year.
But plants LOVE CO2. it's not pollution.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

Should we change from Coal to other fuels Sure. I'm all about local. and alternatives are great, let the market work. geothermal. Heck Nuke has mentioned several time the None threatening version of nuclear power where's the Gov't pushing that? Giving licenses for that if COAL and Natural gas is SOOO bad. but no they want to take away light bulbs, and want us to walk and when the SOURCE itself could be changed, with old technology. Geothermal is another great option in a lot of places. the Gov't needs to grant Permits for options. But somehow they are not forth coming. But your breath is a problem to the go'vt "your carbon footprint" It's BS Log.
The market can move us in a more environmentally healthy area if given incentive. and a STICK is not the type of incentive I mean.
Greenhouse gas is BS.

Sorry if this reads poorly no corrections

[revelarts]

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYHEpjoC.html?p=1" width="480" height="299" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYHEpjoC" style="display:none"></embed>
sorta funny but..
sure just fines instead but it's...
whatever, believe what you want...

[DragonStryk72]

actually, no states don't have the right. The US has signed a TREATY with the UN. Treaties are US federal law and thus according to the COTUS take precedent over state law.

Now of course if a treaty violates the COTUS states could presumably sue for relief, but that is a different tactic than passing a law which counteracts what is essentially federal law.

Actually, they DO have the right, as granted by the Tenth Amendment. The states have not surrendered the right for other countries to have power over the States, nor is that permission included anywhere in the COTUS. The federal government, I think, is trying to use an end-around to call this a "treaty", since they couldn't have passed the laws legally.

[logroller]

So you are addressing the narrow rather than the broad? I'm certainly not arguing that states should make energy policy, but you seem to be conflating that with their interests. Maybe I'm missing something here?
I look at like this-- I have my doubt s that there is a one size fits all model for addressing global pollution. The unique character of regional sources is best handled by those closest to the source. Best because the transaction cost escalate; and my research indicates these costs negate the economy of scale advantages of centralized regulation. Additionally, there is a blending of regulatory controls required and fine-tuning this blend requires adjustment-- which also becomes more labored with a vertical management design.

the time has come for a rant... sorry

But Log you point to Alabama as "shirking" and now you mention the "Feds stepping in" ( or on?) wouldn't that mean loss of local control.
And please tell me why yours or the supposed majorities view of the dangers and the U.N./Fed plan is the best and ONLY way to deal with environmental issues. and MUST be implemented BY force, in the form of federal edicts. Not much room for differing opinion or differing solutions.

I'm concerned about the environment however an agenda that includes taking people's property and telling them how to live on a daily basis or else is outright fascist Log and your not thinking clearly if you don't see that. Green police, mean Police. What's the real difference between a Sharia and possibly draconian environmental laws. not much. I only stretch it slightly. AL Gore wants everyone to sacrifice but he Pays carbon indulgences so he can live the life he pleases. Will You be able to do the same? Where's that money going anyway? i didn't know that the environment could take a check?

There are plenty of very real enviro problems CO2 aint one. Pharmaceutical drugs in the drinking supply is one. Heck enough water period. the Dwindling fish count is another. the trash in the oceans.
Air quality is a problem as well Carbon Monoxide and other vehicle emissions are a problem but just a few super tankers crossing the ocean once spew as much exhaust as the cars in several states for a year.
But plants LOVE CO2. it's not pollution.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

Should we change from Coal to other fuels Sure. I'm all about local. and alternatives are great, let the market work. geothermal. Heck Nuke has mentioned several time the None threatening version of nuclear power where's the Gov't pushing that? Giving licenses for that if COAL and Natural gas is SOOO bad. but no they want to take away light bulbs, and want us to walk and when the SOURCE itself could be changed, with old technology. Geothermal is another great option in a lot of places. the Gov't needs to grant Permits for options. But somehow they are not forth coming. But your breath is a problem to the go'vt "your carbon footprint" It's BS Log.
The market can move us in a more environmentally healthy area if given incentive. and a STICK is not the type of incentive I mean.
Greenhouse gas is BS.

Sorry if this reads poorly no corrections

Hydroelectric costs people their land. Geothermal is already utilized. Nuke power is riddled with pollution waste; and we've yet to see what level of coverup will be revealed ith San Onofre. Reduction is always best. I like my incandescent bulbs, but I use them selectively; I also utilize auto-off switches on said bulbs. I don't wish too induce your rants rev; I simply want you recognize the problems surrounding energy delivery. Show me a local solution that was shot down by the US EPA-- most I've seen are applauded.

[DragonStryk72]

I actually believe we should leave the UN, they are a waste of money.

I am just stating that states do NOT have the authority to pass laws which directly conflict with federal law, the COTUS is pretty clear on that matter.

Actually, again, they do in certain circumstances, such as say, making other countries laws be applied at all levels within their state. The Founders could never have forseen an America where England gets to decide what the laws are here.

[ConHog]

Actually, again, they do in certain circumstances, such as say, making other countries laws be applied at all levels within their state. The Founders could never have forseen an America where England gets to decide what the laws are here.

no, they NEVER have the right to counter federal law.

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

How much clearer can it be? Treaties and federal law are the supreme law of the land.

[logroller]

no, they NEVER have the right to counter federal law.

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

How much clearer can it be? Treaties and federal law are the supreme law of the land.
Obama's not a natural born citizen... Set, game and match!!!:laugh2:

[ConHog]

Obama's not a natural born citizen... Set, game and match!!!:laugh2:

He wakes up every morning and hatches a new plan to use Congress to bypass Congress.


:lol:

[revelarts]

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties “are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.”332 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.333 It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional,334 although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations.335 In fact, there would be little argument with regard to the general point were it not for certain dicta in Justice Holmes’ opinion in Missouri v. Holland.336 “Acts of Congress,” he said, “are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention.” Although he immediately followed this passage with a cautionary “[w]e do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power . . . ,”337 the Justice’s language and the holding by which it appeared that the reserved rights of the States could be invaded through the treaty power led in the 1950s to an abortive effort to amend the Constitution to restrict the treaty power.338
333 “The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/57/635/index.html), 656 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/57/635/case.html#656) (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/133/258/index.html), 267 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/133/258/case.html#267) (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/index.html), 700 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#700) (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/265/332/index.html), 341 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/265/332/case.html#341) (1924).



http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

for the record

[ConHog]

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

for the record

Yes

COTUS
Federal Law - Treaties
State Law
Local Law


that's the hierarchy and the process for questioning the constitutionality of a law is NOT to pass a lesser law that contradicts said law. The COTUS is also quite specific about that.

[DragonStryk72]

no, they NEVER have the right to counter federal law.

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

How much clearer can it be? Treaties and federal law are the supreme law of the land.

But it isn't a federal law, CH. It's a treaty that they had no representation in, that destroys their own rights, rights that would never have been surrendered otherwise. And to you I say, Tenth Amendment. I was specific about how I said it. The States did not ever give unto the federal government the ability to strip them of their rights, or allow other countries to determine state and local laws.

Again CH, our Founders could never have foreseen this sort of situation, where another country, or even a group, were determining our internal laws. You back the system way too much, at times, assuming that they have right, where none is laid out. The Treaties do not supercede the Tenth Amendment.

[fj1200]

But I guess we see that it DOES have impact FJ.
correct.

{sarcasm Alert}
hmm
FJ maybe your right, It doesn't matter that local voting is driven by International benchmarks never agreed on or reviewed or confirmed locally. The experts at the U.N. know better. And Cities are getting Paid to move in that direction. Heck they have to Tax voters. If the local council does what the international groups says they might get some money and a prizes. that's win win, no cars and free money for sidewalks.

we should just ignore it. nothing to see here folks, climate change agendas good all the time Fj has set my mind at ease.

You are correct, I completely underestimated local elected officials of liberal municipalities agreeing, reviewing, and implementing an IC Local Initiative E climate change program so that they could make themselves feel better in response to their citizens concerns about sustainability (because some are concerned).

It is also not a diminution of US sovereignty.

[fj1200]

But it isn't a federal law, CH. It's a treaty that they had no representation in, that destroys their own rights, rights that would never have been surrendered otherwise. And to you I say, Tenth Amendment. I was specific about how I said it. The States did not ever give unto the federal government the ability to strip them of their rights, or allow other countries to determine state and local laws.

Again CH, our Founders could never have foreseen this sort of situation, where another country, or even a group, were determining our internal laws. You back the system way too much, at times, assuming that they have right, where none is laid out. The Treaties do not supercede the Tenth Amendment.

Another country is NOT determining our laws. We see the treaty, possibly negotiate the treaty, POTUS signs the treaty, and then the Senate ratifies the treaty. We have determined our internal laws via a constitutional process. If the treaty is constitutional and it imposes restrictions on the state then they haven't surrendered anything because they didn't have it to begin with.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Another country is NOT determining our laws. We see the treaty, possibly negotiate the treaty, POTUS signs the treaty, and then the Senate ratifies the treaty. We have determined our internal laws via a constitutional process. If the treaty is constitutional and it imposes restrictions on the state then they haven't surrendered anything because they didn't have it to begin with.

DS is dead on accurate in that ,even if it were a treaty, rather than an agenda the Supremacy clause would override it's attempt at grabbing authority for the UN , Jefferson was clear on that in his comments about Treaties.-Tyr

[red state]

Thank you for that DragonStryk!!!

Some folks talk a big talk like 'Nigga ain't taken my gun' and speak out for others because they know everything about everything but when it comes to actually KNOW something...they prove that they no NOTHING! Friend, do you really think we believe that (IF) a S.W.A.T. team were to break your door down and serve you with a warrant that they'd not get your gun?! It is true that (IF) you were a real BAD@$$ that you'd go down with a fight but the truth of the matter is that you'd probably send one of the S.W.A.T. to the hospital for a minor scrape while you're shipped off to the morgue.

I don't know how you can talk so tough in one sentence and then, presumably, roll over on you back when you 'think' that your are correct in what OUR rights are. I don't know what the State that gave us Clinton would do but I certainly know what our good ole boys politicians in the hill/mountain area of MS, AL and TN would do. And if it push came to shove, we'd band and declare our sovereignty and establish our Republic. And YES, we do have that right and it is the ONLY way to keep 'them niggas' as you put it from getting our guns. Be realistic, but first, know your constitutional rights....don't simply wave them away. Hell Fire, common sense alone will let you know that States can, do and will protect and support their people.....if and when push comes to shove and we haven't allowed these "UN AGENDAS" sneak up on us bit by bit.

Again, DragonStryke, THANKS!!! Your words aren't written in BLUE for they are TRUE!

__________________________________________________ _____________________

"...actually, no states don't have the right. The US has signed a TREATY with the UN. Treaties are US federal law and thus according to the COTUS take precedent over state law.

Now of course if a treaty violates the COTUS states could presumably sue for relief, but that is a different tactic than passing a law which counteracts what is essentially federal law." Originally Posted by ConHog

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________


Actually, they DO have the right, as granted by the Tenth Amendment. The states have not surrendered the right for other countries to have power over the States, nor is that permission included anywhere in the COTUS. The federal government, I think, is trying to use an end-around to call this a "treaty", since they couldn't have passed the laws legally.

This is a great part of our Constitution that most folks (mainly liberals or those who are mis-informed) fail to understand or acknowledge. To them, the GOV is big brother and can and WILL do whatever it wants. Why was our forefathers so careful in all of this? So you were protected long after they were gone. YOU (WE THE PEOPLE) have the right to protect our families. Most of us can't stand guard 24-7 due to making a living so we "temporarily" assign the right to protect our property to the 'State', be it local or Federal. This does not remove OUR rights from protecting ourselves or our GREAT Nation. You still have the right to protect your own property, fellow citizen, God and Country...despite temporarily assigning those rights to the government. Is that clear enough or do I have it all wrong? Someone....anyone? inform me, please, and by all means, if I am in error.

[logroller]

Thank you for that DragonStryk!!!

Some folks talk a big talk like 'Nigga ain't taken my gun' and speak out for others because they know everything about everything but when it comes to actually KNOW something...they prove that they no NOTHING! Friend, do you really think we believe that (IF) a S.W.A.T. team were to break your door down and serve you with a warrant that they'd not get your gun?! It is true that (IF) you were a real BAD@$$ that you'd go down with a fight but the truth of the matter is that you'd probably send one of the S.W.A.T. to the hospital for a minor scrape while you're shipped off to the morgue.

I don't know how you can talk so tough in one sentence and then, presumably, roll over on you back when you 'think' that your are correct in what OUR rights are. I don't know what the State that gave us Clinton would do but I certainly know what our good ole boys politicians in the hill/mountain area of MS, AL and TN would do. And if it push came to shove, we'd band and declare our sovereignty and establish our Republic. And YES, we do have that right and it is the ONLY way to keep 'them niggas' as you put it from getting our guns. Be realistic, but first, know your constitutional rights....don't simply wave them away. Hell Fire, common sense alone will let you know that States can, do and will protect and support their people.....if and when push comes to shove and we haven't allowed these "UN AGENDAS" sneak up on us bit by bit.

Again, DragonStryke, THANKS!!! Your words aren't written in BLUE for they are TRUE!

__________________________________________________ _____________________

"...actually, no states don't have the right. The US has signed a TREATY with the UN. Treaties are US federal law and thus according to the COTUS take precedent over state law.

Now of course if a treaty violates the COTUS states could presumably sue for relief, but that is a different tactic than passing a law which counteracts what is essentially federal law." Originally Posted by ConHog

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________



This is a great part of our Constitution that most folks (mainly liberals or those who are mis-informed) fail to understand or acknowledge. To them, the GOV is big brother and can and WILL do whatever it wants. Why was our forefathers so careful in all of this? So you were protected long after they were gone. YOU (WE THE PEOPLE) have the right to protect our families. Most of us can't stand guard 24-7 due to making a living so we "temporarily" assign the right to protect our property to the 'State', be it local or Federal. This does not remove OUR rights from protecting ourselves or our GREAT Nation. You still have the right to protect your own property, fellow citizen, God and Country...despite temporarily assigning those rights to the government. Is that clear enough or do I have it all wrong? Someone....anyone? inform me, please, and by all means, if I am in error.


Niggas. Guns. Got it. Agenda 21, unrelated to either. Nice blog though. Of course, this is debate site.

[SassyLady]

Why would the US sign a treaty with the UN that takes away a citizen's property rights?

[red states rule]

Why would the US sign a treaty with the UN that takes away a citizen's property rights?

Eh, the EPA does that all the time. In one case it went to the USSC which smacked down the EPA




Supreme Court Sides With Private Property Owner in Landmark EPA Case

Today, the Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA (http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=616), a private property rights case, ruling they have the right to go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency policy that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.

In 2007 the EPA halted private property owners Mike and Chantell Sackett from building a new home on their property adjacent to a scenic lake in Idaho. The reasoning? The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed.

The first phase of construction had already been completed on the private residence when federal officials showed up and ordered a halt in the work. A fine of $30,000 a day would be levied against the Sackett’s were they to continue building. The couple was then disallowed by the agency to obtain the permits needed to continue construction in local courts.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-sides-with-private-property-owner-in-landmark-epa-case/

[SassyLady]

I was trying to be sarcastic .... what has this country come to when it allows the UN to dictate local policies?

[SassyLady]

Rev ... thanks once again for bringing this to our attention. I truly had never paid much attention to Agenda 21 until you posted it here. I'm now researching and along with you and Nuke, am concerned and glad that one of our states had the courage to take action against this insidious concept.



What is Agenda 21? If you do not know about it, you should.Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.‘Sustainable Development’ sounds like a nice idea, right? It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.At risk from Agenda 21;


[*=left]Private Property ownership
[*=left]Single-Family homes
[*=left]Private car ownership and individual travel choices
[*=left]Privately owned farms


The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property. For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land;

Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.
Source: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I),Vancouver, BC, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Preamble to Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report. (http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/3566_45413_HS-733.pdf)

There are two more, very good reasons to be wary of Agenda 21 and the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) that supports it: George Soros and the United Nations. Soros money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI (http://nolathe.net/2010/11/12/iclei-funding-for-1998-1999/);
In 1997, George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project

As regards the UN, that organization‘s problems with America’s appreciation of freedom and self-determination is one that needs no explanation.

More......

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/

[SassyLady]

Sounds like the women of Rio are also aware of the effects of Agenda 21


Thousands of women representing social and farm movements marched in central Rio Monday to rail against the "green economy" advocated by the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development.

Behind a large banner from the international peasant movement Via Campesina proclaiming "the peoples are against the mercantilization of nature", they marched several miles to the Flamengo park, the venue for the "People's Summit" organized by civil society groups on the sidelines of the Rio+20 event.

Several hundred men closed off the march to show their solidarity.

Perched atop a truck fitted with loudspeakers, a female activist howled: "This is a march of urban and rural women against this Rio+20 charade."

"No to green capitalism! Yes to an economy based on solidarity, yes to people's sovereignty," she added.

