The American Ruling Class

[5150]

White House now boasts that more than 10 million Americans have signed up for Obamacare- but only after Medicaid enrollees and PRISON INMATES are added

When someone gets discharged from the jail and they don’t have insurance and they don’t have a plan, we can pretty much set our watch to when we’re going see them again,’ Chicago’s Cook County Sheriff’s office spokesman Ben Breit told Bloomberg Businessweek.

LMFAO! This is such spin and total lies it’s outright laughable. Their arguments that inmates in jail when discharged who don’t have an insurance plan are expected to have recidivism rate of 100% just by the fact they have no insurance plan. LMFAO

Could never be to the fact that discrimination, poor economy, drug addiction, mental problems or a whole host of other social and economical issues place inmates a huge disadvantage all of which having a medical insurance plan can fix.

Let’s look at the faulty thinking and the lie here. So these inmates leave prison and since they have no healthcare they want to return to prison to live where they are given free healthcare is the basis of this argument. Well under the ACA if they are destitute on the street they still qualify for the ACA with vouchers and other programs so they can get health care coverage, after all that was the entire point of the ACA so EVERYONE would be covered regardless of circumstance. So their argument is faulty and is basically scare tactics.

Like this article points out, “IF” the white house is now using prison populations for boosting th'e number of enrollee's then these are shallow enrollment numbers because although all those inmates might be signed up as a number, they’re in prison they are getting free healthcare and not paying for it. How can the ACA claim the enrollment numbers are leading to success? Again the tax payers are on the hook paying the inmates insurance plans until the day the ACA magically takes off and becomes self sufficient like in Obama’s wet dream of it working.

This will never happen and it’s clear they are reaching out to find enrollment numbers anywhere they can just to sell it as a success. They could enroll 100 million people and still proclaim a success but if all 100 million are not paying for the insurance how can it be successful?


White House boasts over 10 million Americans signed up for Obamacare | Mail Online

________________

Big day: President Obama talked about the new milestones for the Affordable Care Act in a speech held in the White House Rose Garden, but TV networks denied his request to have it televised

[aljhoa]

Matching funds, so we would have to 'loose' 50%, before we REALLY 'loose' anything, and even then, hey, its ONLY paper!

Endless hrs of work - the property "its ONLY paper"?


Can a U.S. Supreme Court decision be “nullified?” Can a law passed by Congress be declared unconstitutional by a court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the premise that “Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, ...
Personal Income Tax Violates U.S. Supreme Court Ruling ~ Privately Owned Federal Reserve Violates U.S. Constitution & President Kennedy’s Executive Orders. | Political Vel Craft


Al

[dutchdivco]

5150

Its all 'spin', and that Rose Garden speach is going to be O'bummers "Mission Accomplished", and hang around his neck.
The 7 million # was an arbitrary #, established by the Congressional Budget Office. Arbitrary because the CBO is required to make estimates of what enacting a law is going to 'cost', and what its going to do, (in this case, total # of americans insured) based on CURRENT law, and legislation as written.
ANY change, and the estimate becomes meaningless, hence 'arbitrary' #; it has NO meaning. Its pretty obvious, some things were put into the law, merely to 'fudge' the #'s, and so they could say "CBO says ACA will be revenue neutral", and "will insure "X" million currently uninsured Americans", so it could gain passage. For instance, as written employers with over 50 employees are required to insure their employees, or face a fine. Supposed to be iplace, NOW. Firstly, they delayed that, and then changed it to 100 employees, and there are serious doubts as to wheterh it will ever be enforced; that changes the #'s CBO was using to calculate their estimate, to the point of making the estimate meaningless. Because the 'idea' is all those employees would be gettingovered, andit wouldn't cost taxpayers anything; either they would get insurance thru their employer, OR employer would pay a fine, which would cover cost (to taxpayers) of insuring them. But, if this provision is never enforced, we have to assume these individuals will go to the exchange, where they will get a taxpayer subsidised plan. Hence, a large # of people on the exchanges, that CBO calculated wouldn't be.


There are 3 numbers that WILL be important; Tha amount of $ taxpayers end up paying to subsidise the enrollees in the exchange plans, The amount the plans have to be additionally subsidised because the insured pools turned out to be sicker than anticipated, and the rates plans file for next year. And, whats more; IF (as I suspect) Insurnce companies calculate that they willhave to raise rates on these plans too high to make them 'affordable', even with the subsidies, they will try to 'offset' this, by ALSO raising the rates for employer based plans. Hence, EVERYONES insurance will go up, not just those getting their insurance through the exchanges.

