[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: What Business of the U.N. Is the Operation of the Alamo? In a possible development that would have Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Travis rolling in their graves, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is considering designating the Alamo a World Heritage Site. Such a designation brings along a myriad of restrictions, and although proponents of the designation, such as San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro, insist that the State of Texas would still have authority over the site, many serious concerns of the people of Texas are not being addressed. For one thing, such a designation establishes a "buffer zone" of some 4,500 acres around the site, which could affect thousands of Texan property owners in the area. A reminder of what this could mean can be found in the aftermath of Yellowstone National Park being declared a "World Heritage Site in Danger" during the Clinton administration. A privately owned mine located miles away from the park was forced to close under the auspices of this declaration. The principle of property rights is an alien concept to the world government bureaucrats of the United Nations. The collectivist nature of these true believers is that the less enlightened inhabitants of other countries need to sacrifice their rights for the good of the world collective. So now Texans are faced with violation of their property rights due to regulations handed down by an international body over which they have no course of redress. The final insult was delivered by local officials who said that such a designation would bring "an immense honor" to the Alamo. So the ultimate price paid by the some 180 defenders of the Alamo was not enough to deliver "immense honor," but a U.N. designation would finally make the site worthy of note. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Ah, not to worry. The U.S. has not even paid dues to that group for over two years. Just recently they took away the U.S. vote at the UNESCO general council. They can't even collect their dues, much less mess with Texas.
#4. To: nolu chan (#3) Ah, not to worry. The U.S. has not even paid dues to that group for over two years. Just recently they took away the U.S. vote at the UNESCO general council. They can't even collect their dues, much less mess with Texas. History is not a snapshot. It moves. It may not be a threat today but what about in the future? I believe that the UN is alien to the founders vision of the country.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
History is not a snapshot. It moves. It may not be a threat today but what about in the future? Well... the Civil War acted as a second American revolution. Among other gifts were the then unconstitutional unapportioned income tax and the IRB, later renamed the IRS, to enforce it. In 1913 came the 16th Amendment to make an unapportioned income tax legal. All that may be homegrown American, but it was and remains alien to the founders' vision of the country (except the Hamiltonians). Add the Federal Reserve. Much of the 14th Amendment is also alien to the founders. You are certainly correct that the UN is alien to the founders' vision. The current leviathan Federal (near National) government is alien to the founders. They envisioned a very small, relatively weak Federal government with limited powers as delegated by the people. Not only is a UN government so alien, so is the United States government. But then, who created the UN and where is the HQ at?
Replies to Comment # 5. There are no replies to Comment # 5.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|