People's Summit militants view the "green economy" concept touted by organizers of the official Rio+20 gathering as just "another stage of capitalist accumulation" after the failure of the current model.

World leaders are to gather here from Wednesday to Friday to debate how to steer the planet toward a greener and more sustainable future.


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/women-march-rio-protest-green-economy-174353168.html

[red state]

We already have such things; they are called imminent domain and PROPERTY TAXES. These are things that big brother has used for years to TAKE from the American people. There were other ways of collecting revenue but these unjust, unconstitutional taxes are as misused as imminent domain. I still remember getting ready for work a number of years ago and watching the local news which showed a house being dozed down in South Haven, MS. imminent domain was used in this case as well....for a golf course!!!! I almost cried and thought: "My God, this isn't America any more." I believe I was right but little did I know that it had stopped being the GREAT America long before that. That incident was under Slick Willie (at the time, our first BLACK president). Bush JR wasn't any better....possibly worse in not voicing his opinion or opening cases to STOP the spread of tyranny.

Even so, the UN also has "treaties" for B.O. to sign within his second term that outlaws PRIVATE gun ownership and how we can or can not discipline our children. They've proposed it for years but now have everything worked out....or so they thought. Alabama has started something BIG (I hope). Role TIDE!!!!

[logroller]

Apparently Alabama wants more of this.

Q: Did Monsanto ever provide the residents of Anniston with any data concerning the health hazards of PCBs in humans?
A: Uh-uh (indicating no). Why would they?
- William B. Papageorge, Monsanto Manager of Environmental Control, Deposition of March 31, 1998 (view entire document) (http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/anniston/pdfs/Deposition_03.31.98.pdf#page=4)Most folks in Anniston, Alabama didn't give a second thought to why Snow Creek often ran red or purple. Their children played in this creek and the waterways it fed. They ate fish from them. Their livestock drank from them.
Like the residents of many small towns who are dependent on a single local industry, the people of Anniston were not eager to bite the hand that fed them. They may have known that the Monsanto Co. plant on the west side of town dumped its waste into Snow Creek and that the waste entered other local waterways, but few of Anniston's 30,000 residents thought of the plant as anything other than a valuable source of jobs.
Documents that emerged from a court case in 2000 show that Monsanto knew the truth: The plant was also the source of thousands of pounds a year of potentially deadly polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. For nearly forty years, unfiltered and untreated PCB waste was discharged directly into streams or dumped in landfills around town. Monsanto employees also carried the chemical, sold under the brand name Aroclor, home on their work clothes.
Monsanto stopped making PCBs at Anniston in 1971. Five years later, with the signing of the Toxic Substances Control Act, PCBs were banned as a suspected cause of cancer. But company documents show that for more than two decades after ending production, Monsanto withheld frightening, detailed information about the contamination in Anniston. The documents also show that some state officials knew about the PCB problem, but did nothing to protect the people of Anniston or towns downstream. Source (http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/anniston/1.asp)

Crimson rivers...roll tide roll.

[fj1200]

DS is dead on accurate in that ,even if it were a treaty, rather than an agenda the Supremacy clause would override it's attempt at grabbing authority for the UN , Jefferson was clear on that in his comments about Treaties.-Tyr

No. He's not.


Why would the US sign a treaty with the UN that takes away a citizen's property rights?

How are your property rights being taken away?


I was trying to be sarcastic .... what has this country come to when it allows the UN to dictate local policies?

The UN is not dictating local policies.

[fj1200]

Sounds like the women of Rio are also aware of the effects of Agenda 21


People's Summit militants view the "green economy" concept touted by organizers of the official Rio+20 gathering as just "another stage of capitalist accumulation" after the failure of the current model.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/women-march-rio-protest-green-economy-174353168.html

I don't think they're marching for what you think they're marching for.

[fj1200]

... imminent domain was used in this case as well....for a golf course!!!!

Was the UN behind that one too?

[revelarts]

Apparently Alabama wants more of this.
Source (http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/anniston/1.asp)

Crimson rivers...roll tide roll.

Monsanto is an evil company, I'm not sure what this has to do with international orgs, the U.N. or agenda 21 standards.

Alabama has laws on the books already against polluting its waterways (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/22/1/22). And it's ready to cooperate with local and federal authorities. No need for International bodies to step in and save the day. Local Laws are already on the books, No need for international standards Log. Or EVEN for the feds to step in most cases unless it goes across state lines.

But Monsanto is a multiple violator of laws across the country and if the Feds wanted to deal with them they could, but Monsanto is a big donor and has a revolving door policy of executives that work at the EPA and FDA so their issues are often ,taken care of, very well at the federal level. How much more influence do you think they might gain at an international unelected bureaucratic level Log?
Local is not perfect but it's often better.

[revelarts]

No. He's not.

Yes he is.



How are your property rights being taken away?
Do you have to have it at the door before you set up a defense for what they Clearly STATE is their plan. Someone tells you they want to take your property and you make plans to defend it. simply FJ. Don't you believe the international bodies when they say they MUST save the environment and not be bothered by trifles like personal property to do it?
No they don't have power to do it YET but Alabama's not waiting until they are stuck in the trap.



The UN is not dictating local policies. U.N. and other unelected international orgs I've posted with a map of their U.S. members says different.


Was the UN behind that one too?
No that was OUR own gov't. Doing what the U.N. wants to do to Americans.
Get the point.

[revelarts]

I look at like this-- I have my doubt s that there is a one size fits all model for addressing global pollution. The unique character of regional sources is best handled by those closest to the source. Best because the transaction cost escalate; and my research indicates these costs negate the economy of scale advantages of centralized regulation. Additionally, there is a blending of regulatory controls required and fine-tuning this blend requires adjustment-- which also becomes more labored with a vertical management design.
Agreed, however you know i count cost in liberty as issue #1. Any imagined gains environmentally have to be weighed in the light of cost to individual human freedom. "is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chain and slavery" and all that etc..



Hydroelectric costs people their land.
Yes it does, that's a very hard choice to make.




Geothermal is already utilized.
not at the level It could be.




Nuke power is riddled with pollution waste; and we've yet to see what level of coverup will be revealed ith San Onofre.

Or you build mutliple "Thorium" reactors. those are basicly self regulating, they dont melt down, and NO byproduct material for weapons, Not to mention that thorium is more plentiful than Uranium and does NOT need to be enriched....

Safe reactors hmm why would we want to build those!?!?!?!?!?!?





Reduction is always best.
Reduction is fine, (as long as its not forced) but wouldn't be necessary if we changed our energy sources why compromise. i don't believe energy is a zero sum game even with a growing population. Creativity and open alternative markets are always best.



I like my incandescent bulbs, but I use them selectively; I also utilize auto-off switches on said bulbs. I don't wish too induce your rants rev; I simply want you recognize the problems surrounding energy delivery. Show me a local solution that was shot down by the US EPA-- most I've seen are applauded. i love my incandescent bulbs and hate the mercury filled alternatives. How many years down the line are we going to have to deal with the troubles from those going into landfills and children getting brain damage from breaking them and inhaling the fumes. not exactly environmentally friendly IMO. Out of the frying pan an into the fire seems to me.
As far as alternative being shot down by EPA, local and Federal gov't policies, I'll have to dig a few up. the ones that come to mind i don't think you'll buy. but some have to do with vehicles that are not considered street legal though they are energy efficient.

[fj1200]

Yes he is.

Your protestations don't make it so. That's like complaining that Mexico dictated our laws when we negotiated NAFTA.


Do you have to have it at the door before you set up a defense for what they Clearly STATE is their plan. Someone tells you they want to take your property and you make plans to defend it. simply FJ. Don't you believe the international bodies when they say they MUST save the environment and not be bothered by trifles like personal property to do it?
No they don't have power to do it YET but Alabama's not waiting until they are stuck in the trap.

I notice you didn't answer the question. Your property rights are not absolute.


U.N. and other unelected international orgs I've posted with a map of their U.S. members says different.

The UN dictated NOTHING.


No that was OUR own gov't. Doing what the U.N. wants to do to Americans.
Get the point.

OMG!!! You mean we need to be eternally vigilant? The F' you say!

[revelarts]

I notice you didn't answer the question. Your property rights are not absolute.

so every attempt to take or water them down should be addresses. Alabama is taking a step in that direction



s
OMG!!! You mean we need to be eternally vigilant? The F' you say!

Why is it every to you say that it's seems like your saying we have to watch our rights slip away.

[fj1200]

so every attempt to take or water them down should be addresses. Alabama is taking a step in that direction

Alabama's law is fairly pointless IMO. Still not going to answer my question?


Why is it every to you say that it's seems like your saying we have to watch our rights slip away.

An incorrect perception on your part perhaps.

[Nukeman]

Alabama's law is fairly pointless IMO. Still not going to answer my question?



An incorrect perception on your part perhaps.
For a "pointless" law it sure has garnered attention here, now hasn't it. It has also drawn attention to the UN initiative 21!! I believe that is the POINT it was attempting to make. I have known about this intiative for many years as have others, it is a FAR reaching intiative that goes way beyond environmental controls it also gets into population controland education (not rising eduactional standards but actually "dumbing down") to benefit the environment.

Now if this "law" brings to the fore front the "Intiative 21" and MORE people look into what is actually included in it and act accordingly to restrict its scope, than I believe the law has done EXACTLY what it was intended to do!!!!

[fj1200]

For a "pointless" law it sure has garnered attention here, now hasn't it. It has also drawn attention to the UN initiative 21!! I believe that is the POINT it was attempting to make. I have known about this intiative for many years as have others, it is a FAR reaching intiative that goes way beyond environmental controls it also gets into population controland education (not rising eduactional standards but actually "dumbing down") to benefit the environment.

Now if this "law" brings to the fore front the "Intiative 21" and MORE people look into what is actually included in it and act accordingly to restrict its scope, than I believe the law has done EXACTLY what it was intended to do!!!!

That doesn't make it any less pointless. A law that states that AL should do what AL is supposed to do and is built on the false premise of losing property rights and national sovereignty? Their next major legislation shall be outlawing the burning of witches.

[ConHog]

Granted, I only have a Masters in US History, but can someone show me where Jefferson spoke out about the U.N.?

[ConHog]

That doesn't make it any less pointless. A law that states that AL should do what AL is supposed to do and is built on the false premise of losing property rights and national sovereignty? Their next major legislation shall be outlawing the burning of witches.

I have a second amendment right to bear fire, if some witch should happen to wander into that fire...........

[Nukeman]

Granted, I only have a Masters in US History, but can someone show me where Jefferson spoke out about the U.N.?
Umm I believe it was about TREATIES.. NOT the UN...

[fj1200]

^I believe tongue was firmly in cheek.

[ConHog]

Umm I believe it was about TREATIES.. NOT the UN...

we sign TREATIES with the UN when we agree to these sorts of things. I've already shown that.

US treaty > state law.

[Nukeman]

That doesn't make it any less pointless. A law that states that AL should do what AL is supposed to do and is built on the false premise of losing property rights and national sovereignty? Their next major legislation shall be outlawing the burning of witches.
There are a lot of stupid laws on the books, hell it's illegal for a woman to walk on the raod side of a sidewalk in IN if accompanied by a man. Its not so much that the law has any teeth its about bringing to the front the backdoor ways our current admin is doing business.

Did YOU know anything about Intiative 21 prior to this thread?? Have you done ANY research on this intiative since reading this thread? If you have than I say the law has done what was intended, if not than sorry for you not taking advantage of the opportunity to educate yourself!!!!

[ConHog]

^I believe tongue was firmly in cheek.

Very firmly

[Nukeman]

we sign TREATIES with the UN when we agree to these sorts of things. I've already shown that.

US treaty > state law.YOU asked about Jefferson talking about the UN!! That was never stated!! It was his statements regarding treaties... Or did you miss that

[Nukeman]

^I believe tongue was firmly in cheek.What the heck are you talking about!!!!???

[revelarts]

we sign TREATIES with the UN when we agree to these sorts of things. I've already shown that.

US treaty > state law.
I have already shown

Constitution> U.S. Treaty
State Law > Any unconstitutional laws

[ConHog]

I have already shown

Constitution> U.S. Treaty
State Law > Any unconstitutional laws

Excellent, now show how signing a treaty with the UN is unconstitutional.

[logroller]

Monsanto is an evil company, I'm not sure what this has to do with international orgs, the U.N. or agenda 21 standards.

Alabama has laws on the books already against polluting its waterways (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/22/1/22). And it's ready to cooperate with local and federal authorities. No need for International bodies to step in and save the day. Local Laws are already on the books, No need for international standards Log. Or EVEN for the feds to step in most cases unless it goes across state lines.

But Monsanto is a multiple violator of laws across the country and if the Feds wanted to deal with them they could, but Monsanto is a big donor and has a revolving door policy of executives that work at the EPA and FDA so their issues are often ,taken care of, very well at the federal level. How much more influence do you think they might gain at an international unelected bureaucratic level Log?
Local is not perfect but it's often better.
Yeah. Monsanto is evil... Of course the unconstitutional EPA actually exposed these things through federal laws and rules you claim are unnecessary. Of course we also have these chem companies just moving to other areas where they can rape and pillage; see Bhopal India. Agenda 21 is meant to eliminate safe havens for irresponsible development. Have you even read the text of Agenda 21? It encourages just the same kind of local cooperation you claim adequately exist for locals now.

[fj1200]

There are a lot of stupid laws on the books, hell it's illegal for a woman to walk on the raod side of a sidewalk in IN if accompanied by a man. Its not so much that the law has any teeth its about bringing to the front the backdoor ways our current admin is doing business.

Did YOU know anything about Intiative 21 prior to this thread?? Have you done ANY research on this intiative since reading this thread? If you have than I say the law has done what was intended, if not than sorry for you not taking advantage of the opportunity to educate yourself!!!!

Do you mean Agenda 21? I don't spend too much time worrying about ridiculous UN initiatives. But yes I have looked into the issue a bit more but I'm sure the law wasn't intended to out the, how can I say this nicely, citizens overly concerned about non-issues.









Still, my question remains unanswered.

[Nukeman]

Yeah. Monsanto is evil... Of course the unconstitutional EPA actually exposed these things through federal laws and rules you claim are unnecessary. Of course we also have these chem companies just moving to other areas where they can rape and pillage; see Bhopal India. Agenda 21 is meant to eliminate safe havens for irresponsible development. Have you even read the text of Agenda 21? It encourages just the same kind of local cooperation you claim adequately exist for locals now.
This is a 40 chapter document with far reaching agendas other than "polution" their is population control or elimination, education indoctrination and a host of other issues in this "agenda" maybe you should read more of it and not just the cliff notes put out by the UN..

[revelarts]

Excellent, now show how signing a treaty with the UN is unconstitutional.
Con
signing a treaty is not the problem the content of the treaty is where the trouble would be found.

[logroller]

This is a 40 chapter document with far reaching agendas other than "polution" their is population control or elimination, education indoctrination and a host of other issues in this "agenda" maybe you should read more of it and not just the cliff notes put out by the UN..

As opposed to your opinionated response, sardonically utilizing quotes instead of actual excerpts from the document. Yeah, I'll take theirs over yours..sorry. So do lawmakers who give a shit about the actual effect of laws; rather than merely pandering to a small but vocal minority of conspiracy theorists. I'm not surprised though, fear mongering works in Alabama; they've quite a history of enacting laws which are characteristic of being bigotted inbred morons. Was integration unconstitutional too...state/local control being superior and all.

[ConHog]

Con
signing a treaty is not the problem the content of the treaty is where the trouble would be found.

Rev, a treaty is LAW. So you have to PROVE the contents of said treaty are unconstitutional. The burden isn't on the government to prove it is. That's just the way it works.

So, make your case.

[revelarts]

Yeah. Monsanto is evil... Of course the unconstitutional EPA actually exposed these things through federal laws and rules you claim are unnecessary. Of course we also have these chem companies just moving to other areas where they can rape and pillage; see Bhopal India. Agenda 21 is meant to eliminate safe havens for irresponsible development. Have you even read the text of Agenda 21? It encourages just the same kind of local cooperation you claim adequately exist for locals now.

"Bhopal India" whoa hoooo
I guess you'd say that was evil huh?
You siad before you like the idea of local control but now you seem to say again that it's NOT good enough. I posted one link to the Alabama clean water laws but you refer to the EPA again. If a state's laws are good or different than the EPA will you give them room to do it their way or MUST they ABIDE by the rules of the EPA?
As far as moving to other areas in the U.S. most, if not all, states and local govs at this point have various clean water and environmental protection laws on the books.
Like FJ say, they need to remain vigilant. Unless you think they should sit and wait for the EPA to ride into every town and hamlet to save the day. Or the U.N. monitors connected to agenda 21. Log, no one is arguing that that there are not envrio problems it's just that the solutions IS NOT some unelected International body passing down edicts from on high with ultimate goals FAR afield from our countries principals and human rights.
there may be a thing or 2 that is very good in agenda 21 environmental, HOWEVER the plan Boast the idea of international standards they control and direct unconstitutional with disregard to property and other rights and current U.S. Law.