I said when ACA was first being promulgated, that this will 'test' Lincolns assertion; "You can fool SOME of tpeople ALL the time, and ALL of the people, SOME of the time, but you can't fool ALL the people, ALL the time!"

The #'s NEVER made 'sense', the original justifications NEVER made sense, and the ACA will never 'work'. The REAL question is, when it becomes obvious that its not working, what will be done THEN?

As for what the jailer was quoted as saying, I have no idea, but he may have been ( tactless but true) saying; Those prisoners who are released, back into a life where they have no health insurance are POOR; and are therefore more likely to return (for a whole HOST of reasons). They are PROBABLY going to go right back to the life they had before incarceration; same neighborhood, same 'friends', etc. And now, as a 'convicted felon' with an even worse situation, re: job prospects. Those who, upon release, are going into a situation in which they have health insurance are 'white-collar', middle or upper income background; they have a much lower rescidivism rate. NOT because they have or don't have insurance, but because they have a 'support' system', probably higher education level and other resources, which improve their chances of 'making it'.

To revisit; IS the Penalty a tax? Scotus says NO. Scotus says the premium is a tax, and the penalty is a penalty, for not paying the tax. JIM

[rickoff]

To revisit; IS the Penalty a tax? Scotus says NO. Scotus says the premium is a tax, and the penalty is a penalty, for not paying the tax. JIM

Right, Jim, just as I have said all along. When you don't pay a tax that you are said to owe, the IRS hits you with a non-payment penalty and adds interest to the amount you "owe" until all is paid. ObummerCare is not different. It is a tax and it will be treated the same way. They just haven't explained that to anyone yet. Rest assured - they will pull this trick out of the bag when needed and use it to force everyone into an enrollment. By the way, the non-payment "penalty" is a monthly penalty which grows and grows until it reaches the amount that an individual would have had to pay for a Bronze plan. Cute, huh?

[rickoff]

A couple of tee shirts for you.......

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Yes, "CUTE". I also understand that, just paying the penalty is not the end of it; again, thinking of the premium as a tax, that you haven't paid, you don't JUST pay the penalty, you also pay the tax; so, you have to pay the penalty, but you also have to get the Insurance i.e. 'pay' the original tax the penalty is for.
But, my understanding is the penalty, as well as any interest for not paying, can ONLY be collected by this mechanism of withholding om a return; so, no return, no way to collect. I certainly HOPE thats the case.
And, my wife and I will have to continue to insure we have no 'tax return' coming, year after year, from here on out.
Actually, long term, I am believeing ACA will collapse under its own weight, for the reasons I've previously posted. IF that happens, I should think at some point there will be a 'tax amnesty', for those who have taken the route we are taking.
Grante the OTHER way it COULD go, is they would change the law, to 'close' this 'loophole' we are exploiting, thereby enabling the IRS to collect the penalties and interest, like they do any other.
Its a gamble, we recognise that, and have decided to 'go this way'.

To ME, it doesn't seem possible that O'bummercare can work; either it will collapse, or it will bring down the whole system. The #'s just don't add up, and never have/never will. But then, I never thought it would pass, and never thought the SCOTUS would 'allow' it. One consolation I take is that SCOTUS said, in their ruling, that IF the Premiums (tax) became 'onerous' or the penalty, that they would consider re-visiting the whole issue.

So, what i see happeneing is next year the premiums, even for those with employer plans, will sky-rocket. LOTS of people will face premiums they can't afford, even WITH the 'subsidy'. It will truly be recognised that it IS the "Un-Affordable Care act. Repubs will 'capitalise' on this, to gain the Senate and retain the House, and TRY to use it to gain the WH in 2016. "Odds" are the WH will go Repub, anyway, as we most often go 2 terms with 1 party in WH, then 2 terms with the other. If that happens, they will either repeal, or modify it greatly.

Still wondering WHAT alternatives are proposed or enacted, if in fact ACA 'collapses'. I KNOW what Liberals will propose; Single payor, or "Medicare for EVERYONE!" But since Medicare is going to go 'bankrupt', that doesn't work, without a MASSIVE tax increase.

