No.

I'm not going to research YOUR claims. The OP lacks any references for credibility.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

You must have missed this one on page one.


It's a lecture from a women who's from your side of the aisle (She's a liberal). I think she's a lawyer. I know she's worked for the government in the field of eminent domain. She's become an activist against Agenda 21. She's been involved in lawsuits designed to slow its implementation.

Okay... I'll bite.

I think that there is a great deal of connecting dots that really shouldn't be connected going on. I think one would really have to work at creating a "vast conspiracy" by selectively looking at the facts.

I am not saying that there are not abuses of property rights, but the ideas that have been posed in these videos are not really on par with what the Constitution ACTUALLY says.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

Tea Party Television

Orly Taitz was a lawyer too.

The fact that she's from "my side" - doesn't make her any more credible.

Conspiracy theories are bipartisan.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

A lesbian liberal was lecturing to a Tea Party group. Yeah, that's interesting.

Actually I double-checked. This is who Rosa Koire (the women in the video) is.

"Rosa Koire is a forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation. Her twenty-eight year career as an expert witness on land use has culminated in exposing the impacts of Sustainable Development on private property rights and individual liberty."

I therefore find her at least as credible as yourself (let's face it, moreso). I'll listen to what she has to say.



Still haven't watched the video, or read the other links, heh? So you have an opinion based on ignorance. Name-calling "Conspiracy theory" does not all of a sudden make you the expert, against people with actual credentials. It does not even make you credible.

That's interesting. Which specific dots do you think were not connected credibly? See, cause I thought they were connected quite well. If you can educate me on what's weak. I'll look it up, and post my results here. Coyote can get the links she claims she's yearning for, and find new, exciting reasons to ignore those as she has the ones already posted. It will be entertaining.

What does the fact that she's a lesbian liberal have anything to do with anything?

I looked her up as well. She's founder and a member on the Board of Directors for: The Post Sustainability Institute - Our Mission - an organization who's stated mission is "Post-sustainability: the condition of environmental, political, social, and economic systems after the imposition of Communitarianism."

This group also states "it is our intention to provide a clearing house for information on United Nations' alliances with non-governmental and governmental groups seeking to erect Communitarianism as the dominant form of world governance, and to serve as a rallying point for those who oppose the dismantling of liberty."

Sounding a little fringe to you? That's the group that describes her "expert" credentials.

She's a realestate appraiser with the following credentials:
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
Accredited Senior Appraiser, American Society of Appraisers
District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation
Bachelor of Arts, English, UCLA, 1982

How does this make her an expert in international sustainability issues or the UN? Or, for that matter - "Communitarianism" (whatever that is).

She really sounds like Orly Taitz.

No, I looked at the links and it's classic conspiracy theory material - as another poster pointed out - they aren't connecting the dots right. It's very reminiscent of the Clinton Body County.

I've never claimed to be an expert and unlike this person, I'm not pretending to be either. However, you are placing all your eggs in the basket of someone who impressed you so much because, at first, you thought she was a lawyer but in further examination is nothing more than a real-estate appraiser and you're not taking a critical look at the actual material.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

First of all, how would you know the dots haven't been connected if you haven't listened to the information?

Koire is an expert on eminent domain. Eminent domain is part of the end game of Agenda 21. She saw something fishy was going on as part of her day job. This made her curious. She researched it. She's a professional researcher. She has the tools. You have not researched it. You do not have tools she does. Therefore I find her more credible than I do you.

If you believe the dots are not connected, tell me what the dots are. Don't just pull the accusation out your butt. If you do I have to ask myself who's really the "fringe" person here. The forensic commercial real estate appraiser, or the message board poster who refuses to make herself aware of the offered data.

I think it's just the logic really. They are assuming that because one thing must be true, another must be true. Like the Clinton adviser telling the President to use the words "sustainable development". Just because that adviser issued a memo on such doesn't mean that Clinton made his decision based on that memo. That memo also doesn't mean that the Clinton Administration was trying to do anything nefarious. That memo also doesn't mean that there is a direct connection between that memo and any loss of property rights.

It's all tied together with gossamer.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

An expert according to who? Herself? Her own organization? You find her credible based on her own words only?

First off - what is "Agenda 21"? It's nothing nefarious and pretty easy for even the non-expert to research. Agenda 21 is nothing more than a series of non-binding (key term here) policy suggestions (another key term) for member countries to consider put forth by one of hundreds of panels and subcommittees under the UN. Members are under no obligation to adopt these suggestions in any way. Typically these panels bring in experts from related fields to give presentations on the topic, provide expertise and advice and the panel comes up with a set of finding which they then publish and which can be used in whole or in part - or not used by individual governments in forming their own policies. That is Agenda 21.

What they've done is taken these points and transformed them into impending policy - in fact worse than that - if you google Agenda21 you come accross such conspiracy-theory red flag statements as "What the Government doesn't want you to know" or globalism, elimination of private property, population control etc.

This blogsite claims: "... At the root of the globalist movement is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. This worldwide program agreed upon by 178 nations, including the United States...." - first off, it's not a program. Second - 178 nations have not agreed on this "program" but more likely - on a policy paper saying in effect - there some good ideas here, lets put it out for public consumption.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.