And uh yeah... Has anyone found the line in constitution about the EPA yet?
i'm not saying that it might not be useful but ,just find the section for me please.

[fj1200]

Like FJ say ... some unelected International body passing down edicts from on high... international standards they control and direct unconstitutional with disregard to property and other rights.

And uh yeah... Has anyone found the line in constitution about the EPA yet?

:bangshead:

Who is going to answer my question?

[ConHog]

"Bhopal India" whoa hoooo
I guess you'd say that was evil huh?
You siad before you like the idea of local control but now you seem to say again that it's NOT good enough. I posted one link to the Alabama clean water laws but you refer to the EPA again. If a state's laws are good or different than the EPA will you give them room to do it their way or MUST they ABIDE by the rules of the EPA?
As far as moving to other areas in the U.S. most, if not all, states and local govs at this point have various clean water and environmental protection laws on the books.
Like FJ say, they need to remain vigilant. Unless you think they should sit and wait for the EPA to ride into every town and hamlet to save the day. Or the U.N. monitors connected to agenda 21. Log, no one is arguing that that there are not envrio problems it's just that the solutions IS NOT some unelected International body passing down edicts from on high with ultimate goals FAR afield from our countries principals and human rights.
there may be a thing or 2 that is very good in agenda 21 environmental, HOWEVER the plan Boast the idea of international standards they control and direct unconstitutional with disregard to property and other rights and current U.S. Law.

And uh yeah... Has anyone found the line in constitution about the EPA yet?
i'm not saying that it might not be useful but ,just find the section for me please.


EPA - commerce clause, well unless you believe pollution recognizes and respects state lines?

[logroller]

"Bhopal India" whoa hoooo
I guess you'd say that was evil huh?
You siad before you like the idea of local control but now you seem to say again that it's NOT good enough. I posted one link to the Alabama clean water laws. you refer to the EPA again. If state is good or different than the EPA will you give them room to do it there way or MUST they ABIDE by the rules of the EPA?
As far as moving to other areas, in the U.S. most if not all states and local govs at this point have various clean water and environmental protection laws on the books.
Like FJ say, they need to remain vigilant. Unless you think they should sit and wait for the EPA to ride into every town and hamlet to save the day. Or the U.N. monitors connected to agenda 21. Log no one is arguing that that there are not envrio problems it's just that the solutions IS NOT some unelected International body passing down edicts from on high with ultimate goals FAR afield from our countries principals and human rights.
there may be a thing or 2 that is very good in agenda 21 environmental, HOWEVER the plan as a Boast the idea of international standards They control and direct.

And uh yeah... Has anyone found the line in constitution about the EPA yet?
i'm not saying that it might not be useful but ,just find the section for me please.

Don't ask questions you simply don't like the answer to. "Congress shall have the power to...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." So unless you think spewing toxins into the air, lakes and rivers is providing for the general welfare; they've the authority. And let me remind you the EPA was created because the locals and states weren't regulating these industries; not merely because the Fed made a power a grab.
You aren't reading me at all. I said local implementation was best. It takes a strong central authority to keep track of the effects of policies. Where's that link...I'll bet if I go to their site I'll find, at its heart, EPA regulation via a State Implementation Plan (SIP). I'll go back and look. We'll see....

[revelarts]

As opposed to your opinionated response, sardonically utilizing quotes instead of actual excerpts from the document. Yeah, I'll take theirs over yours..sorry. So do lawmakers who give a shit about the actual effect of laws; rather than merely pandering to a small but vocal minority of conspiracy theorists. I'm not surprised though, fear mongering works in Alabama; they've quite a history of enacting laws which are characteristic of being bigotted inbred morons. Was integration unconstitutional too...state/local control being superior and all.

So we finally get to it Log,
Alabama is NOT good enough to make their own laws the Feds and International Bodies have to straiten out the "bigotted inbred morons conspiracy theorists".

Yeah Ok, doesn't leave a lot of room for real dialogue there Log.

--"Just do what we say, because your stupid."--
Sounds like elites talk to me but i'm just a conspiracy theorist what do i know, i've got no room to talk. I can't read the consitution, or the U.N. docs and think it means what it says. i'm just suppose to KNOW that agenda 21 is good for me and the country because Log and those wise folks in Rio say so.

riiiight.

[logroller]

Yep. Just as I suspected.


Laws

Alabama is an "authorized" state, meaning that it is authorized by the EPA to administer state environmental law in lieu of most federal environmental laws. This is consistent with Alabama statutes that created ADEM, and which express legislative intent to have federal environmental laws administered at the state level. The scope of the Department's statutory authorities is listed below. These are the only laws under which ADEM can write regulations. Our laws are found under Title 22 of the Code of Alabama 1975.
http://www.adem.state.al.us/alEnviroRegLaws/default.cnt

[ConHog]

So we finally get to it Log,
Alabama is NOT good enough to make their own laws the Feds and International Bodies have to straiten out the "bigotted inbred morons conspiracy theorists".

Yeah Ok, doesn't leave a lot of room for real dialogue there Log.

--"Just do what we say, because your stupid."--
Sounds like elites talk to me but i'm just a conspiracy theorist what do i know, i've got no room to talk. I can't read the consitution, or the U.N. docs and think it means what it says. i'm just suppose to KNOW that agenda 21 is good for me and the country because Log and those wise folks in Rio say so.

riiiight.

How about we stop intentionally misinterpreting things? At no time, have Log, FJ, nor myself argued anything about if Agenda21 is good or bad. It's irrelevant to THIS discussion. ALL we are concerned about is "can Alabama pass a law that counters a federal law or a treaty?" The answer is absolutely, positively NO they can not.

We don't vote on issues individually, that's just the way it is. If you don't like the representation you're getting. Vote new reps in.

[revelarts]

Don't ask questions you simply don't like the answer to. "Congress shall have the power to...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..." So unless you think spewing toxins into the air, lakes and rivers is providing for the general welfare; they've the authority. And let me remind you the EPA was created because the locals and states weren't regulating these industries; not merely because the Fed made a power a grab.
I'd like a free house too, that's general welfare.. right? Look the fact is despite being upset about it the EPA and LOT of the Federal gov't is not Constitutional, As I mentioned it doesn't mean that it may not do some good, but just from a legal prespective it doesn't have constitutional authority.

If we want to have it should be added by amendment. Until then it's a constitutional as Obamacare really.



You aren't reading me at all. I said local implementation was best. It takes a strong central authority to keep track of the effects of policies. Where's that link...I'll bet if I go to their site I'll find, at its heart, EPA regulation via a State Implementation Plan (SIP). I'll go back and look. We'll see....

But Alabama and the whole south i guess are "bigoted..." that the Feds have to take care of, right i know.

[logroller]

So we finally get to it Log,
Alabama is NOT good enough to make their own laws the Feds and International Bodies have to straiten out the "bigotted inbred morons conspiracy theorists".

Yeah Ok, doesn't leave a lot of room for real dialogue there Log.

--"Just do what we say, because your stupid."--
Sounds like elites talk to me but i'm just a conspiracy theorist what do i know, i've got no room to talk. I can't read the consitution, or the U.N. docs and think it means what it says. i'm just suppose to KNOW that agenda 21 is good for me and the country because Log and those wise folks in Rio say so.

riiiight.
It's "you're". :laugh2:
Oh please. You've been calling my position BS for a day and a half. But hey, what do I know. I just have degree in Environmental Resource Management.... a Bachelors of Science (BS).:laugh:

[ConHog]

I'd like a free house too, that's general welfare.. right? Look the fact is despite being upset about it the EPA and LOT of the Federal gov't is not Constitutional, As I mentioned it doesn't mean that it may not do some good, but just from a legal prespective it doesn't have constitutional authority.

If we want to have it should be added by amendment. Until then it's a constitutional as Obamacare really.


But Alabama and the whole south i guess are "bigoted..." that the Feds have to take care of, right i know.

no, that's SPECIFIC welfare.

I disagree with Log anyway, I think that controlling pollution clearly falls under the commerce clause, I notice you haven't addressed that at ALL.

[ConHog]

It's "you're". :laugh2:
Oh please. You've been calling my position BS for a day and a half. But hey, what do I know. I just have degree in Environmental Resource Management.... a Bachelors of Science (BS).:laugh:

A college degree? What an elitist snob you are.

[revelarts]

Yep. Just as I suspected.


http://www.adem.state.al.us/alEnviroRegLaws/default.cnt

This looks Ok so far I'll have to look more closly but, Yeah this all I've been saying, the Sates can regulate themselves.
I do have a problem with the term "authorized" as if the State has to ask the Feds permission to make there own laws. i think that BS. but in generall this looks ok.

[revelarts]

no, that's SPECIFIC welfare.
Not if everyone gets one.

[ConHog]

Not if everyone gets one.

its still SPECIFIC welfare. General welfare is talking about the general welfare of the nation itself. This country will be fine if everyone doesn't get a new house.

[SassyLady]

No. He's not.



How are your property rights being taken away?



The UN is not dictating local policies.

Not yet. So, why not put protections in now for when they are given the power to take them away? Why are you having a problem with Alabama doing what they think is best for them? Why do you care what they do? If they think they are protecting themselves from future UN actions then more power to them.

[SassyLady]

I don't think they're marching for what you think they're marching for.

Then why don't you educate me on this, oh wise one?

[ConHog]

Not yet. So, why not put protections in now for when they are given the power to take them away? Why are you having a problem with Alabama doing what they think is best for them? Why do you care what they do? If they think they are protecting themselves from future UN actions then more power to them.

Under the COTUS, they do NOT have the authority to reject treaties. .Only the USG (specifically the Senate) has that authority, meaning they have TWO votes, just the same as anyone else to object to any treaty.

Let me ask you, what if say Kentucky decided they no longer wanted to abide by the Geneva Convention. Could they pass a law allowing her citizens to abuse prisoners? What? Why not?

[SassyLady]

For a "pointless" law it sure has garnered attention here, now hasn't it. It has also drawn attention to the UN initiative 21!! I believe that is the POINT it was attempting to make. I have known about this intiative for many years as have others, it is a FAR reaching intiative that goes way beyond environmental controls it also gets into population controland education (not rising eduactional standards but actually "dumbing down") to benefit the environment.

Now if this "law" brings to the fore front the "Intiative 21" and MORE people look into what is actually included in it and act accordingly to restrict its scope, than I believe the law has done EXACTLY what it was intended to do!!!!

:clap::clap::clap:

[SassyLady]

That doesn't make it any less pointless. A law that states that AL should do what AL is supposed to do and is built on the false premise of losing property rights and national sovereignty? Their next major legislation shall be outlawing the burning of witches.

Now you are just being silly fj....and I was going to vote for you. Now I'm worried that you are too comfortable.

Instead of worrying about a treaty with the UN that has far reaching ramifications, you are railing against a law that Alabama enacted. Why?

[logroller]

This looks Ok so far I'll have to look more closly but, Yeah this all I've been saying, the Sates can regulate themselves.
I do have a problem with the term "authorized" as if the State has to ask the Feds permission to make there own laws. i think that BS. but in generall this looks ok.

Ok. I think it's better than the Feds doing it too. I Think it's bs that states didn't enact regulations prior to the Feds. Now we see AL making a law which says it won't obey those laws should they be passed. It's moving backwards. I understand the sovereignty argument, I really do. But if state sovereignty means depriving its people of protections and a sustainable future; it's no less heinous an act than usurpation of power by central government. The industries will love it, and the People will suffer the consequences.

[SassyLady]

Yeah. Monsanto is evil... Of course the unconstitutional EPA actually exposed these things through federal laws and rules you claim are unnecessary. Of course we also have these chem companies just moving to other areas where they can rape and pillage; see Bhopal India. Agenda 21 is meant to eliminate safe havens for irresponsible development. Have you even read the text of Agenda 21? It encourages just the same kind of local cooperation you claim adequately exist for locals now.

Why do we need an international organization dictating what our local laws are to be?

[SassyLady]

Don't ask questions you simply don't like the answer to. "Congress shall have the power to...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." So unless you think spewing toxins into the air, lakes and rivers is providing for the general welfare; they've the authority. And let me remind you the EPA was created because the locals and states weren't regulating these industries; not merely because the Fed made a power a grab.
You aren't reading me at all. I said local implementation was best. It takes a strong central authority to keep track of the effects of policies. Where's that link...I'll bet if I go to their site I'll find, at its heart, EPA regulation via a State Implementation Plan (SIP). I'll go back and look. We'll see....

So, Log, if local implementation is best, but if it fails, then the strong central authority would be the federal government (EPA), why do we need to sign a treaty with the UN?

[SassyLady]

Under the COTUS, they do NOT have the authority to reject treaties. .Only the USG (specifically the Senate) has that authority, meaning they have TWO votes, just the same as anyone else to object to any treaty.

Let me ask you, what if say Kentucky decided they no longer wanted to abide by the Geneva Convention. Could they pass a law allowing her citizens to abuse prisoners? What? Why not?

They can "pass" any law they want. Whether it will hold up is another thing entirely.

Alabama passed this law to garner attention to the insidious creeping control the UN is attempting. As Rev said, how many of you really think signing this treaty is in the best interests of the US and it's citizens?

[SassyLady]

Ok. I think it's better than the Feds doing it too. I Think it's bs that states didn't enact regulations prior to the Feds. Now we see AL making a law which says it won't obey those laws should they be passed. It's moving backwards. I understand the sovereignty argument, I really do. But if state sovereignty means depriving its people of protections and a sustainable future; it's no less heinous an act than usurpation of power by central government. The industries will love it, and the People will suffer the consequences.

Once again, Log, how is signing the treaty in the best interests of the citizens of the US. Why do we need an international organization dictating what we do within our own borders?

[logroller]

So, Log, if local implementation is best, but if it fails, then the strong central authority would be the federal government (EPA), why do we need to sign a treaty with the UN?
That's a great question SL. It's not so much a concern over if it fails, it's that it already has. In a nutshell example, say I implement a local reg that restricts underage workers from being exploited. The company would just move to a less restrictive environment. Same goes for US law; the companies just move their operation to another country with lesser regulations. That's the main reason we didn't sign onto Kyoto, because it restricted the US disproportionately. (especially compared to china)
The alternative is imposing duties on imports for these countries; but that only gives us an advantage in our markets, not worldwide. Hence, we engage in treaties which are binding on all parties.

[fj1200]

Not yet. So, why not put protections in now for when they are given the power to take them away? Why are you having a problem with Alabama doing what they think is best for them? Why do you care what they do? If they think they are protecting themselves from future UN actions then more power to them.

Did you miss where I called it pointless? Future UN actions... :laugh: They aren't protecting themselves against jack. If we sign and ratify a (constitutional) treaty then their action is pointless and if we don't then their action is pointless. I don't care about what AL does but pandering is not praiseworthy.


Then why don't you educate me on this, oh wise one?

Did you read the quote I pulled?


Now you are just being silly fj....and I was going to vote for you. Now I'm worried that you are too comfortable.

Instead of worrying about a treaty with the UN that has far reaching ramifications, you are railing against a law that Alabama enacted. Why?

Comfortable? I'm just not worrying about a treaty with the UN because it WON'T HAPPEN.


Why do we need an international organization dictating what our local laws are to be?

The UN isn't dictating anything.

[logroller]

Once again, Log, how is signing the treaty in the best interests of the citizens of the US. Why do we need an international organization dictating what we do within our own borders?
It levels the playing field in international trade. So that one country can't just rape and pillage the land and it's people. Look at the difference in Haiti and the Dominican republic. One had a sustainable policy, the other didnt. These practices have a direct effect on trade.

[SassyLady]

Did you miss where I called it pointless? Future UN actions... :laugh: They aren't protecting themselves against jack. If we sign and ratify a (constitutional) treaty then their action is pointless and if we don't then their action is pointless. I don't care about what AL does but pandering is not praiseworthy.



Did you read the quote I pulled?



Comfortable? I'm just not worrying about a treaty with the UN because it WON'T HAPPEN.



The UN isn't dictating anything.

Well, then, if the law is pointless then it's pointless to you. To the people of Alabama it must mean something.

As for the treaty with the UN ... what makes you think it won't happen? Do you have insider information that you can share with us?

[SassyLady]

It levels the playing field in international trade. So that one country can't just rape and pillage the land and it's people. Look at the difference in Haiti and the Dominican republic. One had a sustainable policy, the other didnt. These practices have a direct effect on trade.

So, do you think it is in the best interests of US citizens to give control to the international organization because we can't trust our own government, at all levels, to protect us? Hmmmm.........

[fj1200]

It levels the playing field in international trade. So that one country can't just rape and pillage the land and it's people. Look at the difference in Haiti and the Dominican republic. One had a sustainable policy, the other didnt. These practices have a direct effect on trade.