Maybe a national de-criminalisation of MJ, and tax the be-jesus out of it, and SAYING the tax will go to support the healthcare. Of coarse, IF they did that, the tax $ would go into general fund, and finace pork. Anyway, its going to be interesting, and wife and i are already regularly attending a 'Christian Scientist" church, so we can claim religious exemption. O'bummer doesn't respect religious rights, but he won't be in much longer. Anyway, its going to be interesting to wathc how this 'plays out'. Jim

[rickoff]

But, my understanding is the penalty, as well as any interest for not paying, can ONLY be collected by this mechanism of withholding from a return; so, no return, no way to collect. I certainly HOPE thats the case.

You haven't said why this is your understanding, but I seriously doubt this tactic will work for anyone. If you have ever filed a return, or have a SS card, then they will wonder why you haven't filed this time around or in future years. That creates a flagged case account, and they check to see if you are deceased or on welfare. If they find you aren't, then they will assume that you are avoiding filing. IRS has unbelievable resources to find you, determine what resources you have, check on whether or not you are earning any income, etc. I'm not quite sure if you are saying that you won't file any tax forms, or if you're meaning to say that you will file the forms but won't be asking for an overpayment to be returned to you since you would figure things out so that there will be a zero or near zero refund. If this second scenario is what you are meaning then that certainly won't stop them from assessing penalties and going after you for penalty payments. They'd probably wait several months until the penalty reaches what the bronze plan payment would have been, and then file a lien against anything of value which you may have.

I'm glad to hear you're doing the Christian Scientist thing, but I'm wondering if you checked to see if you needed to file some form to claim your right to exclusion from participation in ObummerCare based on the religion. Is there such a requirement? I would guess that there is, as it seems quite likely they would have covered that base, but have not looked into it myself since I do have a federal employee insurance plan that meets or exceeds ObummerCare requirements.

[rickoff]

Realizing that the US dollar is fast becoming worthless, some people are putting more of their assets in the stock market. The stock averages, after all, seem to keep rising. It is probably a trap, because if people stop buying/paying then the profits of these companies will likely collapse. Hard assets seem to be the way to go.

When the US dollar collapses, so will everything that is dollar based, including the stock markets. The resultant crash will be much worse than the so-called Great Depression, and many well to do people will lose everything. You're correct in thinking that hard assets (things which do have a real intrinsic value) are the way to go, as any such items can be used to obtain other items that you may find you will need. The items that will become most valuable in a true crisis will be the items that most other people will be looking for because they weren't very well prepared. Of course if they didn't prepare (and probably 95% of the population won't) then they won't have any hard assets which they can trade with you, so those folks will have no recourse but to attempt to beg, borrow, or steal what you and other preppers do have.

[dutchdivco]

Sorry, Rick

Apperently I wasn't clear, its the second one; setting up our 'withholding', (perfectly legally and legitimately) so that at the end of the year, (actually when we file in 2015), we OWE no taxes, but have no return coming.

In researchin this, (as I posted earlier) AFTER the law was passed, (as in "Have to PASS the law, BEFORE we can see whats in it") Rush Limbaugh read the whole thing, (all 26,000 pages), andwas the first, to publically discuss this, on his radio show. His reading of it was that the ONLY way they, (the IRS) can 'collect' the penalty, OR ANY INTEREST BASED ON THE PENALTY, is by witholding the $'s from your income tax return. They CAN'T use liens, sieze bank accounts, etc.

When he first explained this on his show, plenty of Obummer lovers/limbaugh haters jumped on it, to try to dispute it, and everyone who looked at it seems to have, relunctantly agreed with his 'reading' of it.

Can't prove it, but I SUSPECT this is what may have happened, when the law was being drafted;
Our legislators are far too busy soliciting contributions and votes to bother writing Laws, thats what they have STAFFS for; who work in conjunction with lobbiests, who submit 'proposed' legislation, or 'sections' of legislation.

