August 22, 2019

A Maine National Park Would Be Racist – a Place to Lynch Black People, Promote “White Privilege”

You can’t make this stuff up. It’s just too bizarre and perverted. However, the National Park Service Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance, Mickey Fearn, told the world that black people don’t visit our national parks because there are trees there and those trees remind them of lynchings – this according to Sultan Knish on his website.

The United State’s first national park was Yellowstone. It opened in 1872, a few years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Not that some lynchings of black people didn’t happen after the Proclamation but I doubt there were many in our national parks. So, it must be the trees that some within the administration of the National Park Service find offensive. That presents a real problem.

According to Knish, the origins of such nonsense came from a person who was denied tenure at U Cal Berkeley and this was because of racism, she claims, not failure to achieve according to academic standards of the university. Knish writes of Carolyn Finney: “These days she’s a diversity advisor to the U.S. National Parks Advisory Board. What wasn’t good enough for UC Berkeley is good enough for national parks. She is also the author of Black Faces, White Spaces. In it she claims that “oppression and violence against black people in forests and other green spaces can translate into contemporary understandings that constrain African-American environmental understandings.” Yessiree Bub! You betcha!

If Finney, and evidently Fearn, are representative of the direction the National Park Service is headed and the goals they intend to achieve, one has to seriously consider whether such below-the-dung-heap, brainless and perverted idiots should be part of any proposed national park or national monument like the ones being pushed in Maine. Why do we allow our tax dollars to be spent on such programs and the representatives of them?

While most of the debate in Maine has been whether or not the local residents want a national park in their back yards and whether it actually would hurt or help the economy, to this point I haven’t heard much talk about the psychological make-up of members of the administration of the National Park Service. I certainly hope others see such beliefs as far from normal.

We also know that President Obama appointed Roxanne Quimby, the individual who owns the land that she is determined to either make into a national park or a national monument, to the Board of Directors of the National Park Foundation.

Certainly I’m not remotely suggesting that Roxanne Quimby, because she wants a national park in Maine, is a racist or promotes the insanity of the individuals calling the existence of trees racism. One would have to be totally lacking in any brain matter at all to think that the establishment or existence of a national park, or any park for that matter, is somehow racially connected. What should come into question however, is the mental stability, along with real racism that may exist with the administrative structure of the National Park Service/Foundation.

It is one thing to call out legitimate racial issues and expose them for all the right and proper reasons. This is utter nonsense, that if brought to the forefront of any kind of discussions on race only a short time ago, would have resulted in straight jackets and institutionalization. Anyone who sees a tree as a threat to them due to “white privilege” and racism, don’t need education in racism, they need to be immediately removed from their influences within the National Park Service…for starters.

Knish further writes: “Influential figures in the National Park Service reject the fundamental idea of preserving natural beauty. They view a forest as a “white concept” full of scary racist trees. Or at least that’s what they claim.”

So what are we supposed to do with all the trees – at least those big enough to hang a person from? This, I’m sure, if agreed upon by the U.S. Government, should result in the immediate destruction of all trees and anything that tree might remind a sufferer of this syndrome of.

Knish further expounds of the diversion tactic of this nonsense in order to continue the “Shartoning” of this nation, i.e. destroying the national parks in order to deflect the money from “racist” parks to prop up more racial programs – the likes of which Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made a living. I’ll let readers decide on that one.

Regardless of the desire for results of those whackos who make such absurd statements, they are representatives of the National Park Service. Shouldn’t it be for that reason alone, the State of Maine, and any other state, should do whatever is necessary to make sure that a United States Government that appoints/allows people who say and do insane things, has no further holding and control over them.

If nothing else, Roxanne Quimby and her representatives, should publicly denounce such extremists statements, demanding that these people no longer have influence over the National Park Service. If that is not sincerely done, then Quimby should resign her position on the board of directors.

If not, then what are we left to think?