But then you have a problem with enforcement. Regimes with a poor record will have no incentive to sign/keep a treaty.

[SassyLady]

I don't think they're marching for what you think they're marching for.

I believe they think the "green" movement is infringing upon their rights. Isn't that what Alabama also thinks?

[fj1200]

Well, then, if the law is pointless then it's pointless to you. To the people of Alabama it must mean something.

As for the treaty with the UN ... what makes you think it won't happen? Do you have insider information that you can share with us?

You asked earlier why I care; Because populist rhetoric annoys me.

My insider information is the constitutional requirement of 2/3 Senate majority to pass a treaty.

[ConHog]

Why do we need an international organization dictating what our local laws are to be?

We don't since we no doubt already meet the standards.

My guess is we are signing on to lend the authority of the united states to it, and nothing more.

[fj1200]

I believe they think the "green" movement is infringing upon their rights. Isn't that what Alabama also thinks?

No. They think it, "another stage of capitalist accumulation" after the failure of the current model." I would imagine the Republicans in AL are quite OK with "capitalist accumulation" and don't consider the current model a failure.

[ConHog]

I believe they think the "green" movement is infringing upon their rights. Isn't that what Alabama also thinks?

what Alabama thinks is not always right. In fact it's often wrong. If Alabama could , they would still have segregated schools and colored rest rooms.

[logroller]

So, do you think it is in the best interests of US citizens to give control to the international organization because we can't trust our own government, at all levels, to protect us? Hmmmm.........
I think you underestimate the influential role our government and it's people have in developing and implementing the policies. Agenda 21 encourages, by edict, the local development of sustainable practices. Besides that, if our elected representives sign Agenda 21, I trust that it is for our own protection. I will do my part to ensure its implementation is respectful of that.

[ConHog]

I don't understand why Alabama is using their state legislature to try to get around the COTUS.

[logroller]

I don't understand why Alabama is using their state legislature to try to get around the COTUS.
It attracts businesses who stand to benefit from lesser environmental regs. Google Sauget, IL.

[ConHog]

It attracts businesses who stand to benefit from lesser environmental regs. Google Sauget, IL.

Meh, I was just taking a poke at those who earlier in the week were crying that Obama was using Congress to go around Congress. :lol:

[logroller]

Meh, I was just taking a poke at those who earlier in the week were crying that Obama was using Congress to go around Congress. :lol:
Huh?

[fj1200]

Huh?

Look for the other The UN is taking our sovereignty thread. The gun one.

[SassyLady]

Being proactive is now considered a bag thing?


But the ideas contained therein, that U.S. energy production is bad because of its pollution, that wealthy nations must give technology and money to other nations and the like, did not please Alabama legislators.
The uncomplicated, three-page legislation titled “The Due Process for Property Rights Act” was proposed by Alabama Senate Majority Whip Gerald Dial, and affirms, “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.”
As a followup to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the UN’s Agenda 21 document was enthusiastically passed at the 1997 Kyoto, Japan, conference under The Kyoto Protocols.
However, it was never ratified by the United States Senate or signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush. Analysts claimed the plan put the American economy at a distinct international disadvantage, forcing the United States to adopt strict environmental compliance standards through 2020 while giving a free pass to the world’s “emerging nations” like China and India, two of the planet’s worst environmental offenders.
But in 1993 after Congress essentially rejected the strategy imposed by the UN, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order establishing the Council on Sustainable Development overseen by Vice President Al Gore.
Now, during the reign of the Obama administration, Congress has been bypassed in implementing much of the Agenda 21 “to do” list.
Instead of votes, administrative regulations have been delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency headed by Lisa Jackson, a strong proponent of “sustainability” and so-called “smart growth.” With President Obama not attending the Rio+20 Summit, Jackson will be the highest-ranking American official there. Both the prime minister of England and the chancellor of Germany have also excused themselves from the conference.
The talks are expected to be as contentious as the ill-fated Durban, South Africa, conference in 2010. Expectations are low that anything of substance will be achieved during the days of intense environmental diplomacy. Background talks being held the past two years in preparation for both the agenda and the closing statement at the conference have led to wrangling over wording. The result is expected to be an absence of solid statements regarding international agreements.
But Alabama is taking no chances. The chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, T.J. Maloney, said, “This bill that would bar the state from taking over private property without due process is intended to shelter Alabamians from United Nations Agenda 21, a sustainable development initiative that some conservatives see as a precursor for the creation of a world government.”
Earlier this year, the National Republican Committee announced that any candidate running for office as a Republican could not support UN Agenda 21 or they might lose their party’s endorsement.
Kansas, Texas and Tennessee are also states mulling over how to push back against the United Nation’s global environmental movement and 40-chapter Agenda 21 agreement. In California, a soon-to-be-launched Cap and Trade scheme (directly from Agenda 21 strategies) to control the state’s greenhouse gas emissions is being actively opposed by a citizens-business coalition.
“Friends for Saving California Jobs” will hold a protest demonstration on the steps of the capitol building in Sacramento August 15, the same day the California Air Resources Board holds a test run of its first “carbon credit auction” which is scheduled to go live on Nov. 14.
Dial’s legislation also prevents his state from participating in the UN-sanctioned ICLEI, where quasi-governmental regional boards adopt parts of the Agenda 21 program in return for funding from either state or federal programs that conform to the United Nation’s environmental sustainability program.
Many regional planning groups have identified themselves as “ICLEI” organizations without knowing they are agreeing to a UN program that could end property rights as Americans have known them since the founding of the nation 236 years ago.


http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/u-s-rebellion-ignited-against-u-n-s-globalization/

[ConHog]

Being proactive is now considered a bag thing?



http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/u-s-rebellion-ignited-against-u-n-s-globalization/

Proactive or not, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

Do you deny the basic premise that federal law > state law?

[SassyLady]

Proactive or not, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

Do you deny the basic premise that federal law > state law?

Probably.


State law is certainly superceded by the US Constitution (that is, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no law by any body can contravene it). However, as the Constitution sets out a federal system of government, where certain areas of jurisdiction are reserved for the states, and others for the federal government, it is entirely possible for a state law and a federal law to be in conflict. This conflict is resolved by the U.S. Federal Judiciary system (ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS]), with one of three outcomes:

SCOTUS can declare that the federal government has the right to regulate that particular area, in which case, the state law is subordinate to any federal law passed in that area.
SCOTUS can declare that the federal government is exceeding its Constitutional mandate, and the area in question actually is reserved for regulation by the states, in which case, the federal law is declared null and void.
Finally, SCOTUS can "split the difference", and decide that for certain circumstances, the state law is to be applied, and in other cases, federal law supercedes state law. This is common when the area covers both inter-state and intra-state activities - in this case, the federal law applies when the activity occurs between parties in different states, while the state law applies when all parties are inside the same state.




Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_state_law_supersede_federal_law#ixzz1yGdbFYFe

[logroller]

Being proactive is now considered a bag thing?



http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/u-s-rebellion-ignited-against-u-n-s-globalization/

How is passing a law saying you won't do something proactive? More like preemptive.
Why not pass a law that directs their own path for a sustainable future; completely separate from Agenda 21. Wouldn't that be proactive? I don't see much discussion of how Alabama seeks to such things. Only that they have their rights; rights to continue on a path of destruction for the short term benefit of a few jobs and election. That's been done, repeatedly, its costs are borne by society beyond sovereign borders.

[ConHog]

Probably.


State law is certainly superceded by the US Constitution (that is, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no law by any body can contravene it). However, as the Constitution sets out a federal system of government, where certain areas of jurisdiction are reserved for the states, and others for the federal government, it is entirely possible for a state law and a federal law to be in conflict. This conflict is resolved by the U.S. Federal Judiciary system (ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS]), with one of three outcomes:

SCOTUS can declare that the federal government has the right to regulate that particular area, in which case, the state law is subordinate to any federal law passed in that area.
SCOTUS can declare that the federal government is exceeding its Constitutional mandate, and the area in question actually is reserved for regulation by the states, in which case, the federal law is declared null and void.
Finally, SCOTUS can "split the difference", and decide that for certain circumstances, the state law is to be applied, and in other cases, federal law supercedes state law. This is common when the area covers both inter-state and intra-state activities - in this case, the federal law applies when the activity occurs between parties in different states, while the state law applies when all parties are inside the same state.




Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_state_law_supersede_federal_law#ixzz1yGdbFYFe


Completely wrong. A state can NOT pass a law contradicting a federal law. That is COMPLETELY outside of the mechanism available to question the Constitutionality of a federal law. In fact it is constitutional itself; and two wrongs don't make a right.

Alabama has NO constitutional authority to pass such a law and that is all there is to it.

[SassyLady]

How is passing a law saying you won't do something proactive? More like preemptive.
Why not pass a law that directs their own path for a sustainable future; completely separate from Agenda 21. Wouldn't that be proactive? I don't see much discussion of how Alabama seeks to such things. Only that they have their rights; rights to continue on a path of destruction for the short term benefit of a few jobs and election. That's been done, repeatedly, its costs are borne by society beyond sovereign borders.


Regardless, it is still our problem to be dealt with and not giving power to the UN.

[fj1200]

Completely wrong. A state can NOT pass a law contradicting a federal law. That is COMPLETELY outside of the mechanism available to question the Constitutionality of a federal law. In fact it is constitutional itself; and two wrongs don't make a right.

Alabama has NO constitutional authority to pass such a law and that is all there is to it.

I wouldn't say completely because there are things states should do and things the Feds should do (ideally). But as the EPA is national and constitutional it certainly trumps unless the state wants to be MORE restrictive, a la California.

[revelarts]

Proactive or not, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

Do you deny the basic premise that federal law > state law?

CON,
what does the constitution say about property rights and Due process.
THAT is the highest law of the land. you're rattling on about fed vs state again and again and missing the point.

the constitution TRUMPS every treaty, the constitution says
"Amendment 5
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."

Alabama is drawing the line there. Even if the Feds forget their oaths and decide that international law is better than the constitution. And implement international edicts via Executive agencies and executive fiat COMPLETELY bypassing treaty ratification and congressional laws.

If the Feds can Bypass treaty and LAW and just mandated rules via agencies dictate then the States can declare their right and do what ever they want to do as well. If we are just tossing around rules willie nilly right.

But Con please stop repeating that line, it's does not apply here. save it for another thread dude.

[ConHog]

I wouldn't say completely because there are things states should do and things the Feds should do (ideally). But as the EPA is national and constitutional it certainly trumps unless the state wants to be MORE restrictive, a la California.

C.A.R.B. laws don't counter federal law. They are more restrictive.

A comparison would be if say Alabama passed a law stating that vehicles sold in Alabama didn't have to have a catalytic converter. THAT would be an unconstitutional law.

What you give an example of is similar to Arizona passing a law directing state LEO to enforce federal law.

[ConHog]

CON,
what does the constitution say about property rights and Due process.
THAT is the highest law of the land. you're rattling on about fed vs state again and again and missing the point.

the constitution TRUMPS every treaty, the constitution says
"Amendment 5
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."

Alabama is drawing the line there. Even if the Feds forget their oaths and decide that international law is better than the constitution. And implement international edicts via Executive agencies and executive fiat COMPLETELY bypassing treaty ratification and congressional laws.

If the Feds can Bypass treaty and LAW and just mandated rules via agencies dictate then the States can declare their right and do what ever they want to do as well. If we are just tossing around rules willie nilly right.

But Con please stop repeating that line, it's does not apply here. save it for another thread dude.



I haven't seen one damn thing in this Agenda21 that proposes to take your life, your liberty, or your property with or without due process.

[SassyLady]

Completely wrong. A state can NOT pass a law contradicting a federal law. That is COMPLETELY outside of the mechanism available to question the Constitutionality of a federal law. In fact it is constitutional itself; and two wrongs don't make a right.

Alabama has NO constitutional authority to pass such a law and that is all there is to it.

Then I suggest you run down there and tell their legislative body they have no authority to pass this law.

[ConHog]

Then I suggest you run down there and tell their legislative body they have no authority to pass this law.

No need, SCOTUS will do so for me.:2up:

[fj1200]

I haven't seen one damn thing in this Agenda21 that proposes to take your life, your liberty, or your property with or without due process.

I've been askin' too.

[ConHog]

I've been askin' too.

Well, one must consider that many of these same folks also believe that not being able to strap an M16 across their back when they go to the mall is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, or that being asked to go through an Xray if you WANT to fly is a violation of the 4th Amendment. :lol:

[SassyLady]

No need, SCOTUS will do so for me.:2up:

Good, then we can all sit back and wait to see what evolves.

[ConHog]

Good, then we can all sit back and wait to see what evolves.

of course we COULD, but where the fun be in that?


I prefer to be proactive. :D

[Mr. P]

I am?

Yes, you are off base arguing legality of treaties in this thread.
Agenda 21 is NOT a treaty, as I said, it's an agenda.


Hmm, seems as if the US, and other countries, routinely sign treaties with the UN.

Another totally MOOT point in this matter..see above.

''http://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=1


once signed those treaties have the authority of federal law and are thus superior to state law.

Unless they trample on the Constitution of the United States..but in this case..MOOT again.
There is NO treaty.

I am just gonno go with you intentionally being obtuse in this thread cuz an O-4 can't be so dumb that they can't argue or follow the thread subject, can they? I think it's pointless to respond to you further on these points as the thread addresses Fruit, you're posting NUTS. Just sayin.

[ConHog]

I am just gonno go with you intentionally being obtuse in this thread cuz an O-4 can't be so dumb that they can't argue or follow the thread subject, can they? I think it's pointless to respond to you further on these points as the thread addresses Fruit, you're posting NUTS. Just sayin.

IF we sign onto Agenda 21 it will be in the form of a treaty. Just as all other "agendas" with the UN are. I posted the link to UN page listing all such treaties.

That of course makes treaties completely part of THIS discussion.

[revelarts]

Ok. I think it's better than the Feds doing it too.
You keep saying that but then call people names that don't agree with your POV, and you've yet to acknowledge that ANY state has laws up to your standards.

I Think it's bs that states didn't enact regulations prior to the Feds.
Here we go, Prior to or after the fact does it matter at this point if the states control their own? I suspect you'll still cheer lead for the EPA and international standards.

Now we see AL making a law which says it won't obey those laws should they be passed.
Saying it won't obey laws that infringe on property rights or are derived from agenda 21.
I've asked you several times and you haven't answer this. Are Agenda 21 regs the ONLY way to help the environment?!
the easy answer to that should be NO.

It's moving backwards.
ONLY if they erase their OWN LAWS. Just becuase they don't like Agenda 21 doesn't mean they want a polluted State . That's an assumption, later on you say YOU TRUST the Feds to do what right. But you DON't Trust the State to do the same. do you see the problem here?

I understand the sovereignty argument, I really do. But if state sovereignty means depriving its people of protections and a sustainable future; it's no less heinous an act than usurpation of power by central government. The industries will love it, and the People will suffer the consequences.
Only if you assume the premise that agenda 21 is the ONLY WAY anyone, anywhere can have a sustainable future Log.





So, Log, if local implementation is best, but if it fails, then the strong central authority would be the federal government (EPA), why do we need to sign a treaty with the UN?
That's a great question SL. It's not so much a concern over if it fails, it's that it already has. In a nutshell example, say I implement a local reg that restricts underage workers from being exploited. The company would just move to a less restrictive environment. Same goes for US law; the companies just move their operation to another country with lesser regulations. That's the main reason we didn't sign onto Kyoto, because it restricted the US disproportionately. (especially compared to china)
The alternative is imposing duties on imports for these countries; but that only gives us an advantage in our markets, not worldwide. Hence, we engage in treaties which are binding on all parties.
Log the logical conclusion from this answer is that you think Local gov't is a failed entity for the environment AND labor. that there should be a balanced world economic "treaty" that regulates all biz world wide on some issues. For the good of the country of course.
Is that what your saying? becuase it looks exactly Like that.



Once again, Log, how is signing the treaty in the best interests of the citizens of the US. Why do we need an international organization dictating what we do within our own borders?
It levels the playing field in international trade. So that one country can't just rape and pillage the land and it's people. Look at the difference in Haiti and the Dominican republic. One had a sustainable policy, the other didnt. These practices have a direct effect on trade.
so again we have it international "treaty" levels the playing field so the leaders/businesses of a country can't rape an pillage. so we , the people of U.S. needs International protection from rape an pillage? Or would we be signing on just to help other pitful folks, Well no becuase Alabama isn't doing enough ,It NEEDS more agenda 21 laws or bad but not "evil" companies will rape an pillage it seems




So, do you think it is in the best interests of US citizens to give control to the international organization because we can't trust our own government, at all levels, to protect us? Hmmmm.........I think you underestimate the influential role our government and it's people have in developing and implementing the policies. Agenda 21 encourages, by edict, the local development of sustainable practices. Besides that, if our elected representives sign Agenda 21, I trust that it is for our own protection....
this gets more and more interesting.
Sooo the US gov't played an influential role in putting it together, i should be reassured then i guess.
And besides that
"I trust that it is for our own protection." Sorry Log but I don't trust the feds surprise, surprise.