When it came to 'addressing' the penalty, the conversation probably went something like; "O.K., HOW are we going to do this penalty?" "Hey, why not do it the way we do child support, for deadbeat parents? Yeah, just pull that legislation, and copy the wording, that will work! " and, that 'problem' addressed, they went on to another, while some staffer copy/pasted the section from the law on child support. As a researcher, (which I'm not) you can check, and I'd BET the wording is actly the same. And, the wording for child support doesn't have ANY mention of interest; If a 'non-custodial' parent owes 'back-due' child suort, and IF they have $ 'coming' to them, (from 'over-paying' thru 'withholding', the IRS can 'keep' that $, and divert it to go towards the unpaid child support obligation. BUT, there is NO provision for the IRS to access additional interest. OR, for the IRS to use any of its collectiomethods, such as siezing bank accounts, or property, in order to collect the 'back-due' child support, like they would use to collect unpaid tax 'obligations'.
And, to address an earlier point; YES,there ARE people injail for failing to pay chi support, bu the IRS didn'tput them there.

I also suspect part of this was a 'blindness'; the Legislators who's staffs were writing ACA were Dems/Liberals, and so we can assume so are their staffs.
They thought they were doing a GOOD thing, something 'momentus', and 'historic' (This is a bIG F*cking DEAL! as Bitem said). They really didn't think 'most' people would OBJECT to 'going along' with ACA.

So, the penalty is like the letters for Jury duty. In RED, they quote the statute saying you can be jailed or fined for failing to report. Reading it, it SOUNDS like 'you better do it, or else!' In reality, (at least in my 'juridiction') they DON'T send the letters 'return reciept requested', (too expensive?)therefore there is no way they prove you er GOT the notice.

NOT unless you comply, by calling a phone #, where they record you 'checking in', that is.

Its a common tactic of Gov't., to make threats they cannot possibly carry out, 'banking' that most peoiple will comply.

So, if RUSH is right, AND THEY FOLLOW THE LAW AS WRITTEN, (granted, thats a BIG 'if') and they don't change the law, as long as I and mine continue, here on out, to insure we have no return coming, there should be no way for the IRS to enforce the penalty.

And yes,there WILL be a form to file, 'requesting' a religious exemption. I'm not sure the form has even been printed yet, and given the degree of 'respect' Obummer has shown the churches, not sure how much 'good' that will do.

As I said, this is a GAMBLE. I and mine are 'litigation proof', in that we have 'hard assets', but nothing that could or would be 'siezed' in a lawsuit, and if we close our 'bank accounts' (credit union,actually), the IRS would probably have to spend more to try to collect, than they would get.

I'm HOPING, of coarse, that it won't come to that. Im 'betting' that I will end up 'winning' on this 'gamble', and am, I believe, prepared to accept the consequences if I lose. Perhaps, at some point, going in to IRS and reaching some kind of a 'settlement', which is like a 'plan "Z". I REALLY doubt ANYONE is going to be jailed, for ACA non-compliance.

When the #'s are crunched, and A) peoples premiums, (both those on ACA plans, and those on employer plans) skyrocket, and B) ACCURATE CBO estimates are done, taking into account the re-imbursements to Insurance companies, subsidies to policy holders under ACA, permanent 'dropping' of the employer mandate,etc. (in other words, when we see what ACA is REALLY going to 'cost' taxpayers) and stories of the consequences to individual families, there will be a 'hue and cry', to abolish/replace.

Yet another 'problem' built into this abomination of a law; proponents have been 'touting' the 'children up to 26 can stay on their parents plan', from day one. And yet we also know, in order for the #'s to 'work' it is these very same youngsters who the ACA NEEDS to have sign up, in order to offset the 'older/sicker' people. Boy, was THAT ever counter-productive!

In addition,its ONE thing for young workers to gradually become aware that the $ taken out of their checks, for Social Security is going to pay for current recipients. Its another thing entirely to flat out TELL them, in effect, we KNOW your Young, and Healthy, and are going to use less healthcare than your going to be paying for (in premiums) but we NEED you to do it anyway, (even tho, being young, and just starting in the workforce, your income is low) in order to 'pay for' the older/sicker workers. NOT exactly a great 'sales pitch'!

And then there is the low hispanic participation. Reality is, if it wasn't for the immigration issue, MOST hispanics are 'Conservative' and even libertarian; its in their culture. And so, there are all sorts of reasons why 'they' as a group, are 'under-participating', is the point.

I really believe the ACA is 'going down', and its a question of when, not if, and a question of 'what do we do, then?
But then I BELIEVE that, because WANT to believe that, so we'll just have to see. Jim

[rickoff]

On the lighter side......

