CROSSING THE RUBICON – Will the Alamo Fall Again?

When San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro revealed plans to designate the Alamo as a United Nation’s “World Heritage Site”, many Texans and patriots across America became incensed to learn that the UNESCO emblem may soon be flying over the ‘Shrine of Texas Liberty’.Image    The Alamo is esteemed in American history as the site of a heroic struggle against impossible odds — “a place where men made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. For this reason, the Alamo remains hallowed ground and the Shrine of Texas Liberty.”   []

A World Heritage designation requires the United States to conform to international standards on how a specific property is managed. The designation requires ”State parties” to report directly to a UNESCO committee regarding the ongoing status of properties so designated. [UNESCO]

The total area of the combined mission properties proposed for UNESCO designation, (including the required buffer zones), comprises 2,560.7 acres.—world-heritage-_toc_executive-.pdf

But let’s get a few things straight.  In the first place, this is not Mayor Castro’s plan. Designating the Alamo along with other Texas missions in the vicinity of San Antonio as a UNESCO “World Heritage” site is a Department of Interior- National Park Service plan in compliance with international standards and agreements.  President Obama made the proposal official last year.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has assured Texans that the U.N. flag will not be seen flying over the Alamo, and that nothing will change because of the designation except the potential for additional revenue:

“My legal team at the Land Office has reviewed this. I have personally met with the National Park Service staff working on this nomination and I am absolutely satisfied that a World Heritage Nomination will have no effect on the Alamo other than a possible increase in foreign tourists.”  [Jerry Patterson- Texas Land Commissioner]

The designation of properties and the ceding of American sovereignty piecemeal to the United Nations is nothing new.  Protected Lands designations are a major component of the Agenda for the 21st Century, an agenda supported and implemented by subsequent Democrat and Republican U.S. administrations.


“Sustainable development”, as it is sometimes called, with its disregard for private property rights and its communitarian natural resource management principles, has been adopted as the governing model for regional and local governments around the world.

Tourists drive right past the UNESCO placard displayed on the entrance sign to Grand Canyon National Park every day. “World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located.” [UNESCO]

unesco_world_heritage_signHere at home, no one batted an eye when Philadelphia’s Independence Hall was designated as a United Nations “World Heritage Site” in 1979.   No one rose up to tell the U.N. to take their filthy hands off of our Lady Liberty in 1984.  I did not see protesters lining up when UNESCO’s protected commons designation was placed on Yellowstone National Park in 1978, or Carlsbad Caverns in 1995, or on nearly two dozen other American landmarks.

So why are folks getting upset about the Alamo?

“Legend holds that with the possibility of additional help fading, Colonel Travis drew a line on the ground and asked any man willing to stay and fight to step over — all except one did.”

“As the defenders saw it, the Alamo was the key to the defense of Texas, and they were ready to give their lives rather than surrender their position to General Santa Anna.”  

(From the official Alamo website.)

Isn’t it clear by now that the enemy has already breached the walls of liberty?   Global consensus and international agreements have replaced the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land.  Our elected leaders no longer operate under or are held in check by Constitutional principles.  Everything from the amount of water allowed in our toilets to the drugs we are forced to inject into our children has become a matter for the government, not the individual, to decide.

We have allowed the deterioration of our individual freedoms and State rights.  The institution of universal government controlled healthcare complete with fines for non-compliance, the misuse and abuse of our military, and the brainwashing of our youth by a U.N. mandated “common core” (a.k.a. “World Core”) curriculum are just a few examples.

But the Alamo holds a special place, albeit an almost mythical nostalgic place, in the minds and hearts of the American people.  We should never forget that in 1836, a small contingent of patriots held off several thousand Mexican troops for 13 days before finally being overrun. The Alamo was America’s Masada.

Today, Americans are surrounded on all sides by a seemingly invincible enemy.  State and County borders don’t really matter anymore.  Our Federal government is fully committed to managing America on a regional basis for the “global common good”.  The Landscape Conservation Cooperative map that I discussed in a previous post, is just one of the new generation of maps being used to manage America’s land and people in compliance with Agenda 21 mandates.  The LCC map is important because it clearly shows that the Federal government no longer respects State or international boundaries.

The GAP Analysis Project begun under the Clinton administration feeds GIS data directly into the United States Protected Area Database (US-PAD), which then reports directly to the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA/IUCN), which monitors progress towards the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, (specifically- goal #7).  The IUCN  is using these maps to numerically categorize all of the land area within what used to be a sovereign nation.

“In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), GAP ensures PAD-US also supports continental and global decision making by maintaining World Database for Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Categories for linkage to the North American Terrestrial Protected Areas Database and WDPA.”

So, what difference does any of this make?  Are Americans willing to sell the Alamo to placate the global community or will the Alamo in 2014 become to Texan’s what the Rubicon was to Julius Caesar in 49 B.C., a line in the sand that once it is crossed, signifies total commitment, no turning back?  Keep in mind, that if Caesar had not crossed the Rubicon, that little river would have remained an insignificant stream with no real historical importance.

