Advertising
Google

 

Search NH Blogs

BlogNetNews.com

« Alive and Well - Liberal Media Bias & Congressional Pork Barrel Spending | Main | Pending Sale of Verizon Assets to Fairpoint Communications »
Saturday
17Nov

"Freedom's Way" is anything but...

by Jane Aitken

A very dangerous thing is about to happen to people who live in parts
of Massachusetts and Southern NH.

We are about to come under the auspices of the National Park system. Why is this bad?

Consider the 37 National Parks in the US that are now designated as 'World Heritage' Sites.

World Heritage sites, belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located according to the United Nations on their website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/

"Freedom's Way" is being touted as a great way to get federal dollars for tourism, and to promote 'democracy'.

However, once the 'World Heritage' system takes over, the laws of our Constitutional Republic that LIMIT GOVERNMENT will no longer be honored in favor of international laws under the United Nations.

Many of you may not understand that the United Nations is a NON- governmental organization which in theory has NO authority over our US with regard to enforcing rules and laws. However, our officials keep signing treaties with this body of unelected officials, most from communist countries, and then pass legislation here to honor those treaties, despite the fact that they have no justification under our US Constitution!

Unless efforts like this are stopped, we risk more and more of our US sovereignty, or the right to self-government, and the chance that someday, we may face being tried in an international court by people whose cultures and customs are quite different from our own. (I can see it now, someone slips and uses a 'bad' word, and ends up getting their tongue cut out!).

The final goal in the creation of these 'areas' is the UN's desire to create 'regions' that will be governed under a global system where the continents are divided up by common geography and NOT by our Constitution or laws of that country's government.

For Freedom's Way, it is just the first step in creating "Acadia" in accordance with the UN's "Agenda 21" under the guise of tourism, history, and conservation. If there are any conservation efforts, they need to be done on the local level. Please look up Agenda 21-realted documents here to see what a dangerous organization the UN really is, having been given legitimacy by so many countries:

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/whpwans97.html

I urge everyone to peruse the UN's vast website and see just what they have in store for the people of this earth. It is a quest to control the land, the air, and the sea under one government. It means the end of our Constitution. And by promoting these programs using the scare tactics of the new religion of gaia and eco-fascism, characters like Al Gore are aiding and abetting the demise of America.

Freedom's Way: make no mistake about this misnamed effort. This is just the first step in the assault on our freedom. But it won't be the last.

Visit this website to see if your town is affected and please, write to your Congressmen and Senators and tell them to STOP selling us out to the UN in return for federal money!

http://www.freedomsway.org/

 

ADDENDUM:

Freedom's Way National Heritage Area [MA/NH] has passed the House and is now bound for the Senate (H.R.1297, S. 827)

Here is the AP story on it:

HAGERSTOWN, Md. (AP) - The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation that would designate a new national heritage area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

The Freedom's Way National Heritage Area would include 37 towns and cities in northern Massachusetts and eight towns in southern New Hampshire.

The measure, which also designates five other national heritage areas in other parts of the country, now goes to the Senate. The bill authorizes $10 million in federal matching grants to establish the heritage areas.

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (13)

Jane,

Not sure about the tongues being cut out, but I am with you 100% on this one. We ought to be vigilant and resist any effort to "internationalize" our parks or anything else. Good article.

Matt
November 17, 2007 | Registered CommenterMatt Simon
Thanks Matt. People don't realize -- first it's a state park, that's fine. Then it become a national park -- the carrot being money to run it and attract tourists. Now you are seeing these 'world hertige' area signs along the highway...and I don't like the UN's attitude given their penchant for megalomania. Just a cursory look at their website and all the 'plans' they are making ought to give anyone the creeps. It's no wonder people think mistakenly that they are some sort of legitimate governing body!
November 17, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterJane
We really need to get out of the UN. I went to war in Bosnia thanks to those guys. It's bad enough having folks in Washington tell us what to do in NH, I certainly don't want folks in Brussels getting in on the action.
November 17, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterJim
The tongue comment was perhaps a little strong but it was meant to convey the idea that we would be judged in a court that was run by countries who have a different set of moral standards than ours with regard to crime and punishment. For example, the spanking law came out of the UN and people here now have been jailed for harmlessly disciplining their own children. Much of what we do, especially in our schools, is influenced by the control of the UN, which is given legitimacy by our own government. It's just wrong.

