Three Things to Watch for at Town Meeting

by Jane Aitken

Once again it is that time of year when NH residents will attend town meetings, school meetings, and deliberative sessions to decide how their tax dollars will be spent. They will make decisions about the education of their children. Since we in NH cherish our right to local control, I present to you three things to be wary of during these discussions.

There will likely be present operatives from a group going by the name of "Granite State Fair Tax Coalition". They may be offering any number of "resolutions" for approval in the form of warrant articles.

First, just who is GSFTC? Do not let the NH-sounding name fool you into thinking these are locals. If you examine the list of supporting groups, you will see among them are the New Hampshire/Vermont District Unitarian-Universalist Societies, and their political action arm, Faithful Democracy New Hampshire UUA.

Visiting any of these "church" websites will reveal nothing more than a politically-oriented agenda dedicated not to the worship of God, but to the promotion of the goals of the United Nations.

If you check the Universalist Unitarian Action Network's website at:

http://www.uuactionnetworknh.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=16&Itemid=31

you will see that their main priorities are "state tax equality" (income tax), "access to health care" (socialized medicine) and "addressing global warming" (UN carbon tax).

These citizens petitioned warrant articles may contain resolutions calling for our candidates for State Representative, State Senator, and Governor to reject the local "Taxpayers Pledge". This is an attempt to demonize the taking of the pledge by our fiscally responsible legislators to reject any broadbased new tax and to make way for a new state tax on our income. The article may even include the consideration of an income tax or be amended to include it.

However, the reasoning behind this action seems purely psychological and simply a means to change the mindset, since freedom of speech dictates that one's right to take the pledge cannot be legislated away. Candidates can and will continue to take it if they expect to be elected.

The argument against a state income tax is a strong one, shown in studies such as the Yankee Institute of Connecticut's "15 Years of Folly" which proved that the added burden of a state income and sales tax made NO significant impact on the lowering of property taxes.

http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/files/pdf/fifteen.pdf

Second, these articles may contain resolutions demanding that the Governor "do something" about "global warming". Some adamantly claim that humans have caused climate change and that this is an undisputable fact and thus not subject to any more discussion. Recently the founder of the Weather Channel pronounced global warming as a scam and pure "propaganda". Like many other scientists, he asserts that global weather and temperature fluctuations are a natural occurrence and that the hysteria over global warming is being stirred up for political reasons. I agree that the UN is interested in collecting the "carbon tax" in order to fund their goal of a single, central government, guided by a new constitution written by them.

In fact, Senator Obama has recently proposed a bill that would effectively be a global tax:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml

Finally, rarer but starting to make some inroads, on the school side, there may be propositions to investigate expensive "international education" curriculae in the form of something called "IB". These are politically motivated programs devised by the United Nations and centered out of Geneva, Switzerland, geared more toward the acclimation students as early as the age of 3 into the role of "global citizens" subject to the rules of "global government" as laid out by UN documents such as the UDHR, Earth Charter, and Agenda 21.

Like the Goals 2000 and the NCLB Acts before it, IB schools attempt to instill an early acceptance of these UN "world government" standards and defies local control. These teachings about governmental loyalties are directly contrary to our US Constitutional government and our country's national sovereignty. These programs seem more about restructuring society and changing attitudes, than educating, and their founders are very up front about it. Even the tests children take would be graded in Geneva.

The principles in the aforementioned UN documents undermine the founding principles of the United States, the main one being that human rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, are inherent and inalienable, and must be protected by government, as is stated in our Declaration of Independence. The UDHR on the other hand, states exactly as follows: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." [article 29, paragraph 3]. The view of human rights held by the United States is the foundation of liberty. The view of the United Nations is the foundation of totalitarianism.

So never mind the faulty and omissive nature of the academics offered within this "IB" program, it also promotes the redistribution of wealth between nations and within nations per the UN, that people have no right to bear arms, does not allow for limited government and reserved powers, does not recognize natural law, and does not guarantee that property cannot be taken by government without just compensation.

Is this what we want our children to be taught?

Is it any wonder there is so much opposition to ridding the country of the Federal Department of Education? A lot of these globalist programs have already for years been implemented through Federal mandates which follow UN guidelines, even without schools ever having adopted "IB".

Where will this all end?

So, as you approach your town meeting season and look over your ballots, please read your choices carefully. It would seem that tax- exempt 'religious' organizations should not be going around advocating for more taxes, and people carrying the agenda of outsiders should not be allowed to promote same at town meetings. All voters in the interest of retaining local control. should be aware of the forces behind the articles on which they will be asked to vote.

+++++++

Among other things, Jane Aitken is a computer consultant, retired educator, and conservative activist who lives in New Hampshire.