...I will do my part to ensure its implementation is respectful of that.
So you have personal role in implementing agenda 21 Log?

[ConHog]

Still waiting for evidence that Agenda21 will attempt to deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or their pursuit of happiness with or without due process.

[logroller]

Only if you assume the premise that agenda 21 is the ONLY WAY anyone, anywhere can have a sustainable future Log.




Log the logical conclusion from this answer is that you think Local gov't is a failed entity for the environment AND labor. that there should be a balanced world economic "treaty" that regulates all biz world wide on some issues. For the good of the country of course.
Is that what your saying? becuase it looks exactly Like that.


so again we have it international "treaty" levels the playing field so the leaders/businesses of a country can't rape an pillage. so we , the people of U.S. needs International protection from rape an pillage? Or would we be signing on just to help other pitful folks, Well no becuase Alabama isn't doing enough ,It NEEDS more agenda 21 laws or bad but not "evil" companies will rape an pillage it seems


this gets more and more interesting.
Sooo the US gov't played an influential role in putting it together, i should be reassured then i guess.
And besides that
"I trust that it is for our own protection." Sorry Log but I don't trust the feds surprise, surprise.

So you have personal role in implementing agenda 21 Log?
I can point to hundreds, if not thousands of local failures rev. You dismiss the and blame somebody else, some evil empire. I don't claim to have a solution that works everywhere. Neither does agenda 21. I my that there are basic set of concerns that need to be considered. There's opportunity cost to every decision; I'm cognizant of this. Just as I'm cognizant of the abundance of market failures, interwoven nature of economic geography, economic growth and development, including the pitfalls of unbridled freedom brought about by externalities. You seem to think that if everybody just went about considering only things within reach of their nose it would just magically work out for the better. I don't. And yes, I do my part to maintain a sustainable path; but the infrastructure I exist in prevents me from full pursuit of this. That infrastructure was developed at the behest of certain persons acting in their own selfish interest, and it affects me negatively. Thus, I have a grievance, and the government is bound by law to address to this.

[revelarts]

Log will you answer the question
Can envoronemtal issues in the U.S. be handled without the implementation of agenda 21?
yes or no?


I can point to hundreds, if not thousands of local failures rev. You dismiss the and blame somebody else, some evil empire.
uh sure, local laws are not perfect I think I said that. But CAN local law handle environmental affairs as well as the feds and international bodies? you've said they are not perfect either.
I can point to 100s if not 1000s of failures of federal laws and international edicts as well Log. and full on corruption in the environmental laws based on corporate influence. And I'm very disappointed that you characterize my positions as dismissive and that i blame "some evil empire" can you quote me on that or are you just frustrated? Is it wrong of me to want U.S. national sovereignty. State sovereignty? property rights, freedom of choice. Is that just crazy talk nowadays Log? Is some or all of that suicidal in your view?



I don't claim to have a solution that works everywhere. Neither does agenda 21. I my that there are basic set of concerns that need to be considered. There's opportunity cost to every decision; I'm cognizant of this. Just as I'm cognizant of the abundance of market failures, interwoven nature of economic geography, economic growth and development, including the pitfalls of unbridled freedom brought about by externalities. You seem to think that if everybody just went about considering only things within reach of their nose it would just magically work out for the better. I don't.
there are no solutions that work everywhere, that's part of my point. and why I'm not environmentally concerned that Alabama is committing suicide. (Just the opposite)
Do you see the pitfalls of undemocratic and unconstitutional external controls on freedoms? You keep making me into someone unconcerned about the environment. I want a clean environment, personal freedoms and the U.S. constitution. I don't think local control is magical or perfect but i do believe it's the best foundation for real democratic control. And CAN be used to protect the environment as well. I don't think those things are incompatible. the conclusion you've seem to have reached is they are. The question is how much freedom do you think we need to give up to "survive". Can you prove it? Are alternative scientific views allowed to rebut/debate or is the case closed, becuase you and others know better?




And yes, I do my part to maintain a sustainable path; but the infrastructure I exist in prevents me from full pursuit of this. That infrastructure was developed at the behest of certain persons acting in their own selfish interest, and it affects me negatively. Thus, I have a grievance, and the government is bound by law to address to this.
I'm not sure what your saying here, the infrastructure prevents you from full pursuit of your personal sustainability path? Show me where the EPA or other agencies restrain you, they usually encourage such action... right?

[logroller]

Log will you answer the question
Can envoronemtal issues in the U.S. be handled without the implementation of agenda 21?
yes or no?
I don't think it can be handled with or without it. If you want to paint me into a corner I'd say we're doomed already.

uh sure, local laws are not perfect I think I said that. But CAN local law handle environmental affairs as well as the feds and international bodies? Can they, sure. Have they without federal support, rarely. you've said they are not perfect either.
I can point to 100s if not 1000s of failures of federal laws and international edicts as well Log. and full on corruption in the environmental laws based on corporate influence. And I'm very disappointed that you characterize my positions as dismissive and that i blame "some evil empire" can you quote me on that or are you just frustrated? Is it wrong of me to want U.S. national sovereignty. State sovereignty? property rights, freedom of choice. Is that just crazy talk nowadays Log? Is some or all of that suicidal in your view?
I could post a thread of what I believe you characterize as the evil empire.


there are no solutions that work everywhere, that's part of my point. and why I'm not environmentally concerned that Alabama is committing suicide. (Just the opposite)
Do you see the pitfalls of undemocratic and unconstitutional external controls on freedoms? You keep making me into someone unconcerned about the environment. I want a clean environment, personal freedoms and the U.S. constitution. I don't think local control is magical or perfect but i do believe it's the best foundation for real democratic control. And CAN be used to protect the environment as well. I don't think those things are incompatible. the conclusion you've seem to have reached is they are. The question is how much freedom do you think we need to give up to "survive". Can you prove it? Are alternative scientific views allowed to rebut/debate or is the case closed, becuase you and others know better?
Take SoCal's RECLAIM program. This was developed and implemented locally. Sucessfully abating sox and nox air pollutants through a tradeabke permit system. Was it perfect, no, but it was sucessful. However, the only reason it got up and running was because of federal authority. Left to local authority alone, the corporations would have easily defeated the attempt. Previously, the EPA had ran similar programs, leaded fuel for example, which was also rife with doubt over the actual damage lead had on the environment.


I'm not sure what your saying here, the infrastructure prevents you from full pursuit of your personal sustainability path? Show me where the EPA or other agencies restrain you, they usually encourage such action... right?

Im sitting here watching the neighbor's sprinklers flooding the gutter. Theyre free to do so; and their lawn looks great. Of course, that's an additional burden upon the utilities that is heavily subsidized by govt. of course they pay their own bill; but I pay for it too with my property taxes. Those taxes btw are higher because I have a more expensive property. I'm not saying the EPA should get involved; but I've a fat chance of talking many people into watering more efficiently without govt on my side to raise water rates or penalize water waste. Some locales have done so; but seeing as how the city and massive utility companies just drill deeper into aquifers, there's little incentive for them to tamper with a constant revenue stream. Local failure. It's not like people want to spend more for water; and until we a literally running dry, most could care less. Green lawns are their green industry. In my development there's more land dedicated to fast food, autoparts and, ironically, gyms than parks. That's not the EPA, that's local ordinance. Doomed I tell you.

[revelarts]

Im sitting here watching the neighbor's sprinklers flooding the gutter. Theyre free to do so; and their lawn looks great. Of course, that's an additional burden upon the utilities that is heavily subsidized by govt. of course they pay their own bill; but I pay for it too with my property taxes. Those taxes btw are higher because I have a more expensive property. I'm not saying the EPA should get involved; but I've a fat chance of talking many people into watering more efficiently without govt on my side to raise water rates or penalize water waste. Some locales have done so; but seeing as how the city and massive utility companies just drill deeper into aquifers, there's little incentive for them to tamper with a constant revenue stream. Local failure. It's not like people want to spend more for water; and until we a literally running dry, most could care less. Green lawns are their green industry. In my development there's more land dedicated to fast food, autoparts and, ironically, gyms than parks. That's not the EPA, that's local ordinance. Doomed I tell you.

ok, i think i see what your saying,
hmm sorry.

I still would likes a quote or 2 on the "evil empire" bit though.

[logroller]

ok, i think i see what your saying,
hmm sorry.

I still would likes a quote or 2 on the "evil empire" bit though.
Alright, I'll not get right on it. But I'll pm you. Truth is, I don't even disagree with the evils of empire prevalent in international reform in the last century. I just don't think it's something that will be undone anytime soon.

Its complicated. Water is the biggest threat IMO. Especially oceans. I don't see how we manage the oceans without an international agreement. Not to mention, developing countries will continue polluting if it saves them a dime; and I don't blame them. If I was trying to get ahead, I'd do whatever it takes too. Totally unsustainable. Truth is, population control is gonna take place on its own, and those countries who have the infrastructure to support themselves will survive while others perish. The war over water (and the food it produces) is coming. I would like to see more people continue unscathed. Where I live, the great valley in CA, 40% of the us table food is produced. Salinization of sacramento's river delta poses a risk to this food production. Add to that 30% of CA's energy goes to water delivery; its a major concern for long run certainty. Combined with the aforementioned residential waste, it's downright foolish to continue along this path. But like I said, most people don't want make sacrifices for the long run. These are pressing issues, and ones most local politicians shy from because any limits are unpopular, perhaps vilified as an agenda. That's why I get upset; there are real problems we face that affect not just local economies, but US welfare as well. In fact, those water rights are already granted conditionally under heavy subsidy by the federal government. I could go on and on rev; just on this one subject, water. I'll just stop.

[red state]

EXACTLY!!!! Had this been a debate, one on one or group debate, I would have to say that this was the BOTTOM LINE and the winning comment! It is knowledgeable, well spoken and sticks it to the guy who preaches big gov. and big bro has the answer to everything. NO SO and this question should be answered honestly without any BS from those who have "BS degrees". Sassy's comment will not be the last comment within this thread...but it should have been. As a new member, I don't think I agree with a lot of her views but I certainly KNOW this comment from her to be SPOT ON and should be a SIT-DOWN/SHUT-DOWN/SHUT-UP fact that the leftist/elitist can not defend or spread their unlimited BS knowledge to sugar coat the REAL issue here which is YES. The GREAT State of ALABAMA does indeed have the right (under the constitution) to make their own laws....or revolt. We all, under the constitution, have the RIGHT to remove, replace or leave the "UNION". This is especially true when our government sides with an outside source that will rule WE THE PEOPLE.

Great line Sassy!!! If I could click the THANKS button 20 times....I would.


So, Log, if local implementation is best, but if it fails, then the strong central authority would be the federal government (EPA), why do we need to sign a treaty with the UN?

[Shadow]

EXACTLY!!!! Had this been a debate, one on one or group debate, I would have to say that this was the BOTTOM LINE and the winning comment! It is knowledgeable, well spoken and sticks it to the guy who preaches big gov. and big bro has the answer to everything. NO SO and this question should be answered honestly without any BS from those who have "BS degrees". Sassy's comment will not be the last comment within this thread...but it should have been. As a new member, I don't think I agree with a lot of her views but I certainly KNOW this comment from her to be SPOT ON and should be a SIT-DOWN/SHUT-DOWN/SHUT-UP fact that the leftist/elitist can not defend or spread their unlimited BS knowledge to sugar coat the REAL issue here which is YES. The GREAT State of ALABAMA does indeed have the right (under the constitution) to make their own laws....or revolt. We all, under the constitution, have the RIGHT to remove, replace or leave the "UNION". This is especially true when our government sides with an outside source that will rule WE THE PEOPLE.

Great line Sassy!!! If I could click the THANKS button 20 times....I would.


Sassy could kick all the boys asses in a debate...just sayin... ;)

[red state]

The common sense approach to this is that AGENDA 21 (and that is EXACTLY what it is...an agenda) revolves around things many of us have witnessed in person, knowledge handed down from friend to friend or simply on the news or in papers.

The danger lies with how the left regularly use things such as 'environmental protection' to TAKE and destroy our rights for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. For those out there that are too simple-minded or hard-headed to know what I'm talking about, conduct a search on the abuses and ask if these "regulations" are just or simply power grabs. You can specifically search for so-called endangered species, wetlands and other false environmental issues. You will find that, in many cases, the findings of "endangered species" were over exaggerated and in some instances, were species that wasn't even native to that area. This is just an example of how "standards" can be set to a level that would place everyone at danger and does have an effect on PRIVATE property ownership. If you don't do your homework, and wish to remain ignorant, that's your business but the info (IS) out there.

This is an 'agenda' and Sassy's comment still stands. We have the EPA for a big brother...we don't need two big brothers or replace one bully for another. States do have the right to manage their own business and one of our more liberal posters did say one thing RIGHT; we can VOTE and the evidence is clear that America is voting RIGHT for a change....or should I say REAL CHANGE!!! Mississippi, for the first time in a long time (if ever) just gained total control for Republicans, Florida, one of our more liberal States here in the SOUTH have gone RIGHT on many issues and are voting in Conservatives and States such as ALABAMA/Arizona are setting standards for the rest of the Nation that preserves Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This makes perfect sense....unless you have no common sense.

[ConHog]

The common sense approach to this is that AGENDA 21 (and that is EXACTLY what it is...an agenda) revolves around things many of us have witnessed in person, knowledge handed down from friend to friend or simply on the news or in papers.

The danger lies with how the left regularly use things such as 'environmental protection' to TAKE and destroy our rights for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. For those out there that are too simple-minded or hard-headed to know what I'm talking about, conduct a search on the abuses and ask if these "regulations" are just or simply power grabs. You can specifically search for so-called endangered species, wetlands and other false environmental issues. You will find that, in many cases, the findings of "endangered species" were over exaggerated and in some instances, were species that wasn't even native to that area. This is just an example of how "standards" can be set to a level that would place everyone at danger and does have an effect on PRIVATE property ownership. If you don't do your homework, and wish to remain ignorant, that's your business but the info (IS) out there.

This is an 'agenda' and Sassy's comment still stands. We have the EPA for a big brother...we don't need two big brothers or replace one bully for another. States do have the right to manage their own business and one of our more liberal posters did say one thing RIGHT; we can VOTE and the evidence is clear that America is voting RIGHT for a change....or should I say REAL CHANGE!!! Mississippi, for the first time in a long time (if ever) just gained total control for Republicans, Florida, one of our more liberal States here in the SOUTH have gone RIGHT on many issues and are voting in Conservatives and States such as ALABAMA/Arizona are setting standards for the rest of the Nation that preserves Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This makes perfect sense....unless you have no common sense.


Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[jimnyc]

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I'm just a reader in this thread, but it seemed like a decent read to me, how was the post irrelevant?

[ConHog]

I'm just a reader in this thread, but it seemed like a decent read to me, how was the post irrelevant?

Oh, oops I guess the bold feature didn't work, because I was only talking about part of what he wrote and had bolded it. Maybe b/c of the text color.


Didn't mean it to read that his entire post was irrelevant.

the evidence is clear that America is voting RIGHT for a change....or should I say REAL CHANGE!!! Mississippi, for the first time in a long time (if ever) just gained total control for Republicans, Florida, one of our more liberal States here in the SOUTH have gone RIGHT on many issues and are voting in Conservatives and States such as ALABAMA/Arizona are setting standards for the rest of the Nation that preserves Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This makes perfect sense....unless you have no common sense.

irrelevant . IMO of course.

[jimnyc]

Oh, yeah, that happens when it's all in dark red to begin with! I had read his post rather quickly, admittedly, but thought the overall tone was on topic.

[logroller]

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
He didn't mention gun laws once; give credit where credit's due. He made a suggestion towards a good environmental debate too: noncommercial species on the endangered species list. Wetlands, not so much; those are well documented as providing a necessary and beneficial purpose.

[red state]

I'm not ALL KNOWING as some of our members here 'obviously are' BUT my line/paragraph indicated and singled out by our esteemed member was in response to an earlier post (within this thread) who made the comment of our voting for the RIGHT folks to get the job done for Americans....not the WORLD. Completely revelant to this thread since it really focuses on our giving our rights away to foriengn powers (which is listed as a DIRECT violation within our Constitution). You, sir, are wrong on so many levels that it makes my head spin but your arrogance in "thinking" you are right all the time (when you are most always WRONG) makes my @$$ itch. You need to read posts throroughly or simple READ for a change. It wouldn't hurt for you to preview your posts before spouting off...a common mistake for liberals is to spout off about something, call someone else WRONG and show their ignorance ALL at the same time! It is remarkable how this is a reoccurring problem for you to 'moderate' one's views and posts as being irrelevant or OFF TOPIC yet fail to do so when a liberal was the first to sway or, as I have done, dig deeper into the relevancy of this great topic! We need an IGNORANT meter instead of an ignore button...I and most of the posters here would undoubtedly adorn you as our #1 poster in that category. By the way....is my spelling correct? I also notice that you are not only a monitor but our official spell checker as well. Were you a hall monitor in school or were you just one of those kids who had their lunch money taken away from them? Just asking.


