Skip to comments.No, The U.N. Won’t Own Or Run The Alamo, But…
Posted on 10/31/2013 6:38:01 AM PDT by thetallguy24
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, firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.
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.
On a side note, this could hurt Jerry Patterson's election chances for Lt. Governor, since he is advocating this.
Come and take it !
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.
I don’t like this at all.....
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.
So far there are 21 UN World Heritage Sites in the USA.
So far there are 13 properties that have been submitted on the tentative list although the Alamo is not listed yet.
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!
The Alamo is under the San Antonio Franciscan Missions
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.
At first I thought the UN was going to take over this company.
Bait and switch them.
Please try. I have vowed to prioritize any target wearing a blue helmet.
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.
No matter what the reason, if you see em shoot em.
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.
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.
Usually, when the going gets tough, the Blue Helmets get going...home.
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.
Just another aspect of AGENDA 21!
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.
Ssshh, don’t confuse people with facts when they are repeating stuff from emails they got forwarded in 1997.
Yeah...the World Heritage Organization really helped protect those giant Buddas in Afghanistan from them Taliban types:
Oh wait ....
Could be in body bags from Texas.
he Senate unanimously provided advice and consent to ratification of the Convention in 1973,
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!
Don't put words in my mouth and then pick a fight over them. I never said any such thing.
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.
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.
Heritage Sites aren't "signed over" to the UN.
I heard this on the radio and reporters are notorious for lack of proper information.