14 thoughts on “CROSSING THE RUBICON – Will the Alamo Fall Again?

  1. Dennis

    Maybe ten years ago, some pollster called my home and asked me what my number one concern was for the USA; I told him US sovereignty. He acted if he didn’t understand what I’d just said. Sadly we are seeing the fruit of the “One-worlders” and low information voters, and what they have accomplished!

  2. Ruth

    Great post Steve – thanks!

    Even with the acknowledgment of the early conservation programs initiated by Progressive US president Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot in the early 1900’s the present environmental/sustainable development strategy the US is enforcing takes its direction from the Global International strategists at the UN beginning with the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment also known as the Stockholm Conference in 1972 . The EPA outlines the history on their site including where Agenda 21 came into the picture.!OpenDocument

    Yesterday, Nov.1 2013 President Pinocchio signed a new executive order titled:

    Read about United Nations System-wide Earthwatch

  3. A World Heritage designation requires the United States to conform to international standards on how a specific property is managed. The designation requires ”State parties” to report directly to a UNESCO committee regarding the ongoing status of properties so designated. This is an intolerable usurpation of American sovereignty. The United States, and the citizens of Texas, should not have to account to the United Nations regarding the Alamo’s status.


    “World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located.”

    WORLD HERITAGE – Sustainable Tourism Programme Background

    In 2011 UNESCO embarked on developing a new World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme. The aim was to create an international framework for the cooperative and coordinated achievement of shared and sustainable outcomes related to tourism at World Heritage properties.


    Facilitate the management and development of sustainable tourism at World Heritage properties…

    Insure that all stakeholders are aware and committed to sustainable development…

    Insure that National, regional and local governments have policies and frameworks that recognise sustainable tourism…

    Provide World Heritage stakeholders with the capacity and the tools to manage tourism…

    Insure that Visitors understand and gain an appreciation of the meaning of Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage and adopt responsible behaviours…

  5. I posted the following comment on the official Alamo Authorized Facebook page under their Texas Land Commissioner Patterson press release thread. My comment was deleted in less than 12 hours. Here’s what I wrote:

    “A World Heritage designation requires the United States to conform to international standards on how a specific property is managed. The designation requires ”State parties” to report directly to a UNESCO committee regarding the ongoing status of properties so designated. This is an intolerable usurpation of American sovereignty. The United States, and the citizens of Texas, should not have to account to the United Nations regarding the Alamo’s status.”

    It should be noted that I also posted a link to the World Heritage page outlining “State Party” responsibilities and requirements which backed up my statement.

  6. UNESCO completely ignores the sacrifice of the 200 patriots who shed their blood for Texas independence! Instead, the UN has decided to cite the “Spanish colonial influence in the New World” as the sole justification for designating the Alamo and the other missions in the historic district as World Heritage properties.

    Justification of Outstanding Universal Value

    “The Franciscan missions of San Antonio are a remarkable concentration of surviving structures that are a spectacular representation of the Spanish colonial influence in the New World. The religious, economic, and technological system instituted by the friars transformed a nomadic aboriginal society into a settled one, which in turn became the basis of an ethnically diverse society that continues to influence what is today a major city.”

  7. ICOMOS is one of the major NGO’s pushing the “global commons” and/or World Heritage protected property designations.

    The ICOMOS charter states:

    “One of the four basic objectives for the preservation of historic towns and areas reads, in part: “Property owners and residents are central to the process of protection and must have every opportunity to become democratically and actively involved in decisions affecting each historic town and district.”

    Did the people living near Yellowstone, or the Alamo, have an opportunity to be “actively involved”, or debate the issue of whether or not to seek World Heritage designations for these properties? The answer is clearly “NO!”

    James K. Reap serves as President of the ICOMOS Committee on Legal, Administrative and Financial Issues of the International Council on Monuments and Sites and a member of the Board of Trustees of US/ICOMOS.

    Click to access reap.pdf

  8. The Alamo
    Hallowed American Ground or UN Captive?

    By Tom DeWeese

    In 1836, 150 courageous and dedicated men died defending the Alamo. They fought in opposition to the rise of authoritarian big government as Mexico abandoned its Republic. The men of the Alamo were essentially betrayed and sacrificed by their own Texas government because of indecision and bickering by its political leadership.

    Such a betrayal is about to happen again as our government is moving forward with plans to place the Alamo, symbol of American freedom, into the hands of the United Nations as a World Heritage Site.

    As usual, when government bureaucrats attempt such a move they know will bring criticism and anger, they start their denials in advance. We are always assured that a UN designation to American historic sites mean nothing. “It’s just an honorary designation that could help tourism to the site, and thus help the local economy”. We are constantly assured by government officials. And so it begins. Texas Land Commissioner, Jerry Patterson assures Texans that if the Alamo and several other former Spanish missions in San Antonio are added to UNESCO’s World Heritage list, the Alamo will remain under the control of the state of Texas and the Texas Land Office. Well, Commissioner Patterson, perhaps you don’t have all the facts on your desk.

    Many Americans have been disturbed to find that there are 22 areas in this nation that have been designated as United Nations’ World Heritage Sites. As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” such sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has gained control of sovereign American territory.

