Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, The U.N. Wont Own Or Run The Alamo, But
Hardhatters ^ | 10/30/2013 | Ryan Campbell

Posted on 10/31/2013 6:38:01 AM PDT by thetallguy24

alamo battle

Recently, alarms sounded when Infowars reported that the United Nations was going to take over the Alamo. Infowars also stated that the UN Flag could fly over the Alamo once it fell under UN control. We decided to investigate this, since the Alamo is the most historically significant symbol in Texas.

We discovered Missions of San Antonio as the primary advocate of this movement. According to the Missions of San Antonio Facebook page, their email contact is a National Park Service email address, saan_worldheritage@nps.gov. We called Missions of San Antonio and they did confirm that they are, in fact, staffed by federal employees and are seeking “World Heritage Site” status for the Alamo. One official stated, “we are working on document to make all five missions classified as one World Heritage site”.

The stated purpose, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), of the World Heritage status for any property, is national and international protection of the cultural and natural heritage. According to the treaty, which was ratified by the United States, each member nation must have a tentative list of culturally or historically important sites to nominate for the “World Heritage Site”, status. The San Antonio Franciscan Missions, which includes The Alamo, is on the tentative list submitted by the United States.

One eyebrow raiser is that the Texas General Land Office, (GLO) who has jurisdiction over the Alamo, and the Daughters of the Texas Republic, are both listed by Missions of San Antonio as fellow members of the steering committee seeking heritage status for the Alamo.

We called the General Land Office, and a spokesperson confirmed that that the GLO is on the steering committee. We were told by a spokesperson that they are in the third year of the applicaton process. It was recently submitted by President Obama to UNESCO for nomination could take up to 1-2 years for approval. Another spokesperson at the GLO stated that, “having heritage status will not change the ownership of the Alamo” and “Texas owns the Alamo and it will always own the Alamo”. When asked, The Daughters of the Republic of Texas had no comment.

jerry patterson Despite all the controversy, General Land Commissioner Patterson did tout a positive outcome of obtaining World Heritage status, “ I am absolutely satisfied that a World Heritage Nomination will have no affect on the Alamo other than a possible increase in foreign tourists.”

While The Alamo my never be owned or managed by the U.N., World Heritage Site status would open the door for UN and international assistance. Chapter 2, Article 6 and Chapter 5 of the treaty allows members to apply for international loans, grants, training and educational tools from the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO staff. Further, sites with World Heritage status are given guidelines for proper display of plaques and UNESCO/World Heritage emblems.

“Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List should be marked with the emblem jointly with the UNESCO logo, which should, however, be placed in such a way that they do not visually impair the property in question. Furthermore, the national authorities should encourage World Heritage properties to make a broad use of the Emblem such as on their letterheads, brochures and staff uniforms.”

In the end none of this may happen. The treaty requires its members to pay dues, and as usual, the Federal government owes back pay.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: alamo; texas; un; unitednations
So, why are we even doing this if it opens the door for UN emblems being at the Alamo and possible "international assistance?" Extra foreign tourism is such a lame excuse. There is no way the UN will allow Texas to glorify our most historical site as place of heroic battle against Mexico.

On a side note, this could hurt Jerry Patterson's election chances for Lt. Governor, since he is advocating this.

1 posted on 10/31/2013 6:38:01 AM PDT by thetallguy24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

Come and take it !


2 posted on 10/31/2013 6:39:33 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks ("Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24
When Klinton was president he signed over the national parks to the UN as heritage sites.
3 posted on 10/31/2013 6:41:35 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

According to the author’s link to the U.S.’s tentative list, all of these sites, including the San Antonio Missions were added on January 30, 2008. This would mean globalist George W. would have signed off on it. Doesn’t mean they are heritage sites yet, it just means they are able to be nominated now.


4 posted on 10/31/2013 6:44:44 AM PDT by thetallguy24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

I don’t like this at all.....


5 posted on 10/31/2013 6:45:44 AM PDT by Farnsworth (Now playing in America: "Stupid is the new normal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24
At first I thought the UN was going to take over this company.



But knowing them they'd run it right into the ground.
6 posted on 10/31/2013 6:47:39 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (I’m not a Republican, I'm a Conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farnsworth

Fat chance.


7 posted on 10/31/2013 6:48:11 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks ("Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

Possibly, the reason is that it means more funding and tourism for the site management.

If it becomes a world heritage site, I doubt they could lift the structure and transport it out of Texas, which would be absurd.


8 posted on 10/31/2013 6:49:43 AM PDT by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

So far there are 21 UN World Heritage Sites in the USA.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/US/

So far there are 13 properties that have been submitted on the tentative list although the Alamo is not listed yet.


9 posted on 10/31/2013 6:53:17 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (I’m not a Republican, I'm a Conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

Clinton non the less did sigh over properties of the us to the UN, some said for security of the national debt. While Clinton was in office there were Heritage signs at the entrances of parks. I saw them! They were there!


10 posted on 10/31/2013 6:55:25 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

The Alamo is under the San Antonio Franciscan Missions


11 posted on 10/31/2013 6:55:30 AM PDT by thetallguy24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

The Daughters of the Republic of Texas have managed to fend off the infidels all these years. I trust they will save the Alamo from the globalists until someone has to pry their cold, dead hands off their keys to that beloved Shrine of Texas Liberty.
Don’t Mess With Texas.