Oh, oops I guess the bold feature didn't work, because I was only talking about part of what he wrote and had bolded it. Maybe b/c of the text color.


Didn't mean it to read that his entire post was irrelevant.

the evidence is clear that America is voting RIGHT for a change....or should I say REAL CHANGE!!! Mississippi, for the first time in a long time (if ever) just gained total control for Republicans, Florida, one of our more liberal States here in the SOUTH have gone RIGHT on many issues and are voting in Conservatives and States such as ALABAMA/Arizona are setting standards for the rest of the Nation that preserves Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This makes perfect sense....unless you have no common sense.

irrelevant . IMO of course.

[Shadow]

Interesting...apparently 'irrelevant' is just another word only allowed by certain posters to entertain...



Originally Posted by ConHog...What is it about this board lately labeling any facts that disagree with your opinions as irrelevant? Didnt used to be that way.

[red state]

Thanks! JIMNYC,

Unlike the "thought police" you have a mind that is capable of actually putting comments and info into perspective. My comments were on topic (even if I had mentioned gun control) because that is actually another "treaty/AGENDA" that the UN has tried to pull over our eyes in the past and 'THEY' fully intend on doing it again. B.O. probably has his pen ready now (that is [IF] this fraud wins another term. At any rate, the topic was the UN having say over our sovereignty and as proven with big brother groups such as the EPA, and acts such as the ESA, we see full well the impact it can have when "STANDARDS" are adjusted. I even posted a few examples of how our property and rights can, have and will be effected but the limited mind-set of a few that unfortunately limit their responses to 'liberal talking points' or ignore the facts of what dangers may arise. Worse, still, are the posters who simply take it upon themselves to be "hall monitors" without adding any intelligent comment to refute or add to an idea. That usually classifies THEM as being irrelevant in my book (most folk's book).

Thanks again, JimNYC, I'll try to keep the BOLDNESS down but that is actually my personality and the RED signifies my stance as a red blooded American. There's no blue blood or blue state to color over MY people...and that includes the UN as well.



Oh, yeah, that happens when it's all in dark red to begin with! I had read his post rather quickly, admittedly, but thought the overall tone was on topic.

[red state]

There's nothing interesting about it...just a derailing of the thread and the only means by which someone with limitations has to confront another who has made valid, in depth opinions with fact. I do appreciate you're comment thought and I do realize that you do not actually find anything about our "hall monitor" as interesting....you were simply making a point. Just thought I'd explain that to our "hall monitor" before their head started to swell. Make no mistake about it HOG or should I say "HALL" you impress no one.


Interesting...apparently 'irrelevant' is just another word only allowed by certain posters to entertain...

[logroller]

Seems to me if people only responded to those things they consider relevant, as opposed to responding to those which they deem irrelevant, it sorta becomes a nonissue. :dunno: too wordy? I think it makes sense.

Still curious what property rights are being infringed.

[red state]

Common sense may be needed to figure things out for yourself or to understand the common sense behind posts that see this as being a major issue. Common sense would also let you know what dangers these treaties/agendas pose. So it may simply be that you'll have to remain curious....that killed the cat by the way. Those with common sense know to stay clear and far away from threats or aligning themselves with treaties/agendas that profit only their enemies. The info and common sense is there for anyone to simply read an put together but some prefer to follow blindly, remain ignorant or pretend to be curious when there is no interest in the truth or the common sense that warns most of us.

[ConHog]

Oh, yeah, that happens when it's all in dark red to begin with! I had read his post rather quickly, admittedly, but thought the overall tone was on topic.

I thought the overall tone was on topic to, you know me , I just hate it when a post veers towards "blame the ______" because I believe BOTH sides have jack holes.

Sorry for the confusion.

[ConHog]

Seems to me if people only responded to those things they consider relevant, as opposed to responding to those which they deem irrelevant, it sorta becomes a nonissue. :dunno: too wordy? I think it makes sense.

Still curious what property rights are being infringed.

Stop being a hall monitor.:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Still curious what property rights are being infringed.

I've been askin'. :dunno: I also see that the faulty premise of being "ruled" by the UN is alive and well. Separating that from the environmental issues would be a first step.

[logroller]

Common sense may be needed to figure things out for yourself or to understand the common sense behind posts that see this as being a major issue. Common sense would also let you know what dangers these treaties/agendas pose. So it may simply be that you'll have to remain curious....that killed the cat by the way. Those with common sense know to stay clear and far away from threats or aligning themselves with treaties/agendas that profit only their enemies. The info and common sense is there for anyone to simply read an put together but some prefer to follow blindly, remain ignorant or pretend to be curious when there is no interest in the truth or the common sense that warns most of us.
Are you debating something? Cause it sounds like you're just accusing those who are curious about reducing the harming of the environment as being nonsensical. Common sense tells me that industry will destroy the environment to turn a buck, poisoning the people who depend on that land. common sense also tells me dumping trash and toxins into the oceans is bad, but again, it's cheaper than dealing the problem in other ways. Besides, just because something is common, doesn't make it true. At one time, it was common sense not to sail too far west, it would bring about your demise because the earth was flat.

[ConHog]

I've been askin'. :dunno: I also see that the faulty premise of being "ruled" by the UN is alive and well. Separating that from the environmental issues would be a first step.

Seems they have ran out of answers and so instead have tried to turn this into another "you're moderating us" thread when nothing could be further from the truth.

If I see somewhere that Agenda21 is designed to deprave us of life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I will be calling my Senator to object.

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps sovereignty = liberty?

Just sayin'...

[ConHog]

Perhaps sovereignty = liberty?

Just sayin'...

but an individual already has no sovereignty when it comes to pollution. What does it really matter if the US tells the rest of the world , yes our EPA standards will meet or exceed Agenda21? As I said 20 pages ago, we no doubt already meet the standards, in fact it's likely that the UN modeled Agenda21 off of our existing policies.

Alabama getting riled up over this is pure politics.


Getting riled up over this in fact is akin to if Kansas would have objected to some of thei nuclear weapons in their state being deactivated because the US signed a treaty to do so. I'm quite sure after all that doing so hurt the economy in Kansas , depriving some Kansans.

[fj1200]

Perhaps sovereignty = liberty?

Just sayin'...

Maybe true, if we were giving up sovereignty...

[ConHog]

Maybe true, if we were giving up sovereignty...

Another solid point. I mean what, is there going to be UN environmentalists in Alabama trying to fine Alabamans for violations of Agenda21?

[Abbey Marie]

Another solid point. I mean what, is there going to be UN environmentalists in Alabama trying to fine Alabamans for violations of Agenda21?

You are just nay-saying. It is very easy to scoff. You do not know how this or any other loss of sovereignty will end up. Some people are sensitive to the loss by inches.

[ConHog]

You are just nay-saying. It is very easy to scoff. You do not know how this or any other loss of sovereignty will end up. Some people look are sensitive to the loss by inches.

I'm not scoffing at anything. I'm flat saying, make your case. Simply saying "some people may feel this is infringing on their rights" doesn't cut it.

[Mr. P]

I'm not scoffing at anything. I'm flat saying, make your case. Simply saying "some people may feel this is infringing on their rights" doesn't cut it.

Give it 30 mins, you and others clamoring for "how" and "why" may get a clue. Just sayin

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9GykzQWlXJs" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[revelarts]

Give it 30 mins, you and others clamoring for "how" and "why" may get a clue. Just sayin

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9GykzQWlXJs" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

This is a wonderfully clear presentation.
-tracks the A21 docs from UN to the US
-some of the Presidents active roles in implementation
-some U.S. governmental agencies and NGOs adoption
-some of the past and current local implementation tactics and results
-and points out some the founders and current international leaders with some of their amazing quotes

thanks P

[ConHog]

Give it 30 mins, you and others clamoring for "how" and "why" may get a clue. Just sayin

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9GykzQWlXJs" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

I watched it and it shows that this Agenda21 is stupid. It doesn't show that anyone is going to lose their life , their liberty, nor their property.

[sundaydriver]

I think it was 71 or 72 that I crossed Alabama off my list of places to ever return to. Who cares! :laugh:

[revelarts]

I watched it and it shows that this Agenda21 is stupid. It doesn't show that anyone is going to lose their life , their liberty, nor their property.

So Con you watched it but you didn't see the news articles he presented and instances he spoke of where people have ALREADY lost their property. And the Map of the A21 version of the U.S. ?


If you don't see a problem then , the best i can say about you here is, frankly you don't want to see it Con.

[ConHog]

So Con you watched it but you didn't see the news articles he presented and instances he spoke of where people have ALREADY lost their property. And the Map of the A21 version of the U.S. ?


If you don't see a problem then , the best i can say about you here is, frankly you don't want to see it Con.

no offense Rev, but all I seen was more conspiracy stuff here.

And besides that is besides the point of this thread anyway. Even if this treaty is unconstitutional, passing a state law is not the appropriate response. Do you at least acknowledge that?

[Missileman]

I watched it and it shows that this Agenda21 is stupid. It doesn't show that anyone is going to lose their life , their liberty, nor their property.

Did you watch it with your eyes closed and volume at mute?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am just gonno go with you intentionally being obtuse in this thread cuz an O-4 can't be so dumb that they can't argue or follow the thread subject, can they? I think it's pointless to respond to you further on these points as the thread addresses Fruit, you're posting NUTS. Just sayin.

Several years ago on a second forum in which I often contributed back then I had a debate with a rather masty liberal .
The subject was gun ownership and the Federal government's attempt to infringe on that Constitutional right, by the third post his insane socialist stand was obliterated. Never to admit failure, defeat or error he continued for another 35 posts and dozen pages writing about everything from swords to pocket knives and even baseball bats. It was pointless long before ever getting that deep but some guys can never admit they are ever wrong or that they fail in any way. Just sayin'.... -Tyr

[revelarts]

no offense Rev, but all I seen was more conspiracy stuff here.
Well you saw something about right , you were are in law enforcement you know conspiracy is a normal part of the law

conspiracy. 4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

then there's a milder definition which i think applies to most folks promoting agenda 21
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.







And besides that is besides the point of this thread anyway. Even if this treaty is unconstitutional, passing a state law is not the appropriate response. Do you at least acknowledge that?

I started this thread and the point is Agenda 21 AND a state seeing it for what it is and doing something about.

and i Hoped you wouldn't bring up the State v Constitution v feds thing up again, I've replied to that. you keep repeating it man why?
the CONSTITUTION PROTECTS OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS FROM the FEDS and other levels of gov't. the state is following the Constitution. if the federal agencies create regs OUT OF THIN AIR infringing on those right the FEDS are the criminals. THEY are breaking the LAW. 1 with BS regs not based in laws (another thread) and 2 it violates the Constitution.
Ask me again if you like that's my answer.. AGAIN and for the last time.

[ConHog]

Well you saw something about right , you were are in law enforcement you know conspiracy is a normal part of the law

conspiracy. 4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

then there's a milder definition which i think applies to most folks promoting agenda 21
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.






I started this thread and the point is Agenda 21 AND a state seeing it for what it is and doing something about.

and i Hoped you wouldn't bring up the State v Constitution v feds thing up again, I've replied to that. you keep repeating it man why?
the CONSTITUTION PROTECTS OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS FROM the FEDS and other levels of gov't. the state is following the Constitution. if the federal agencies create regs OUT OF THIN AIR infringing on those right the FEDS are the criminals. THEY are breaking the LAW. 1 with BS regs not based in laws (another thread) and 2 it violates the Constitution.
Ask me again if you like that's my answer.. AGAIN and for the last time.

Your answer is a non answer Rev. The COTUS has specific relief if the federal government tries to overstep its authority. The states can take action in court, they don't break the COTUS themselves by passing a law counter to the federal law in question.

I don't care what the federal law in question says, or if I agree with the content of the law or not. There is SPECIFIC relief and what Alabama is doing here is not it.

Let's suppose that your state government puts a speed limit on a HWY next to your with a speed limit of 45 MPH and your local government thinks they have jurisdiction and that the speed limit should actually be 55 MPH, let's further assume that your local government is right; is the proper procedure for them to kick down the state speed limit and hang up their own sign, or maybe just maybe is that what our court system is for?

[Mr. P]

no offense Rev, but all I seen was more conspiracy stuff here.

And besides that is besides the point of this thread anyway. Even if this treaty is unconstitutional, passing a state law is not the appropriate response. Do you at least acknowledge that?

Hey, I'll acknowledge that IF YOU acknowledge IT'S NOT a BINDING TREATY!

[ConHog]

Hey, I'll acknowledge that IF YOU acknowledge IT'S NOT a BINDING TREATY!

I've already shown in THIS thread that when we agree to crap like this with the UN. it IS a treaty. but here is another link, calling it a TREATY

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45478

It is what it is.

[Mr. P]

CH, I am afraid for whatever reason, ya got yer EYES WIDE SHUT. Just sayin

[ConHog]

CH, I am afraid for whatever reason, ya got yer EYES WIDE SHUT. Just sayin

Mr P, if you think I like this legislation, or agree with it, you are wrong. I am ONLY arguing about what is the right way to fight something a state feels is unconstitutional.

[Missileman]

I've already shown in THIS thread that when we agree to crap like this with the UN. it IS a treaty. but here is another link, calling it a TREATY

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45478

It is what it is.

It's not a binding treaty until ratified by the Senate.

[ConHog]

It's not a binding treaty until ratified by the Senate.

Correct, so until such time as it is (and it might not EVER happen) then Alabama has nothing to worry about. Honestly, I think a case could be made IF it's ever ratified , but passing a state law is NOT the answer.

And that is all I'm saying.

[Missileman]

Correct, so until such time as it is (and it might not EVER happen) then Alabama has nothing to worry about. Honestly, I think a case could be made IF it's ever ratified , but passing a state law is NOT the answer.

And that is all I'm saying.

But, since Agenda 21 isn't actually law of the land yet, the Alabama law doesn't violate the COTUS.

[ConHog]

But, since Agenda 21 isn't actually law of the land yet, the Alabama law doesn't violate the COTUS.

Of course you are right, and I never argued otherwise. I was merely debating the mechanics of the system. People were talking about Alabama being proactive and such, they aren't being proactive if they aren't looking at the reality that if Agenda21 comes to pass in the US then their state law is unconstitutional.

And then others started posting that this was evil etc etc, irrelevant to me for what I was debating in this thread.

Then others starting hollering that this wasn't a treaty and of course it is.......

But it's all good because this has been around since 1992 or so and the US hasn't signed on yet.

Like I said, PURE politics on Alabama's part.

[Mr. P]

Correct, so until such time as it is (and it might not EVER happen) then Alabama has nothing to worry about. Honestly, I think a case could be made IF it's ever ratified , but passing a state law is NOT the answer.

And that is all I'm saying.

You like being boiled in that water, just a lil hotter minute by minute, huh froggy?

Alabama's legislation may not be "THE" answer, but it sure as hell sends a message to the U.S. Senate for their consideration, doesn't it?

[ConHog]

You like being boiled in that water, just a lil hotter minute by minute, huh foggy?

Alabama's legislation may not be "THE" answer, but it sure as hell sends a message to the U.S. Senate for their consideration, doesn't it?

What message ?

"if you suddenly sign this treaty (no apologies necessary for saying I was wrong about that when I wasn't) that you haven't signed for 20 years then we have an unconstitutional law to fight it with? LOL

[Missileman]

Of course you are right, and I never argued otherwise. I was merely debating the mechanics of the system. People were talking about Alabama being proactive and such, they aren't being proactive if they aren't looking at the reality that if Agenda21 comes to pass in the US then their state law is unconstitutional.

And then others started posting that this was evil etc etc, irrelevant to me for what I was debating in this thread.

Then others starting hollering that this wasn't a treaty and of course it is.......

But it's all good because this has been around since 1992 or so and the US hasn't signed on yet.

Like I said, PURE politics on Alabama's part.

Don't you think though, that if the feds ratify Agenda 21, the impteus will fall to the feds to take Alabama to court rather than the other way around since Alabama's law was already on the books?

[ConHog]

Don't you think though, that if the feds ratify Agenda 21, the impteus will fall to the feds to take Alabama to court rather than the other way around since Alabama's law was already on the books?

That's actually an interesting question. Probably one with no right answer to be honest.

[Mr. P]

What message ?

"if you suddenly sign this treaty (no apologies necessary for saying I was wrong about that when I wasn't) that you haven't signed for 20 years then we have an unconstitutional law to fight it with? LOL

Damn, WTF TREATY? What's the title? Come on..

