We continue to speak against efforts to get the Alamo and four other mission sites designated as U.N. World Heritage sites. It is not that the U.N. would take over the Alamo (although I don't trust the U.N. for a second). But I am convinced this effort will open the door to U.N. influence in how we manage and preserve the Alamo.
The effort is exceedingly foolish, for five key reasons:
1. This is an invitation for the U.N. to have influence in the work of preserving and managing the Alamo. This editorial from June 17, 2013 is evidence the influence has already begun curtailing development.
2. This is part of a larger effort to blunt private citizen influence and elevate the influence of bureaucrats and U.N. officials. We've removed the Daughters of the Republic of Texas from their 105 year old role as custodians of the Alamo, yet we're inviting the U.N. to help us manage it. Very foolish.
3. The very agency that administers the U.N. World Heritage program (UNESCO) admitted Palestine (as in the Palestinian Liberation Organization - a group which practices terrorism) to their body (read here and here). U.S. federal law prohibits the U.S. from paying dues to any U.N. agency which admits Palestine. Yet, in Texas we want to cozy up to UNESCO?
4. The head of UNESCO (see link, page 4 of the pdf, first paragraph) has stated that the fundamental philosophy of the U.N. World Heritage program is that "these sites belong to everyone." Wrong. The Alamo belongs to Texans. We paid for it in blood.
5. There's not a single problem in Texas that needs the U.N.'s help to solve. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Politicians will tell you this effort to gain U.N. World Heritage designation is merely a "tourism designation." Such claims are simply wrong. As your Texas Land Commissioner, I'll take every step possible to stop this sort of foolishness.
| Tweet |
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Reject-the-Joske-s-tower-proposal-4605803.php
Factually, there has already been UN influence. Period.
David.
Rodriguez said he wrote his report as a “cautionary piece,” having lost faith in local elected leaders. In his piece, he wrote that the Alamo “may fall under U.N. influence.” Knowing that the Alamo stands for freedom, Rodriguez said, he did nothing wrong.
“I’m just constantly saying ‘may’ or ‘might,’” in the article, Rodriguez said late Wednesday. “I’m never once saying that this is going to happen. We need to be aware.” It’s unfortunate, the untruths that blogs like this regularly put out, and even worse that there are folks who are inclined to believe it. But for those who are wondering, it’s 100 percent untrue,
Showing 5 reactions