I urge everyone to write to Senators Sununu and Gregg and ask them to stop this nonsense, federal money be damned.
November 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterJane
Where is the mention of the black helicopters in this blog? Usually when people rail against the grave threat posed by the UN (a political body with exactly 0 armed forces, by the way), they mention how the black helicopters are flying around stealing our liberties. So why is there no mention of black helicopters?

I am disappointed. Come on. We can do better.
November 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterMike Emm
I'm sorry, but I can't follow this article.

Is the United Nations taking over land in Southern New Hampshire?

Jane -- Please fill in the gaps for us.

Matt perhaps you can help. Beyond anti UN Code, what is this all about?

November 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChaz Proulx
Uh, Jim, the UN is headquartered in New York, not Brussels. I hope this clears up any confusion you might be experiencing.

Chaz:

Yes, the UN is taking over land. The UN is going to send in black helicopters loaded with blue-helmeted troops to take over the Republican-dominated towns of Salem, Windham, Derry, and Londonderry. This will ensure Jeanne Shaheen wins in November and the Dems control the Senate. The plans for this were finalized at the Rockingham, Democratic Summit on Saturday, when Ban Ki-Moon met in a secret room with Ray Buckley,
November 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterMike Emm
Chaz,

We're talking about a very gradual transfer of both state and national sovereignty. More and more people are beginning to think of the UN as a legitimate world government. Hell, even Republicans argue for war "to enforce UN resolutions."

This park thing is just another very small step in the direction of world government. My central thesis is that power should be decentralized, not further centralized. And I think it's very appropriate to draw attention to these steps, although they may not make for sexy news pieces.

Mike,

ROFL, good one.

Matt
November 18, 2007 | Registered CommenterMatt Simon
Matt,

I understand your political philosophy, but for heaven's sake any story needs some facts a person can follow. I'm not trying to insult the author here, but I think this story illustrates how far you have to stretch to believe the UN is a one world government.

All this does is try to incite fear in people. The UN is messy yes,but it is the means by which the nations of the world have a continual forum

With all the problems we face, to get rid of the UN to satisfy unfounded fears is fool hardy.

That's my "pragmatic" side reasoning and speaking.
November 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChaz Proulx
Chaz,

We aren't talking about getting rid of the UN here (if only because we don't have the power to eliminate it). I'm just saying we should resist every effort to increase its scope and make it more of a "government."

The UN has meddled so heavily in the affairs of many nations that it's hard not to consider it a world government. If it was just a forum for discussion, I wouldn't be complaining, but when US troops put on powder blue helmets I get pretty concerned.

Matt
November 18, 2007 | Registered CommenterMatt Simon
Matt,

I only checked quickly, but "Freedom's Way" looks like a wonderful, very American project.

This article plays on peoples fears and paranoia, and as the intellectual you are, I hope you will consider what that does to the credibility of your movement.

This coupled with the annual UN flag burning rituals may feel good to UN bashers, but it just leaves me scratching my head.
November 20, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChaz Proulx
Sorry Chaz and Mike, but no part of my article was unfactual.

If you follow the progress of National Heritage Areas, you will see how they have become 'World' Heritage Areas. You can deny it's happening, but it's a fact perhaps you don't want to face.

I don't know what Mike Emm is smoking but it sounds like a typical nonsensical excuse for a response when not having a response at all.

The UN has a US HQ in NYC, yes, but its main HQs are overseas in Brussels and Belgium.

Once again, no part of Jim's post was unfactual.
And this is a good reason to want OUT of the UN,especially when you look at what is being done in our schools on their behalf.
May 17, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJane
Chaz and Mike,
What's so hard to follow here?

Right on the UN website I found facts backing what Jane wrote here. They do push for "world Heritage" sites.

The problem with it is it that its one more blow against state sovereignty.

How I'm sure is the question that popped in your minds... simple when we agree to the designation of a "world heritage" site we enter into a treaty with the UN which gives them control over the site. If a site is listed as "in danger" THEY, not us set the rules that must be meet to take it out of the "in danger" status. Part of what must be meet in order to get out of the "in danger" status is to create a buffer zone around the site. Read up on Yellow Stone. The UN by forcing a buffer zone was able to force closed a US gold mine that wasn't even in the park, it was simply within the buffer zone.

You can read the whole agreement here:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf
May 19, 2008 | Registered CommenterRichard Barnes

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.