[surfinguru]

Ok, I stumbled on this stuff last night. Did you guys know of this? Now to be clear, I am NOT a conspiracy nut or anything like that. I'd just never heard of this before. I can understand the premise that these places need to be protected and preserved, but our government signing over control of these places/resources? Fack me!! FWIW, I haven't had time to look into who owns/operates all the links to verify their validity, but it would appear to be true.

UN "controls/owns" many US National Parks and Historical Monuments....

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA341.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15179

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3856171.stm


Meh, life's too short, get on your bikes and ride!

 

[Toshi]

uh, what's the controversy? i haven't seen or heard of jackbooted u.n. thugs when i visit national parks, let alone black helicopters...

 

[surfinguru]

Um, no one said they were here NOW, but they are the "owners" of them.

The bothersome thing is that our elected officials have given the keys of ownership of some our valuable resources/landmarks to an entity outside of our country? :mumble:

Can't say I've seen any black helecopters either though....

 

[wooglin]

Uhhh, I think the basic premise is that some things go beyond nationalistic BS, and belong to the people of the world. Phrasing that another way, some things don't really "belong" to anybody. We've got no more right to the Grand Canyon for example than anyone else. It just happens to fall within our national boundaries.

 

[RaID]

i think wooglin pretty much desrcibed it right
these places have to be protected for the sake of humanity not just a country
hence they should all be under the same law, and the only major international body that can do this is the UN