    These 22 US sites include such important American historical sites as Independence Hall (where the Declaration of Independence was signed), Thomas Jefferson’s home “Monticello,” and the entire University of Virginia, along with the Statue of Liberty. Also designated are such vast areas of land Yellow Stone National Park, Yosemite National Park, the Great Smoky Mountains and Everglades National Park (which UNESCO has now labeled as “endangered.” Fully 68 percent of American national parks, preserves and monuments are included in the current UN designations, including vast areas of park lands and wilderness areas such as the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, Joshua Tree National Monument in California, and the Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Texas, to name about half of the current US sites.

    Supporters of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing more than a great “honor” to the nation. They assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government.

    If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary? The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?

    As for the Alamo, The Daughters of the Republic of Texas (DRT) have been entrusted by the Texas State Legislature since 1905 with the care and maintenance of the Alamo. According to Texas law, the DRT must preserve the historic site “as a sacred memorial to the heroes who immolated themselves upon that hallowed ground.” The DRT receives no funds from state or federal sources and maintains the site purely with voluntary contributions.

    Obviously the UN has no great feel for the “hallowed ground” of the Alamo or what it means to the people of Texas, or the citizens of the United States. The UN apparently considers the Alamo to be just part of a grouping of historic buildings in the San Antonio area which it refers to as the “San Antonio Franciscan Missions.” Just another historic curiosity.

    Who Owns World Heritage Sites?

    So, is a World Heritage Site designation just an honorary program that will help local tourism? It is a direct threat to national sovereignty? Those supporting the programs correctly point out that UN documents specifically state that each nation maintains its own sovereignty.

    It is also true that you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns American soil through the World Heritage Site Treaty. And you will not find blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites.

    However, closer examination reveals that there is a direct threat to national sovereignty, just the same. The problem stems from the program mandates and implementation – and how they link to other treaties and agreements. If those mandates are accepted by Congress, they could lead to direct loss of American sovereignty.

    Dr. Michael Coffman, of Environmental Perspectives, Inc, explains, “when an international treaty or agreement is signed, we agree to the terms and conditions of the agreement, and by default we have given up a portion of our national sovereignty in order to meet those terms and conditions. And while the agreements do not specifically state that the United Nations has sovereignty, they do permit ‘partnerships’ and other forms of cooperation between the U.S. and the UN.”

    According to Dr. Coffman, “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.’ Such a designation mandates the U.S. to correct the problem or face withdrawal of the park by the UN as a World Heritage Site, accompanied by much negative publicity and world scorn. And since only the United Nation’s World Heritage Committee 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.”

    According to Professor Jeremy Rabkin, law professor at George Mason University School of Law, and author of the book, “Law without Nations?,” “(f)undamentally, sovereignty is an answer to the question: ‘who is in charge?’ There must be an answer to that question to answer the parallel question: ‘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.”

    However, Rabkin goes on to explain, “(t)he 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…”

    As Dr. Coffman makes clear, to fully understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the UN designation of World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program to a series of other treaties and policies, and how they impact American sovereignty. Above all, one must understand that many in the Federal Government, such as the Obama Department of Interior, see such programs as another tool to build massive federal land-control programs.

    There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use.

    The designation of United Nations’ World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to dispute it or undo the designation.

    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.

    That is exactly what happened outside of Yellowstone National Park (a World Heritage Site) when UNESCO delegates were called in by the Park Service in an attempt to stop the development of a gold mine – located OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates declared Yellowstone to be the first “endangered” World Heritage Site and called for a protective buffer zone of 150 MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND THE ENTIRE PARK. Such a buffer zone would stop development and access to millions of acres of private property. Such is the true purpose of the World Heritage Sites.

    Moreover, in becoming party to these international land-use designations through Executive Branch action, the United States 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.

    Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S. State Department published the “Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program.” Taken straight from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State Department program is to “create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.”

    A chief tactic used by the UN and the Federal Government when designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage Site is to rarely involve or consult with the public and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage Sites. The “Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the World Heritage Convention” state:

    “In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee.”

    In other words, the nominating committee is to hide the fact that a massive land grab is about to take place. Then, at the appropriate moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels to make them think they have something to say about the grab, then send them away, so that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren’t to worry about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of their property.

    This is not the way the U.S. Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United Nations run things. The Federal Government is allowing them to do it for the sake of more Federal power.

    By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE surrounding lands if necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring these agreements forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses of private lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS.

    In a nutshell, here is the real game being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the United States 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.

    These are the reasons why it’s clear that World Heritage Sites are an infringement of United States sovereignty. You won’t find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be found in understanding the “intent” and the “implementation” of the policies.

    Texas, one of the great freedom loving states in the Union, would do well to reconsider its naïve and misplaced efforts to sentence the Alamo to the UN’s web of control. The state may just find that it is once again out-gunned at the Alamo – this time by the UN.

  9. Dennis Tsiorbas

    Blowing the trumpet on this has become an existential effort; for me it’s another wake-up call. Thx, Dennis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s