12 posted on 10/31/2013 6:57:20 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

At first I thought the UN was going to take over this company.

Bait and switch them.


13 posted on 10/31/2013 6:57:22 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

Please try. I have vowed to prioritize any target wearing a blue helmet.


14 posted on 10/31/2013 7:00:15 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bayard

Still..... camel’s nose under the tent.

Anything UN connected to ALAMO is sure nuf fightin words!

Patterson better start ‘splainin, nothing about the UN is conservative.


15 posted on 10/31/2013 7:00:52 AM PDT by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

No matter what the reason, if you see em shoot em.


16 posted on 10/31/2013 7:03:54 AM PDT by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

The Connecticut state flag hangs in the Alamo because men from Connecticut died there defending it. The same is true for many other states. Read me the roll of Blue Helmets who died there defending the Alamo and we’ll talk about UN insignia or flags.


17 posted on 10/31/2013 7:10:13 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24
Patterson had damned well better explain his position on this issue, or he's lost my vote and that of every person that I can contact about it. Its bad enough that the friggin' UN is in NYC, but inviting those bastards to Texas is UNACCEPTABLE.

Unless, of course, Patterson owns a company which supplies blue helmets to the UN - because they're going to need a LOT of new ones.

18 posted on 10/31/2013 7:11:45 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Usually, when the going gets tough, the Blue Helmets get going...home.


19 posted on 10/31/2013 7:33:13 AM PDT by jmcenanly ("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24
According to the Missions of San Antonio Facebook page, their email contact is a National Park Service email address, saan_worldheritage@nps.gov.

!!!!!!

20 posted on 10/31/2013 7:38:05 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Is John's moustache long enough YET?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Texas Official Tries To Rope In Rumors About U.N. Alamo Takeover

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson: The "Alamo Will Not Go Under UN Control"

Alamo not being turned over to United Nations Patterson attempted once again to let Texans know that if the Alamo and the other Spanish missions in San Antonio are added to the UNESCO World Heritage List, the Alamo will remain entirely under the control of the state of Texas and the Texas General Land Office.

Responding to a media report that the UN flag will fly over the Alamo, Patterson responded bluntly: "Horse hockey."

Patterson reiterated that a World Heritage Nomination will not change authority, jurisdiction or ownership of the Alamo or any of the other Spanish missions.

21 posted on 10/31/2013 7:45:09 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Is John's moustache long enough YET?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

Just another aspect of AGENDA 21!


22 posted on 10/31/2013 7:45:36 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

Can’t believe anyone would vote for Patterson if for no other reason than he is an outspoken advocate of a greatly increased guest worker program. At one time our family did support him but after him speak twice on the “virtues” of such a program he lost us.

Still haven’t been able to find Abbott’s true position on immigration in Texas. Not a good sign for him.


23 posted on 10/31/2013 7:51:00 AM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24

Ssshh, don’t confuse people with facts when they are repeating stuff from emails they got forwarded in 1997.


24 posted on 10/31/2013 8:20:08 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24
The stated purpose, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), of the World Heritage status for any property, is national and international protection of the cultural and natural heritage

Yeah...the World Heritage Organization really helped protect those giant Buddas in Afghanistan from them Taliban types:

Oh wait ....

25 posted on 10/31/2013 8:21:26 AM PDT by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

Could be in body bags from Texas.


26 posted on 10/31/2013 8:44:22 AM PDT by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44 (22 Yr, Navy Vet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thetallguy24
See HERE:

he Senate unanimously provided advice and consent to ratification of the Convention in 1973,

27 posted on 10/31/2013 9:32:21 AM PDT by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

If you believe that affiliating the Alamo with the World heritage is beneficial, you need to do one helluva lot of research and get your head on straight. there is nothing about the UN that is beneficial to anything that doesn’t support globalism. The UN does not finance anything that doesn’t finance the UN.

You Texans had better wise up before it’s too late!


28 posted on 10/31/2013 10:10:58 AM PDT by B4Ranch (AGENDA: Grinding America Down ----- <<http://vimeo.com/63749370)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
If you believe that affiliating the Alamo with the World heritage is beneficial, you need to do one helluva lot of research and get your head on straight

Don't put words in my mouth and then pick a fight over them. I never said any such thing.

29 posted on 10/31/2013 10:14:21 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Is John's moustache long enough YET?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

I don’t see you posting anything that I’d consider anti UN. Instead you did post the UN email address as if that’s going to do any good. And you did post three websites that are pro UN, so tell us just what it is that you think you are saying.


30 posted on 10/31/2013 10:19:44 AM PDT by B4Ranch (AGENDA: Grinding America Down ----- <<http://vimeo.com/63749370)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

My first post on this thread was to indicate surprise that the NPS was hosting the email of the organization in question.

My second was merely to provide background to the controversy that Jerry Patterson has found himself in. The links are not to UN websites; they are to news organizations that were reporting on Patterson.

In neither case did I advocate for UN involvement in anything.


31 posted on 10/31/2013 10:27:44 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Is John's moustache long enough YET?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Clinton non the less did sigh over properties of the us to the UN

Heritage Sites aren't "signed over" to the UN.

32 posted on 10/31/2013 4:58:11 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

I heard this on the radio and reporters are notorious for lack of proper information.


33 posted on 10/31/2013 6:11:09 PM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson