Parks and Monuments owned by UN?

[Bismark]

I read this on another forum and it cae from a guy who does his research. Anyone else ever heard of this?

Yes, this tid bit of information is true, and it happened way back in 1995 during King Clinton's reign. At that time he allowed the United Nations to take over 20 of our National Parks, using the authority of a 1972 treaty called the WORLD HERITAGE TREATY which came about as a result of the Convention On World Heritage. This treaty was signed by the U.S. on Nov. 16th 1972 during Richard Nixon's time in office. The Great Smokey Mountain National Park had a sign at the main entrance which changed its name to - "Great Smokey Mountain Park - A United Nations Biosphere Reserve". Yellowstone, Redwood Park, The Everglades Nat Park, and Yosemite are a few of the parks taken from us under this ******** treaty. It says in the constitution that a treaty does not trump the law of the land. So why were these politicians not arrested for violating their oath of office and betraying the American people? Google UNESCO World Heritage Treaty and you will be astounded at what these traitors have done.


Scary if true,

Aaron

[Just_learning]

I imagine that if this is true(i have not verified) that having the UN assisting in running these parks it would generate a lot of international revenue and attraction from travelers. Seeing as the dollar is pretty much crap right now, bringing people over to spend money seems mighty smart since Americans dont seem to be able to travel to these places this summer because of food and fuel costs....why not share the beauty? Maybe we can get some more international support to keep these places a little greener for a little longer.

I dont see how this can be a bad things seeing as we have a historic track record for making things worse in the spectrum of wildlife preservation and increasing habitat.

Funny that this comes up, I was in SF last week and met a couple from Spain on Fishermans Wharf. They had flown here and are planning on roadtripping to Yellowstone, Yosemite and a few others. I guess it depends on what way you look at it, we can exploit the UN for some things and damn it for others. Its really a double edged sword and we are sitting on the dull side.

We can talk about arresting politicians who do not uphold oaths on another board.

[ampersat]

I'm surprised this was totally debunked on Snopes. I was able to find the following at this page:

Articles 4-6 of the convention are key. While nations recognize the duty of ensuring the identification, protection and conservation of World Heritage sites belongs primarily to them, the nation state signing the treaty also agrees to do "all it can" to protect these sites. Article 6 clarifies this statement even further by stating,

• "Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the State [nation]...State Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate."

Article 4 goes on to state that a nation signing the treaty is "to the utmost of its own resources, and where appropriate, with any international assistance and co-operation" protect these sites.

[happybrew]

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us

http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/

http://www.nature.nps.gov/YearinRevi...6/sovereig.htm

Very interesting, but it doesn't appear the UN owns U.S. parks or that any sovereignty was transferred.

[baltz526]

this treaty is about the US preserving all the other parks around the world with our dollars, in my opinion

[happybrew]

Originally Posted by baltz526

this treaty is about the US preserving all the other parks around the world with our dollars, in my opinion

Yes. Mining the deep pockets.

[Bismark]

Hmmm, interesting and I wonder why this was brought about and signed. Seems we could spend more at home preserving what we have and making it more accessable to everyone.

Aaron