[ConHog]

Damn, WTF TREATY? What's the title? Come on..

Dude I have given you FOUR links now. It just isn't my problem anymore if you don't understand the working of the U.N.

and that's my last response to you in this thread.

[SassyLady]

I watched it and it shows that this Agenda21 is stupid. It doesn't show that anyone is going to lose their life , their liberty, nor their property.

I listened and there were a lot of people who are fighting to get their property rights back. Did you miss that section?

[SassyLady]

That's actually an interesting question. Probably one with no right answer to be honest.

Perhaps this is the reason Alabama decided to be proactive.

Sometimes the sky is falling and the only person that can see it is Chicken Little, but just because it's Chicken Little running around saying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" doesn't mean it isn't falling. If Alabama wants to be the canary in the cave, then so be it.

[ConHog]

I listened and there were a lot of people who are fighting to get their property rights back. Did you miss that section?

I disagree that they were losing any rights anyway; but honestly that isn't what I was debating anyway. This POS will never become law in the US anyway.

[SassyLady]

I disagree that they were losing any rights anyway; but honestly that isn't what I was debating anyway. This POS will never become law in the US anyway.

Even if it doesn't become a treaty that becomes a law, Alabama has stated they will not adopt any of the policies that come out of the Agenda. They don't want any of their localities adopting any of the policies of the Agenda.

[SassyLady]

Sure seems that Agenda 21 is focused on creating massive trade unions to promote the sustainability of development.


Strengthening the Role of Workers & their Trade UnionsPROGRAMME AREA
BASIS FOR ACTION29.1. Efforts to implement sustainable development will involve adjustments and opportunities at the national and enterprise levels, with workers foremost among those concerned. As their representatives, trade unions are vital actors in facilitating the achievement of sustainable development in view of their experience in addressing industrial change, the extremely high priority they give to protection of the working environment and the related natural environment, and their promotion of socially responsible and economic development. The existing network of collaboration among trade unions and their extensive membership provide important channels through which the concepts and practices of sustainable development can be supported. The established principles of tripartism provide a basis for strengthened collaboration between workers and their representatives, Governments and employers in the implementation of sustainable development.OBJECTIVES29.2. The overall objective is poverty alleviation and full and sustainable employment, which contribute to safe, clean and healthy environments - the working environment, the community and the physical environment. Workers should be full participants in the implementation and evaluation of activities related to Agenda 21.29.3. To that end the following objectives are proposed for accomplishment by the year 2000:
(a) To promote ratification of relevant conventions of ILO and the enactment of legislation in support of those conventions;
(b) To establish bipartite and tripartite mechanisms on safety, health and sustainable development;
(c) To increase the number of environmental collective agreements aimed at achieving sustainable development;
(d) To reduce occupational accidents, injuries and diseases according to recognized statistical reporting procedures;
(e) To increase the provision of workers' education, training and retraining, particularly in the area of occupational health and safety and environment.
ACTIVITIESA) Promoting freedom of association29.4. For workers and their trade unions to play a full and informed role in support of sustainable development, Governments and employers should promote the rights of individual workers to freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize as laid down in ILO conventions. Governments should consider ratifying and implementing those conventions, if they have not already done so.B) Strengthening participation and consultation29.5. Governments, business and industry should promote the active participation of workers and their trade unions in decisions on the design, implementation and evaluation of national and international policies and programmes on environment and development, including employment policies, industrial strategies, labour adjustment programmes and technology transfers.29.6. Trade unions, employers and Governments should cooperate to ensure that the concept of sustainable development is equitably implemented.29.7. Joint (employer/worker) or tripartite (employer/worker/Government) collaborative mechanisms at the workplace, community and national levels should be established to deal with safety, health and environment, including special reference to the rights and status of women in the workplace.29.8. Governments and employers should ensure that workers and their representatives are provided with all relevant information to enable effective participation in these decision-making processes.29.9. Trade unions should continue to define, develop and promote policies on all aspects of sustainable development.29.10. Trade unions and employers should establish the framework for a joint environmental policy, and set priorities to improve the working environment and the overall environmental performance of enterprise.29.11. Trade unions should:
(a) Seek to ensure that workers are able to participate in environmental audits at the workplace and in environmental impact assessments;
(b) Participate in environment and development activities within the local community and promote joint action on potential problems of common concern;(c) Play an active role in the sustainable development activities of international and regional organizations, particularly within the United Nations system.
C) Provide adequate training29.12. Workers and their representatives should have access to adequate training to augment environmental awareness, ensure their safety and health, and improve their economic and social welfare. Such training should ensure that the necessary skills are available to promote sustainable livelihoods and improve the working environment. Trade unions, employers, Governments and international agencies should cooperate in assessing training needs within their respective spheres of activity. Workers and their representatives should be involved in the design and implementation of worker training programmes conducted by employers and Governments.MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATIONA) Financing and cost evaluation29.13. The Conference secretariat has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $300 million from the international community on grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including any that are non-concessional, will depend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and programmes Governments decide upon for implementation.B) Capacity-building29.14. Particular attention should be given to strengthening the capacity of each of the tripartite social partners (Governments and employers' and workers' organizations) to facilitate greater collaboration towards sustainable development.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/index.shtml

[ConHog]

Even if it doesn't become a treaty that becomes a law, Alabama has stated they will not adopt any of the policies that come out of the Agenda. They don't want any of their localities adopting any of the policies of the Agenda.

If it doesn't become a treaty then Alabama has nothing to worry about. If it DOES become a treaty then frankly it doesn't matter what Alabama wants as per the supremacy clause of the COTUS. Unless of course they successfully sue the federal government for signing an unconstitutional treaty.

You, and others, keep arguing that the agenda21 is unconstitutional, and I'm here to say that is IRRELEVANT , a state does not have the right to pass a law saying " we will ignore a federal law" or even to say " we will ignore this if it becomes a future federal law"

Honestly, I'm a little shocked that you aren't able to separate the two arguments.

[revelarts]

If it doesn't become a treaty then Alabama has nothing to worry about. If it DOES become a treaty then frankly it doesn't matter what Alabama wants as per the supremacy clause of the COTUS. Unless of course they successfully sue the federal government for signing an unconstitutional treaty.

You, and others, keep arguing that the agenda21 is unconstitutional, and I'm here to say that is IRRELEVANT , a state does not have the right to pass a law saying " we will ignore a federal law" or even to say " we will ignore this if it becomes a future federal law"

Honestly, I'm a little shocked that you aren't able to separate the two arguments.

:facepalm99:

[SassyLady]

Every now and then I come across this phrase in the Agenda, which is what concerns me.


D) Capacity-building

Strengthening technological capacity

10.17. Governments at the appropriate level, in cooperation with other Governments and with the support of relevant international organizations, should promote focused and concerted efforts for education and training and the transfer of techniques and technologies that support the various aspects of the sustainable planning and management process at the national, state/provincial and local levels.

Sounds like an international organization will oversee (help) the management process at the national, state and local levels. Would this be the UN getting involved in our local regulations?

[SassyLady]

If it doesn't become a treaty then Alabama has nothing to worry about. If it DOES become a treaty then frankly it doesn't matter what Alabama wants as per the supremacy clause of the COTUS. Unless of course they successfully sue the federal government for signing an unconstitutional treaty.

You, and others, keep arguing that the agenda21 is unconstitutional, and I'm here to say that is IRRELEVANT , a state does not have the right to pass a law saying " we will ignore a federal law" or even to say " we will ignore this if it becomes a future federal law"

Honestly, I'm a little shocked that you aren't able to separate the two arguments.

Why can't you see that it is better to fight, or at least expose, Agenda 21 before it becomes a Treaty? I'm not here to argue whether or not Alabama has the right to pass the law .... frankly, who gives a damn what Alabama does or does not do regarding COTUS? You are so in the weeds soldier that you can't see the real enemy.

[ConHog]

:facepalm99:

Are you suggesting a state can ignore federal law?

[ConHog]

Why can't you see that it is better to fight, or at least expose, Agenda 21 before it becomes a Treaty? I'm not here to argue whether or not Alabama has the right to pass the law .... frankly, who gives a damn what Alabama does or does not do regarding COTUS? You are so in the weeds soldier that you can't see the real enemy.

Then were debating different things. And this thread started out as a discussion o what alabama had done. Not one about what agenda21 would do. So if anyone has veered of course it wasnt me.

What alabama has done is stupid. That doesnt negate how stupid signing agenda21 would be. But then again only one level of government has actually done the stupid thing were discussing in this thread.

Of course this is the same state where most teenage girls who are virgins are simply because they can outrun their brothers so i guess i shouldnt be surprised

[SassyLady]

Then were debating different things. And this thread started out as a discussion o what alabama had done. Not one about what agenda21 would do. So if anyone has veered of course it wasnt me.

What alabama has done is stupid. That doesnt negate how stupid signing agenda21 would be. But then again only one level of government has actually done the stupid thing were discussing in this thread.

Of course this is the same state where most teenage girls who are virgins are simply because they can outrun their brothers so i guess i shouldnt be surprised

Everyone lives in a state that can be disparaged to an extent. I live in CA and we know it's the land of fruits and nuts. You live in Arkansas ..... need I saw more about how backwards it is? Alabama obviously sees something you don't and are willing to take on the fight because they saw something they didn't like. As I've said before .... more power to them for stepping outside the box ..... they may end up a woeful loser, but at least they are sitting back drinking the coolaid yet.

[logroller]

Everyone lives in a state that can be disparaged to an extent. I live in CA and we know it's the land of fruits and nuts. You live in Arkansas ..... need I saw more about how backwards it is? Alabama obviously sees something you don't and are willing to take on the fight because they saw something they didn't like. As I've said before .... more power to them for stepping outside the box ..... they may end up a woeful loser, but at least they are sitting back drinking the coolaid yet.

I believe there was a Northeastern state that already ran into problems with Agenda 21 implementation, and acted before Alabama. I'll see if I can't find a link.

[revelarts]

Then were debating different things. And this thread started out as a discussion o what alabama had done. Not one about what agenda21 would do. So if anyone has veered of course it wasnt me.

What alabama has done is stupid. That doesnt negate how stupid signing agenda21 would be. But then again only one level of government has actually done the stupid thing were discussing in this thread.

Of course this is the same state where most teenage girls who are virgins are simply because they can outrun their brothers so i guess i shouldnt be surprised

And this thread started out as a discussion o what alabama had done. Not one about what agenda21 would do. So if anyone has veered of course it wasnt me.

What ALA had done was SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A21!
What are you talking about CON???
the Debate hasn't veered anywhere it's right on target.

as I've pointed out before but you've ignored, for some reason.

[revelarts]

.....
I don't care what the federal law in question says, or if I agree with the content of the law or not.

Let's suppose ....

Let's suppose .... a new Federal law says we should BEHEAD drunk drivers on interstate hwys.
Should Alabama (or any state) obey the Federal law until a supreme court decision possibly overturns it?
Or should they refuse to obey the law beforehand because it clearly violates the Constitution's cruel and unusual punishment provisions?

[fj1200]

Don't you think though, that if the feds ratify Agenda 21, the impteus will fall to the feds to take Alabama to court rather than the other way around since Alabama's law was already on the books?

No. AL law would be unenforceable just as they had a state constitution provision prohibiting interracial marriage... until 2000...


I listened and there were a lot of people who are fighting to get their property rights back. Did you miss that section?

Were they denied due process? Sorry I wasn't going to watch the whole thing. He did have a nice hook though to get his viewers appalled right off he bat.


Even if it doesn't become a treaty that becomes a law, Alabama has stated they will not adopt any of the policies that come out of the Agenda. They don't want any of their localities adopting any of the policies of the Agenda.

Policies that they aren't compelled to accept, barring ratification, or policies they will have have to accept, upon ratification? They really have no say in the matter beyond their two Senators up in Congress.

[fj1200]

the Debate hasn't veered anywhere it's right on target.

That's like saying a major league baseball team starting out its season with a goal to win the World Series and then stating, "mission accomplished," after merely playing 162 games.

[ConHog]

Let's suppose .... a new Federal law says we should BEHEAD drunk drivers on interstate hwys.
Should Alabama (or any state) obey the Federal law until a supreme court decision possibly overturns it?
Or should they refuse to obey the law beforehand because it clearly violates the Constitution's cruel and unusual punishment provisions?

Rev, I KNOW you're smarter than that comment.


IF the federal government passed a law mandating drunk driving on an interstate that law would hope up exactly until the first person sued. At which point a court (and I doubt it would ever reach the SCOTUS) would laugh and rule it unconstitutional.

That would be the correct procedure to take.

Or are you suggesting that CA would have the right to pass a law that reads " CA will in noway enforce any part of the federal law which mandates beheading for those caught drunk driving on interstates?"

Because if you are you are wrong.

Let's assume they did so , and let's assume some jerk got arrested for drunk driving on an interstate in CA. Now let's assume that for whatever reason the federal government steps into the case and they sue CA for having an unconstitutional law. Are they going to win? You bet they are. California's law would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And any court hearing the case isn't going to want to hear "but the US law is unconstitutional, so that is why we passed our own law" the why of their law is irrelevant because the COTUS clearly states that federal law is the supreme law of the land, so the ONLY legal recourse is to sue the federal law you believe is unconstitutional.

Step back, take some of the emotion out of your argument and you can't help but admit I'm right. States can not under ANY circumstance pass laws which counter federal laws.

[revelarts]

Rev, I KNOW you're smarter than that comment.


IF the federal government passed a law mandating drunk driving on an interstate that law would hope up exactly until the first person sued. At which point a court (and I doubt it would ever reach the SCOTUS) would laugh and rule it unconstitutional.

That would be the correct procedure to take.

Or are you suggesting that CA would have the right to pass a law that reads " CA will in noway enforce any part of the federal law which mandates beheading for those caught drunk driving on interstates?"

Because if you are you are wrong.

Let's assume they did so , and let's assume some jerk got arrested for drunk driving on an interstate in CA. Now let's assume that for whatever reason the federal government steps into the case and they sue CA for having an unconstitutional law. Are they going to win? You bet they are. California's law would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And any court hearing the case isn't going to want to hear "but the US law is unconstitutional, so that is why we passed our own law" the why of their law is irrelevant because the COTUS clearly states that federal law is the supreme law of the land, so the ONLY legal recourse is to sue the federal law you believe is unconstitutional.

Step back, take some of the emotion out of your argument and you can't help but admit I'm right. States can not under ANY circumstance pass laws which counter federal laws.

get ready Con
states are already defing the feds and it's NOT a consituional issue

LOS ANGELES — The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug. Related



Times Topic: Marijuana and Medical Marijuana (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html)



The announcement by Eric H. Holder Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/eric_h_holder_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the attorney general, was the latest reminder of how much of the establishment has lined up against the popular initiative: dozens of editorial boards, candidates for office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arnold_schwarzenegger/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and other public officials.
Still, despite this opposition — or perhaps, to some extent, because of it — the measure, Proposition 19, appears to have at least a decent chance of winning, so far drawing considerable support in polls from a coalition of Democrats, independents, younger voters and men as Election Day nears. Should that happen, it could cement a cultural shift in California, where medical marijuana has been legal since 1996 and where the drug has been celebrated in popular culture at least since the 1960s.
But it could also plunge the nation’s most populous state into a murky and unsettling conflict with the federal government that opponents of the proposition said should make California voters wary of supporting it.
Washington has generally looked the other way as a growing medical marijuana industry has prospered here and in 14 other states and the District of Columbia, but Mr. Holder’s position — revealed in a letter this week to nine former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/drug_enforcement_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org) that was made public on Friday — made explicit that legalizing marijuana for recreational use would bring a whole new level of scrutiny from Washington. ...


NOTHING about it being unconstitutional STATES have jurisdiction sovereignty that can not be forces on States in areas that the Feds don't CLEARLY have authority.
the Feds CAN NOT just write Any old law/regs and it's "THE LAW of the Land" State law makers via the PEOPLE and the constitution trump what they consider bogus Federal Laws. they are not bound to enforce federal laws/regs they consider bogus.
period.
it's called freedom and part of the rest of the separation of powers. "commerce clause" be danged.

If the Feds want to enforce there own laws they can try and States can have State Police AND local Police tell them to leave because they have ZERO authority if they are not on FEDERAL lands, ie D.C., federal parks, etc.. Unless they have permission from the states they don't have authority.

I'm sure that more than you want to think about , and more than some realize and farther than i should have to discuss at this point.

but you keep your idea that the feds are gods and must be obeyed not matter what Con,

we just disagree, i hope the country and the world can get back it's freedom over time.

[ConHog]

get ready Con
states are already defing the feds and it's NOT a consituional issue

NOTHING about it being unconstitutional STATES have jurisdiction sovereignty that can not be forces on States in areas that the Feds don't CLEARLY have authority.
the Feds CAN NOT just write Any old law/regs and it's "THE LAW of the Land" State law makers via the PEOPLE and the constitution trump what they consider bogus Federal Laws. they are not bound to enforce federal laws/regs they consider bogus.
period.
it's called freedom and part of the rest of the separation of powers. "commerce clause" be danged.

