There’s a big difference between what you “think” the official was saying and what he actually said. Funny how you conveniently forget that Mr. Armendariz resigned after those remarks surfaced. You also forgot to mention that his office was forced to withdraw charges of well water contamination in rural Texas against oil & gas operator Range Resources, (one of those companies he wanted to “crucify”).
I have a slight problem with legislators who pander and scaremonger...and waste time "solving" some fictional problem.
You mean like the Dems tried to do with the contraception debate?
But to answer your question, I view the Alabama legislation as more of a pre-emptive strike against the UN’s Agenda 21. The UN has openly stated its opposition to private ownership and control of land:
If I see a guy about to break into my house, do you really think I ought to wait for some “real world effect” before I do something about it?
“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 (emphasis mine).
to post a reply: login
- or - register