RacismMaineNationalPark

SmokeyBearRacist

Share

Mainers Should Be Fearful Of a National Park/Monument Designation

Many Maine residents feel threatened by the prospect of Roxanne Quimby giving her land, and land that doesn’t belong to her, to the Federal Government for the purpose of a proposed national park. One of the biggest concerns that Maine residents have is they do not want the Federal Government having more power over lands and regulations in the Pine Tree State. Most of these same residents, while justifiably fearful of a central government, don’t fully understand the structure and history of a corrupt government – in this case the National Park Service/Foundation.

Before I provide links to information where readers can determine for themselves how concerned they really should be, let me first remind readers that Roxanne Quimby is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Park Foundationappointed by Barack Obama.

Several years ago, I wrote, “The Crippling and Destructive Power of the Endangered Species Act.” In that piece, I wrote of the World Heritage Convention (WHC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Their written goals are: “By adopting the Global Strategy, the World Heritage Committee wanted to broaden the definition of World Heritage to better reflect the full spectrum of our world’s cultural and natural treasures and to provide a comprehensive framework and operational methodology for implementing the World Heritage Convention. This new vision goes beyond the narrow definitions of heritage and strives to recognize and protect sites that are outstanding demonstrations of human coexistence with the land as well as human interactions, cultural coexistence, spirituality and creative expression. Crucial to the Global Strategy are efforts to encourage countries to become States Parties to the Convention, to prepare Tentative Lists and to prepare nominations of properties from categories and regions currently not well-represented on the World Heritage List.”[emboldening added]

In addition I wrote: “Because the U.S. is a signed member of WHC/UNESCO, we are obligated through this convention to designate and/or establish “World Heritage sites”, i.e. Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades, etc. This convention also demands the protection of habitat for listed threatened or endangered species. Ceding control of these public properties is troubling enough, but the Convention becomes even more far reaching. WHC/UNESCO is granted power through this treaty, signed by the U.S. to take “buffer zones” around “World Heritage properties” if they so deem it necessary for the protection of “their” property. These “buffer zones” can be as wide as 5 miles, or whatever is necessary to “preserve” world heritage. It just could be your land and your property.”

Must I remind readers that according to the U.S. Constitution, all Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land?

The United States Government, the Department of State and the National Park Service/Foundation, work with the United Nations through the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) to nominate places for protection.

Readers and Maine residents should bear in mind that the WHC has stated that they are looking to protect and preserve any lands, private or public, that, if disturbed in any way would disrupt or in any way negatively effect “endangered or threatened” species – flora or fauna.

Maine residents recently learned of a lawsuit to stop the state from cutting timber on public land that might pose a danger to the endangered Atlantic salmon. The person who is bringing the lawsuit has been instrumental in getting the Atlantic salmon federally protected. Is it a mere coincidence that this public land sits adjacent to property owned by Roxanne Quimby; land she intends to be either a national park or a national monument and attempts are underway to stop the harvesting of trees? I’ll let you decide.

In addition to the Quimby park and/or monument proposal, Maine residents shouldn’t forget about efforts that are still ongoing to turn a million or more acres of the Great North Woods into national park wilderness.

While readers chew on the fact that Quimby sits on the board of the Park Foundation, and by that position is eligible to work with to discover and nominate lands, both private and public, for protection under the World Heritage Convention, are we to still consider her proposal as only a mere gesture of kindness? Don’t forget, she also has been quoted publicly as saying that Americans should not have the right to own land – even though she does herself, utilizing a capitalist system to earn millions of dollars in order to own that land.

But there is more to the Federal Government threat to Maine people than whether of not Roxanne Quimby is suspect in getting her land turned over the Feds or the United Nations. The National Park Service and the National Park Foundation have a terrible history of caring for the property they take or inherit as well as using deceitful tactics and outright corruption and criminal acts to destroy lands designated as parks and monuments as they so please, in order to fulfill political and environmental agendas.

Consider what the National Park Service did to the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Vails Ranch on Santa Rosa Island. Where once the Point Reyes National Seashore was established, legally and with full support, as a means of protecting a portion of the California seacoast by protecting the ranching community. The protected ranching community was a way of ensuring that urban sprawl and development wouldn’t take over the land.