Today there was an amusing video clip of a woman in Las Vegas who threw a shoe at Hillie Clinton while she was giving a speech.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the entire audience didn't follow the woman's lead and begin pelting Hillie with shoes, and whatever else was available. It would have been reminiscent of the hordes of Egyptians that threw shoes and tomatoes at Hillie's motorcade, while chanting "Monica, Monica!" and "Irhal, Clinton!" (Get out, Clinton!) as she was leaving Egypt after a visit to Alexandria. See that episode here.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Good to see you 'active' in the forum, again. Just to reviit something from earlier, 'approach 1', which I'm not using. Actually, there are a # of 'legitimate' reasons for NOT filing a tax return, and JUST not filing for 1 or several years, and then filing again, IN AND OF ITSELF, doesn't 'set off' alarms @ IRS.
Person could be long-term unemployed, out of the country, in Jail, in a COMA, or deceased. WHEN you file, after several years of NOT filing, they MAY check your SS records, to see if you made any 'taxable' income for the years you didn't file, but I'm not even 'sure' of that.

The IRS LARGELY works by taking the information YOU give them, and relying on most people THINKING that they have far more information than they actually have. Its mostly an 'honor' system. I know of a # of situations in which people didn't file for a # of years, and then filed again,and the IRS didn't conduct ANY kind of 'investigation, or even send a letter saying "where have you been, and what have you been doing, for the last "X" years.

They just aren't 'set up' that way. I myself went a couple of years without filing, earlier in my life. When I filed again, there was no curiosity expressed by IRS.

Am I the only one that sees an almost perfect parrallel between whats happened in Ukraine, and gun control? Big powers, (U.S., EU, and even ironically Russia) said "Oh,you can give up your NUKES, WE will 'guarantee' your souverenity", and so, naively, they did. Years later, Russia 'threatens soverenity, and US and EU say, "Oh, well,...er,...YES, we did SAY that, but, er,...actually, we didn't MEAN that! We'll give you economic aid, but as for defending yourself, well,....your on your own!" Any doubt in anyones mind, if Ukraine had KEPT their Nukes, that they wouldn't be now feeling threatened with invasion by Russia?

In addition to the Nat'l news story about the kid who attacked his classmates with knives, we have 2 local stories involving knives. One is a group of 4-5 men, who went around town, doing armed robberies with knives. 4 people robbed, one in the hospital (stabbed). Other was also a kid, who took a 'kitchen' knife to school, no one actually stabbed, he's in custody.And yet have yet to hear any efforts to BAN knives. Or even a recognition that these stories confirm whats been said all along, that GUNS aren't the problem.

Got a 'letter' from Rand Paul, saying in next few weeks, Senate is going to take up ratification of U.N. Small arms treaty, and saying how it would compromise second amendment. (and asking for $,of coarse.)
And even tho Sebelius is leaving, I've heard there is an effort being made, to change the Laws/regulations, that currently allow U.S. citisens to purchase Rx. medications from overseas. Are these just 'last ditch efforts by Dems/libs to enact parts of their agenda, before they loose control of the Senate? Or (in the case of the drug law) a 'fundraising' operation, i.e get campaign contributions for submitting a bill, from drug companies?

I can't see either passing, but then I never thought ACA would actually make it into law, either. Jim

[rickoff]

In every US state's cities, towns, and villages, there is a common sight that we see as we drive by a school zone. It is a yellow caution sign warning drivers that there is a school zone ahead and showing simple black stick-figure "students" to warn drivers that actual students may be crossing the road on their way to or from the school. We have all seen these signs, right?

Well, what if these signs were replaced with something like the sign shown below, which makes it clear that such children, as well as young adult college students, are not really going to a school to be educated, but rather to be indoctrinated? And if parents understood this, how many would then pull their offspring out of these "schools," and refuse to pay any amount of property tax or tuition fee that supports those institutions?