If the Feds want to enforce there own laws they can try and States can have State Police AND local Police tell them to leave because they have ZERO authority if they are not on FEDERAL lands, ie D.C., federal parks, etc.. Unless they have permission from the states they don't have authority.

I'm sure that more than you want to think about , and more than some realize and farther than i should have to discuss at this point.

but you keep your idea that the feds are gods and must be obeyed not matter what Con,

we just disagree, i hope the country and the world can get back it's freedom over time.

Irrelevant unless you can prove that pollution recognizes and respects state lines and thus the federal government has no constitutional authority.

I am probably in agreement with you that drugs kept within a state should be that state's own business.

[Abbey Marie]

I disagree that they were losing any rights anyway; but honestly that isn't what I was debating anyway. This POS will never become law in the US anyway.

Really? I recall you repeatedly insisting that no one was losing any life, liberty of property.

[ConHog]

Really? I recall you repeatedly insisting that no one was losing any life, liberty of property.

I got sidetracked into that argument doesn't mean that is what I was mainly discussing.

and on that point, I still don't believe Agenda21 would do any such thing even if passed (which obviously after 20 years never will be)

[Abbey Marie]

If it doesn't become a treaty then Alabama has nothing to worry about. If it DOES become a treaty then frankly it doesn't matter what Alabama wants as per the supremacy clause of the COTUS. Unless of course they successfully sue the federal government for signing an unconstitutional treaty.

You, and others, keep arguing that the agenda21 is unconstitutional, and I'm here to say that is IRRELEVANT , a state does not have the right to pass a law saying " we will ignore a federal law" or even to say " we will ignore this if it becomes a future federal law"

Honestly, I'm a little shocked that you aren't able to separate the two arguments.

Which only bolsters my page 1 point about secession.

[Abbey Marie]

I got sidetracked into that argument doesn't mean that is what I was mainly discussing.

and on that point, I still don't believe Agenda21 would do any such thing even if passed (which obviously after 20 years never will be)

When your repeatedly-made "side" argument is damaged, you need to say you were, or at least could be, wrong about it, instead of saying "That was only my side argument".
People took time out to show you how it could certainly be a problem, so the cool thing to do is to tell them they may be right.

[red state]

Good example:

LOOK, I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH OF A LEMMING YOU ARE BUT SURELY THESE GUYS AREN'T NAIVE ENOUGH TO NOT SEE THE REAL PICTURE HERE (WHICH IS UNDER THE THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING AND THE EVILS OF SO-CALLED SOCIAL JUSTICE). WE HAVE 'BIG BRO' KEEPING CHECKS ON INDUSTRY...WE DON'T NEED MORE, MORE MORE. BESIDES, CORRUPTION IS ON BOTH SIDES MY FRIEND AND MORE GOV. ISN'T THE ANSWER. I KNOW OF A PLANT THAT IS CONTINUALLY FINED FOR NOT PROPERLY DISPOSING OF CERTAIN WASTES. I HOPE YOU'RE NOT AS NAIVE AFTER READING WHAT I'VE POSTED BELOW. IT DEALS WITH PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE ISSUES THAT THE UN HAS ATTEMPTED ALL ALONG. IT IS AMAZING HOW IT IS A TOTAL GRAB OF POWER BUT WHATEVER THEIR AGENDA, WE HAVE NO BUSINESS ADHERING TO ANYTHING THAT TELLS AMERICANS WHAT CAR THEY BUY/OWN, WHAT TIMBER/TREE THEY WANT/NEED TO CUT, WHAT CROP OR LIVESTOCK AND THE AMOUNT OF SAID CROP AND/OR LIVESTOCK THEY WISH/NEED TO FARM. AND SO AS NOT TO DISAPPOINT...I'VE ADDED MY TWO CENTS BELOW ON THE UN'S ATTEMPT TO DE-AMERICANIZE MY CONSTITUTION AND ABILITY TO PROTECT MY OWN. IF YOU CAN SEE THE DANGER IN ALL OF THIS OR THE "agenda" THEN WE'LL HAVE TO SIMPLY PART WAYS. I'VE TAKE TOO MUCH TIME COMPRISING THE INFO BELOW AND DO NOT WISH TO CONTRIBUTE ANY FURTHER LENGTHY POSTS....SELECT PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY TOO LAZY TO READ IT ANYWAY [CUZ I'M WRONG AND THEY ARE ALWAYS CORRECT SO WHY READ SUCH A LENGTHY POST]. IT IS HOW THEY REMAIN IGNORANT.

HISTORY AND THE FRONT RUNNER TO MUCH OF WHAT IS GOING ON:

LAW of SEA Treaty or L.O.S.T. goes back three decades but it is very pertinent to our topic. It was first rejected by our GREAT President, Ronald Reagan who warned that "no national interest of the United States could or should fall under the power of another nation or group of nations. Giving sovereign control of seas that the USA now has, to Third World Countries with the UN presiding would be foolish." The main AGENDA, was believed by Reagan and staff to be an effort to promote global government at the expense of Sovereign nations (specifically the United States).

Bottom line: Crucial national security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be decided by OTHERS (not our representatives WHO WORK FOR WE THE PEOPLE). The worse thing to consider is the statement by socialist, Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a proponent of global ocean regulatory schemes. She made no bones about it: "He who rules the sea.....rules the land." L.O.S.T. is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection and we should send the UN there in NY out to sea.

__________________________________________________ ______________________________

Now, for a topic dear to my heart AND before I pick back up with agenda 21 (specifically)....and so as not to disappoint members who expect me to bring up GUNS (although this does fall into the 'agenda of the UN and how we should NOT relinquish ANY rights as WE THE PEOPLE!!!

Under the guise of a proposed "global Small Arms Treaty” The UN will effect our RIGHT to bear arms just as they also intend to dictate other factors that WE THE PEOPLE have no business allowing or adhering to. Common sense would tell anyone that but for those lacking in the common sense area:

Below outlines the dangers we face from the UN...it is FACT and if you don't see the danger, something is terribly wrong with your thinking.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
*DO WE NOT HAVE ENOUGH LAWS/REGULATIONS ALREADY?

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms.
*'UNAUTHORIZED COULD MEAN MOST ANYTHING AND "STANDARDs" ARE SURE TO CHANGE TILL WE'RE SHOOTING MUSKETs OR NOTHING AT ALL.

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same, one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple FACT the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
*I DON'T NO ABOUT YOU BUT I DON'T WISH, AS A FREE AMERICAN, TO GIVE UP MY RIFLE/SHOTGUN AND START HUNTING WITH A SINGLE SHOT ANYTHING (except my bow)!!! I ALSO DO NOT WISH TO FACE AN INTRUDER WITH A ONE SHOT WEAPON WHILE HE/SHE MAY SEND MULTIPLE SHOTS MY WAY. WHEN WILL THE EGG-HEADS EVER GET IT IN THEIR HEAD THAT ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS WHEN THEY OUTLAW GUNS?!!!

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
*YEP...ANYONE WISH TO USE COMMON SENSE ON THIS ONE. I REGISTER MY HAND GUNS (HESITANTLY) BUT I DO NOT REGISTER MY RIFLES / SHOTGUNS (I DON'T HAVE TO) BUT REST ASSURED, THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE IN KNOWING WHO HAS WHAT. AND WHEN THE KNOW WHO HAS WHAT AND HOW MANY, THEY'LL KNOW WHAT WEAPONS THEY'VE MISSED OR CAN TAX YOU ON WHEN THAT TIME COMES ...AND IT'S COMING IF WE DON'T LEARN FROM STATES LIKE ALABAMA!!!

In short, [they] plan to override our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license/free pass for big bro to assert/abuse powers over State regulatory powers...which guarantees States, under the Tenth Amendment, to loan sovereignty or ask for assistance without FULLY/PERMANENTLY relinquishing the State's rights to sovereignty....in addition to our personal rights such as with the Second Amendment.
*OF COURSE, THIS LAST ONE (or two) regarding the Constitution, IS DEBATABLE WITHIN THOSE OF THIS TREAD AS TO WHETHER A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FOLLOW THE WILL OF ITS CITIZENRY OR SUE THE GOV. or the individual rights such as self preservation. ALABAMA CERTAINLY AND OBVIOUSLY HAS THE RIGHT TO SUE OR LIVE BY THEIR JUST LAWS AS MUCH AS B.O. AND ALL THE OTHER ANTI-AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE ARIZONA AND ALABAMA FOR UPHOLDING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BLATANTLY IGNORING. WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF THE UN HAD SOME LAWS, STANDARDS OR AGENDAS THAT WERE BUILT AROUND IMMIGRATION (OR SHOULD I SAY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION)?! NO, THEIR STANCE ON THAT PORTRAYS US ALL AS BEING [WORLD CITIZENS].
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______


Now, getting back on Alabama and the agenda that they so correctly see as a loss of We The People sovereignty to the UN:

UN author:
“Property cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth AND THEREFORE CONTRIBUTES TO SOCIAL INJUSTICE; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of the society as a whole.”

I'M SO PLEASED THAT THERE WAS ACTUAL LEADERSHIP IN ALABAMA TO FIGHT THIS EVIL. I'M ALSO GLAD THAT THE PEOPLE RALLIED TOGETHER WHEN THEIR GOVERNOR WAS (POSSIBLY) ABOUT TO VETO THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM BOTH HOUSES, THE PEOPLE ASSURED THE GOVERNOR THAT THE PRESSURES & THREATS HE PROBABLY FACED FROM BIG BROTHER IN LOSING FED FUNDING WAS NOT THEIR MAIN CONCERN SO HE SIGNED IT IN TO LAW. I JUST WONDER IF B.O. HIMSELF CALLED THE GOV. YOU KNOW, B.O. HAS ACTUALLY THREATENED TO CLOSE MILITARY BASIS IF A VOTE DIDN'T GO HIS WAY SO WHO KNOWS WHAT MADE THE GOV. HESITATE....WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE HESITATION ENDED WHEN HE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR WHAT HE PEOPLE WANTED. WE CAN THANK DADDY BUSH FOR MUCH OF THIS BUT B.O. IS FOLLOWING MUCH OF THE BUSH PLANS TO A "T". B.O. HAS CERTAINLY SHOWED HIS LOVE FOR THE UN AND CONSIDERS HIMSELF A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD.

WITH AGENDA 21, AS WITH THE EPA, ONE'S PROPERTY COULD BE RE-ZONED DUE TO "ISSUES" WITH WILDLIFE, CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER AND EVEN SURROUNDING PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN TRAMPLED ON BY THE RICH. THIS RE-ZONING COULD CAUSE AN OUTRIGHT LOSS OF PROPERTY OR CAUSE THE VALUE OF SAID PROPERTY TO FALL BELOW ITS WORTH OR THE TAXATION TO FAR EXCEED THE LAND'S WORTH IN ORDER TO TAKE IT. A LIL' OLE LADY HAS HAD TO FACE THE SAME THING, TOOK IT ALL THE WAY AND WON WHEN THE NATIONAL FORESTRY DECIDED TO COME AND 'TAKE'. I'M SHOCKED THAT SHE WON BUT THIS IS ALL A SAMPLING OF WHAT WE CAN EXPECT WITHIN 'AGENDA 21'. ABUSE OF POWER IS OVERWHELMINGLY EVIDENT IN OUR OWN GOV. AND I'D HATE TO SEE DIRTY RIVERS AND CHOKING AIR THAN TO HAVE MY RIGHTS TRAMPLED UPON. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, I'M OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE LIVED WITHIN THE AWFUL POLLUTION [BEFORE THE EPA]. I DRANK CLEAN WATER AND BREATHED CLEAN AIR...WELL-WHAT-TA-U-KNOW! GO FIGURE. I KNOW THERE ARE IDIOTS OUT THERE THAT NEED THE LAW TO COME DOWN ON THEM FOR POLLUTING BUT THESE NEW GOV. AGENCIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN POWER GRABS AND I SUSPECT THAT THE UN HAS HAD AN INFLUENCE IF NOT AN OUTRIGHT HAND IN MUCH OF IT.

FROM THE UN SITE, THEIR AGENDA IS CLEAR. THEY MEAN TO "....evaluate and, as appropriate, [PROMOTE] cost-effective policies or programmes,[INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE], social and economic [MEASURES], in order to improve energy efficiency... THIS MEANS THAT THE FULLY INTEND TO REGULATE, ON AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, THE AMOUNT OF FUEL AND POLLUTION YOUR VEHICLE PROVIDES (B.O. DOESN'T LIKE THOSE BIG 4X4....REMEMBER)!!!!! THEY ALSO INTEND TO STICK THEIR NOSES IN "TREE LOSS". I KNOW SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVE STATES THAT REQUIRE A PERMIT TO CUT A TREE DOWN! RIGHT NOW!!! I KNOW CUZ I'VE BEEN THERE AND TALKED TO THE CITIZENS. THE UN ALSO WANTS TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFICIENCY THAT FARMERS HAVE IN UTILIZING AND CARING FOR THEIR FARMS. CHEMICALS, EROSION AND EVEN THE EFFECTS OR CATTLE/HOGS ON GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACTOR THAT THEY WILL BE INVESTIGATING. EFFECTS ON OTHERS WILL ALSO BE A FACTOR IN WHAT ONE CAN POSSIBLE GROW AND WHERE ONE CAN GROW IT. AS FOR THE USE OF YOUR LAND, IT WILL FALL UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE. IT DERIVES FROM A GLOBAL WARMING OUTFIT AND IS GEARED TOWARDS EXTREME ENVIRONMENTALISM. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE OUR OWN LAWS THAT WORK QUITE BUT ABUSE TO OUR JOBS SO I CAN'T IMAGINE THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THIS NATION IF WE LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY AS WELL.


NOT THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS FROM OTHER NUTS, BUT THE AUTHORS OF THIS PLAN/AGENDA CALLS FOR GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE CONTROL OF ALL LAND USE AND/OR THE DECISION MAKING FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE NOT AS GOOD AT STEWARDSHIP AS THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE ONCE THEY ARE IN CONTROL. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WILL GIVE WAY TO THE BETTERMENT OF THE WORLD ECOSYSTEM. IT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL THAT PEOPLE LIVE IN HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, CLOSE TO EMPLOYMENT/TRANSPORTATION, LEAVING NATURE TO ITS OWN AND THEREBY PROTECTING IT FROM HUMAN "COMPROMISE". THIS IS EVIDENT FROM OTHER PLANS AGENDAS WRITTEN BY THESE AUTHORS UNDER THE TITLE: THE WILDLANDS PROJECT.

ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT TO NOT SEE THIS THREAT AND LAZY TO NOT DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK. STILL, SASSY, WAS SPOT ON IN THAT WE HAVE OUR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & VEHICLE INSPECTION, ETC., ETC. WITHOUT ADDING THE LOSS OF AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY TO THE EQUATION. THE GREAT STATE OF ALABAMA CERTAINLY DOESN'T PLAN TO FALL FOR THIS GLOBAL WARMING/SOCIAL JUSTICE $#!T!!!





Give it 30 mins, you and others clamoring for "how" and "why" may get a clue. Just sayin

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9GykzQWlXJs" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[red state]

looks like sassy actually did her homework as well. Funny how conservatives seek out info and the truth and liberals merely 'accept' the lies and propaganda fed to them. They are, indeed, weak minded little lemmings marching to their death.


sure seems that agenda 21 is focused on creating massive trade unions to promote the sustainability of development.

[ConHog]

When your repeatedly-made "side" argument is damaged, you need to say you were, or at least could be, wrong about it, instead of saying "That was only my side argument".
People took time out to show you how it could certainly be a problem, so the cool thing to do is to tell them they may be right.

How can I be wrong about my OPINION?

Jesus this place is going right wing nuts. My OPINION is that no one is is danger of losing their rights , nor their property even if this Agenda21 were to ever be passed.

[revelarts]

How can I be wrong about my OPINION?

Jesus this place is going right wing nuts. My OPINION is that no one is is danger of losing their rights , nor their property even if this Agenda21 were to ever be passed.

Well Con if our Opinion is PROVED wrong by evidence like news artlcles in the video you say you watched. people can very easily say it's wrong.

LOOK, people homes where taken, the laws that did it where directly traceable to A21.

so your OPINION is proved wrong.
you are free to continue to hold that opinion but it would be in BLATANT DENIAL the facts of, at least, 1 specific case.
(unless of course you would prefer we think in terms of Consensus rather than using facts)

[jimnyc]

Jesus this place is going right wing nuts.

Because a few people disagree with you on some subjects? Hell, I haven't even read 90% of this thread. You shouldn't label the entire place based on some comments on one subject.