“The US government is moving forward with plans to place the Alamo, a symbol of American Freedom, into the hands of the United Nations” Tom DeWeese
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the United Nations is nothing more than a Socialist organization embedded with would-be dictators salivating over the grandiose idea of world government, under their control, of course. They’ve been working toward that goal since their inception through the use of treaties that destroys the sovereignty of any nation dumb enough to sign on. What many do not know is that the U.S. government is a co-conspirator in that effort.
There are currently twenty-two (22) sites in this nation that have been designated Heritage Sites, under the UN treaty “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural Heritage.” It was the U.S. that initiated the idea of cultural conservation in 1965, to “preserve the world’s natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the “world citizenry,” and the US was the first nation to sign it when it was adopted on November 16, 1972.
World Heritage sites in the U.S. include Independence Hall where the Declaration of Independence was signed, Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, and the entire University of Virginia, vast areas of land at Yellow Stone, Yosemite, and the Great Smokey Mountains, which the UN labeled as “endangered,” the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Mesa Verde, the Joshua Tree National Monument and the Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Texas, to name only a few
We were told that to have a World Heritage site was an honor, that the treaty was no threat to American sovereignty and that all these designated sites would remain under the control of the U.S. If that were the case, there would be no need of an international treaty? These sites were already protected under federal law.
While it is true you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns these “Heritage” sites, a close examination of the treaty shows a direct threat to our national sovereignty in the terms, mandates and conditions and in how this treaty relates to other UN treaties and agreements.
Dr. Michael Coffman, of Environmental Perspectives, Inc, explains, that when an international treaty or agreement is signed, agreeing to the terms and conditions by default cedes a portion of our sovereignty in order to meet those terms and conditions. “This type of ‘cooperation’ was demonstrated in 1995 when the Department of Interior invited the World Heritage Committee to visit Yellowstone National Park for the expressed purpose of declaring the park a ‘World Heritage Site in Danger.’ This designation mandates that the U.S. correct any problems that UN declared or face withdrawal of the park from the World Heritage Site. “Since only the United Nation’s can remove the ‘In Danger’ classification, the United States is forced to abide by the Committee’s recommendations, thereby, indirectly giving up its sovereign right to govern itself.”
Jeremy Rabkin, law professor at George Mason says that “fundamentally, sovereignty is an answer to the question: ‘who is in charge? Who is responsible? A sovereign government is responsible for the territory over which it exercises its sovereignty. That is the traditional principle in international law. The assumption behind the World Heritage program is that a site of special historic, cultural or scenic importance is better protected by an international consortium of governments than by the particular sovereign state on whose territory it exists. In other words, such sites will be better protected by diffusing responsibility for their protection among many different governments…”
To understand the danger of all this, you have to link this particular program to a series of other treaties and policies to see how they impact our sovereignty. In becoming party to these international land-use designations through Executive action, the US is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Biodiversity Treaty, a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the United States Senate. Many in the Federal Government, such as the Obama Department of Interior see these UN agreements as yet another tool to build massive federal land-control programs.
Close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the World Heritage Site Committee and the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand-in-hand with the UN Sustainable Development [Agenda 21]. This UN program, along with Obama’s “green agenda” is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program to dictate property development on a local level in the guise of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development [Agenda 21] is to lock up vast areas of American land, shield it from private use, thereby delegating American citizens to government approved development, and once a designation is determined, it results in the centralization of policy-making authority in the Executive Branch. There is literally no opportunity for private land owners to dispute it or undo it.
Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the designated area. Not only has the federal government been using these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of, these lands to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site.
Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the US will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these lands.
Source: American Policy Organization
