Although the U.N.’s George Soros-backed plan for “Sustainable Development” (also known as “Agenda 21”) seems to have gone largely unnoticed by many Americans, the shadowy, backdoor attack on personal property rights didn’t slip past the people of Alabama.
“Alabama recently passed Senate Bill 477 unanimously in both of its houses. The legislation bars the taking of private property in Alabama without due process,” Investor’s Business Daily reports.
The bill specifically states the following:
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.
But let’s back up for a bit and talk more about “Agenda 21.” If you haven’t heard of it, you owe it to yourself to read up on it. Simply put, it’s an international initiative that overrides personal property rights all in the name of the environment and “sustainability.”
Here’s a good rundown via The Blaze’s Mike Opelka:
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.
The seeds for Agenda 21 were planted back in 1987 when the writings of Gro Harlem Brundtland (a woman who was first Vice-President of the Socialist International) caught the eye of the UN. Dr. Brundtland wrote a report for the UN called, ‘Our Common Future’ eventually got into the business of environmentalism as a tool to control all the people of the world and establish a global government. The growth of ICLEI [International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives] and the framework being put in place by supporters of Agenda 21 appear to be bringing Dr. Brundtland’s ideas closer to reality
As mentioned in the above, “Agenda 21” is little more than an all-out attack on personal property rights. Indeed, as Opelka notes, the body that drafted the initiative (the U.N.) has openly and without hesitation stated its opposition property rights:
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.*
Oh, and if that’s not reason enough to be wary of the U.N.’s “sustainability” project, consider the following: “In 1997, George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project.”
But despite the slow and steady growth of the project in the United States, Alabama proves that, contrary to what some would have you believe, not everyone’s asleep at the wheel.
However, even though Alabama’s Senate Bill 477 will be viewed by many as a victory over “Agenda 21,” it doesn’t mean that the U.N. or the Feds are anywhere near through with their “sustainable” agenda. In fact, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson will attend the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development later this month in Rio de Janeiro, IBD reports.
“Specifically, in a transition to a green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments and other economic activities,” a U.N. document describing the conference explains.
“We don’t need ‘environmental governance,’” IBD writes, “just a governance of, by and for the people of the United States.”
“Nor do we need to ‘reorient’ our consumption and economic activities. Alabama has just told the U.N. and the EPA what they need to be told — don’t tread on us,” the report concludes