UN to take over the Alamo

Status

reddog

Member
Jul 19, 2013
194
16
» United Nations To Take Over The Alamo Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

San Antonio, Texas Mayor Julián Castro is currently negotiating with the United Nations to designate the Alamo as a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site, meaning that a blue UN flag may fly above the historic shrine of liberty once it falls under UN control.
 

benenglish

Just Another Boomer
Staff member
Moderator
Lifetime Member
Admin
Nov 22, 2011
14,986
113
Spring
No. Just...no. That piece is alarmist crap.

This has been covered before, so I'll just copy, paste, and do some minor editing to something I wrote previously. To wit -

The World Heritage Site was originally an idea from the U.S. We led the world in creating the whole idea of National Parks and in 1965 a White House study group proposed that something similar be done internationally. A bunch of nations got on board with that idea via the U.N.

Mostly, it's a bureaucratic waste of money. A U.N. plaque will be placed somewhere on the grounds where it does not detract from the overall appearance of the site. There is absolutely no requirement to fly the U.N. flag. Yes, the Infowars piece references a site that does fly the flag. However, it's not required or even mentioned in the Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention. The decision to fly that flag at the example site in Illinois was purely the bright idea of some local administrator.

The World Heritage Site designation sometimes serves a legitimate purpose. If something of real historical, cultural, or natural significance is threatened with destruction, theoretically all the nations that have signed on to the program will chip in a few bucks to save whatever is threatened. Some good work of that sort has been done on multiple occasions, especially along the Nile.

Also, designation of a location as a World Heritage Site automatically puts it under the protection of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. So, since these sites are supposed to be off-limits during war, neither side is supposed to use them to support their war effort. Also, neither side is supposed to willfully damage such sites.

That means if we ever get into an all-out war again, no signatory to the agreement that created the site registry should ever attack:

Now, just because this is all basically a nice idea that has grown a bureaucracy to administer it doesn't mean it is or isn't a legitimate government or U.N. function or worth the money spent on it. Everybody will have their opinion on that. The reason the U.N. pays any attention to historic or significant sites like national parks is only because the U.S. asked them to back in 1965.

UNESCO doesn't "take over" or "manage" anything. This is not worth getting worked up over.
 

Mexican_Hippie

TGT Addict
TGT Supporter
Feb 4, 2009
12,301
36
Fort Worth
Alex Jones is a government plant to make alternative news look crazy. The guy has got to be on the .gov dole......or he's insane.

I'd buy either of those stories but not much out of his mouth.
 

Texasjack

TGT Addict
TGT Supporter
Jan 3, 2010
4,006
113
Occupied Texas
No doubt that the Alamo is a sensitive subject, and nobody with half a brain should trust the UN to do anything except foster corruption. I have to wonder why anybody bothers with such a crap like this world heritage stuff.
 

Kennydale

Active Member
Jun 3, 2013
909
38
Richmond/Rosenberg, TX
Welcome to Texas(b).jpg
 
Status
Top Bottom