Because Environmentalism is against ranching, farming, growing crops, etc., they have destroyed the original foundations of the National Seashore, in order to rid the land of ranching. One has to ask what protections are there in designating any land as a park or a monument if stuff like this can happen. Readers should also not get hung up on whether they agree with doing away with ranching or any other environmental-activist cause. They should be aware that government corruption will do just as it damn well pleases. This time it happened to have been the destruction of ranching. What will it be next time?

We know from history that an overreaching government “takes” lands adjacent to parks and monuments in the name of protection. The U.N. Treaty with WHC demands that “buffers” be taken around “sites” for further protection. If the Quimby parcel is designated as a “monument” by Barack Obama before he leaves office, what assurances do Maine residents have that any of that land will actually be protected from anyone or anything? In addition, because Maine owns land adjacent to Quimby, public lands and Baxter State Park, do we have any sense of honesty and decency that our Federal Government will honor its pledges? Can we assume that the U.S. Government will automatically, according to treaty, take more land as a buffer? Or will all access, all industry and all recreation be banned due to government regulation and Environmentalism?

There is one more thing that Mainers should consider. This year marks the 100-year anniversary of the National Park Service. We also know that the National Park Service is some $11.9 billion dollars behind in maintenance and upkeep. In short, like with most Federal lands, government is eager to “take” the land but not too eager to take care of it.

In consideration of the 100-year birthday and lack of money, members of Congress have proposed a bill as a part of the 100-year celebration to find better ways to fund the National Park Foundation. One of those is to appropriate $25,000,000.00 a year, from 2017-2023 (inclusive)($1.75 billion) to be used to match funds from “private” donations. What could possibly go wrong?

Anyone with eyes willing to see, realizes that money is the root of all corruption. We witness year after year big money buying political favors only to be answered with huge payoffs after certain parties win office. It matters not which party. The only limitation of the corruption that will prevail once the Department of Interior and the National Park Service begin taking bribes from so-called private donations, is in one’s mind.

If Maine residents think they have their hands full of trying to work with Ms. Quimby to keep her land open for recreational access, go ahead and invite the most corrupt U.S. Government, through the National Park Foundation, World Heritage Convention and the United Nations to take ownership of a big chunk of land right next to Baxter State Park.

For those who don’t have or are quickly losing faith and trust in a central government, consider that changes proposed within the above mentioned bill, include changing the appointment of the Chairman of the Board of the National Park Foundation, from a position voted on by the Board, to a paid position (Level V) appointed by the sitting president.

These reasons I have laid out for you, are reason enough to fight to make sure the Feds don’t get an invitation. If they want the land, they will take the land whether we want them to or not. But, let’s not give them a damned invitation.

 

Share

For Quimby, National Park or Nothing?

*Editor’s Note* – What Roxanne Quimby does with her land is her business. However, once she announced her wishes to turn her land into a national park, her business becomes the concern of all citizens of the United States.

Mr. Robbins suggests other interesting options for Ms. Quimby but I am still perplexed by her insistence that, “It’s a national park or nothing.” It makes little sense other than to believe there are behind-the-curtain, sinister deals at hand. What, I am not sure, but I have some ideas and have mentioned them in other articles written about this proposal.

We have a sitting president, the one who appointed Quimby to the board of directors of the National Park Foundation, who loves to get around the wishes of the public and follow the constitution by penning executive actions. Are we to expect that Obama will find a way to grant Ms. Quimby her wish and turn her land into a national park?

Quimby says there is no “Plan B.” We’ll see.

In 2000, Robbins Lumber put a conservation easement on the 20,767 acres surrounding Nicatous and West Lakes to protect the land forever. In addition, the state acquired 76 islands and 243 acres connecting to the Duck Lake Public Reserve Unit.

I told Roxanne Quimby about this project in 2011 at a meeting of the Maine Forest Products Council because I wanted her to know she had other options — options that would unite Mainers, not divide them. Her answer was, “There is no plan B. It is a national park or nothing. There are no other options.”

Source: There are non-national park options that make everybody a winner — Opinion — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Share