[aljhoa]

FILE – In this March 8, 2012 file phoo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. Scalia says the nation’s highest court was wrong 70 years ago to uphold the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But he told students and faculty at the University of Hawaii’s law school on Monday, Feb. 3, 2014, the case came during a time of panic about the war. Scalia says he wouldn’t be surprised if the court ruled similarly during another conflict.
Justice Scalia: You Are ‘Kidding Yourself’ If You Think World War II-Style Internment Camps Will Never Happen Again | TheBlaze.com


Published on May 3, 2012
On May Day in 1971, the US Army rounded up approximately 7,000 protesters into a stadium in Washington, DC that they treated like a make-shift prison camp. Have things changed in the past 40 years? Now a Department of Defense document has been leaked to the Web that details "Internment and Resettlement Operations." The manual outlines policies for processing detainees in internment camps domestically and abroad and how to "re-educate" unruly activists. Alex Jones, host of the Alex Jones Show, joins us to find out what this means to people across the globe.
Alex Jones: Pentagon prepares re-education camps for political activists - YouTube


Al

[rickoff]

Nevada protesters stand their ground against BLM thugs

THE BUNDY RANCH PROTESTERS STAND THEIR GROUND AGAINST THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FEDS
The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been causing a lot of turmoil in Clark County, Nevada, by driving out cattle ranchers who are said to be on land where a "protected" species called the Desert Tortoise has been put on the endangered species list. One of these ranchers is Clive Bundy, and he is the last rancher to remain in the face of BLM threats to remove him. Bundy's family has been grazing cattle on the same publicly owned ranch property since 1877, and they used to have more than 50 neighboring ranchers who did the same thing. Now the BLM wants to round up and remove Bundy's herd of about 900 cattle and claim that the public land is federal land under their "protection."

The BLM recently showed up at the Bundy ranch with agents wielding tasers and K-9 attack dogs, along with their "ranger" vehicles and some heavy equipment including a dump truck and backhoes. A group of concerned citizen protesters also showed up and stood their ground against the BLM in a showdown, ultimately driving them off, this video shows, but not before some of the protesters were knocked to the ground, threatened by BLM agents and their attack dogs, and tasered.

I'm sure that BLM will undoubtedly return to carry out their agenda, most likely with additional troops dressed in riot gear, and perhaps an armored vehicle equipped with a sound blaster and some other crowd dispersing options. It would be great if the local sheriff's department, and/or other Nevada state officials, would show up to defend Bundy and escort the BLM to the Nevada state line, but that probably won't happen, though certainly some lip service appears to be taking place. Senator Dean Heller of Nevada claims that he told new U.S. Bureau of Land Management chief Neil Kornze in Washington, D.C., that law-abiding Nevadans shouldn’t be penalized by an “overreaching” agency. And Nevada governor Brian Sandoval said that “an atmosphere of intimidation,” is resulting from the roundup and that he believed Constitutional rights were being trampled.

Incidentlally, the total grazing area being argued over is about 1200 square miles. Our Constitution clearly states that the total land area which the federal government may own is to be limited to an area not to exceed a ten mile square, which would be an area of 100 square miles. That is the maximum allowable, and yet the federal government claims to own 650 million acres in the US, which is nearly 30% of the total land area of the United States. Furthermore, they claim to own, control, or "manage" fully 80% of the land in Nevada! Is there anyone who doesn't see something that is very wrong with this, and with the constant push to drive the People from their public and private lands in order to seize ever more land area, meanwhile forcing the rightful land owners or users to live in crowded slum cities where there is no self-sufficiency and everyone must rely upon "government" to provide their needs?

The question now is who will stand up for the rights of Nevadans, other than a band of vocal but peaceful protesters. That question may be getting an answer from militia members in several states who are vowing to come to Bundy's aid and confront the BLM with threats of force if necessary. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. Bundy says that the BLM has no authority to do what they are doing, since his family's ancestral grazing rights were granted long before the BLM existed. The BLM claims that Bundy owes them over a million dollars in delinquent "grazing fees," and that his cattle herd must be removed as it endangers the federally protected Desert Tortoise.

[aljhoa]

Agenda 21

Yet over the last 25 years, 68 percent of America's National Parks, Preserves and Monuments have been designated as a United Nations ...

Ninety percent of the New World Project is located on private land and the remainder is in a National Forest.
The Globalization of United States Domestic Land

In Alabama, Senate Bill 477 was recently passed unanimously in both houses, barring the state from taking over private property without due process, thereby preventing Agenda 21 from infiltrating their state lines. It reads, “[t]he 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,’”.

Hopefully other states can mirror Alabama’s determined nature in passing their Anti- Agenda 21 legislation.
Alabama Fights a UN Land Grab - Townhall.com Staff - Page full

Al