But wait! There's more....

Upon FURTHER investigation, it would seem that San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro is merely an "advocate" of the UNESCO designation of The Alamo as a World Heritage site. Other elected officials, including Texas Land Commission Jerry Patterson, a Republican candidate for Lt. Governor, are actually behind seeking this designation. Patterson "pooh poohed" the concerns of Texans, calling the fears that the Texas landmark would fall under UN control "horse hockey".

My question is this, if this is merely a "paper designation" with no real control being handed to the UN and the only benefit is "prestige", why seek it out against the wishes of the citizens of Texas? Why completely discount the desires of the people who live here, work here, pay taxes here and vote for your happy asses? Whose approval are you seeking? Who are you trying to impress? If there are no benefits to Texas and her citizens, why invite an international body that is widely despised in this state to put their stamp of approval on one of our most cherished historical sites?

According to Mayor Castro, “ the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) designation is a significant and advantageous designation that does not in any way relinquish control, and it's a designation that the Statute of Liberty and the Grand Canyon and other sacred American sites already have." (emphasis mine) Okay, what significance? What advantages?
To my knowledge, the history of The Alamo is widely known, it's power a draw for tourists from all over the globe. How is getting the UNESCO designation going to improve that? Are there really people out there who will think, "Finally! The Alamo has been recognized by the UN! We must go to it immediately!"?

General Manager of the San Antonio River Authority (political affiliation unknown), Suzanne Scott, is also pushing for the designation. She believes becoming a World Heritage site will provide economic and cultural benefits that the Alamo would otherwise miss. Huh?! Again, I ask, what economic and cultural benefits?! Culturally, the Alamo is already beyond rich, with a heritage uniquely Texan. Unlike the other World Heritage sites mentioned, the Alamo does not "belong" to the American story. It's a purely Texas story, a keystone in our identity and heritage. What cultural benefits will the UN bestow upon it?

And as for economic benefits, going back to the "increase in tourism dollars", a recent study done for the committee estimated that the designation, the first of its kind in Texas, "would generate an additional $44 million to $105 million annually in local tourism dollars, and more than 1,000 new jobs." Okay, again, how? Are that many people holding back on visiting the Alamo until it's recognized by an international body? 1000 new jobs? Well, that would certainly be welcome since San Antonio is a sanctuary city and has one of the highest levels of unemployment and highest rates of taxation in the state. Makes sense to invite a bunch of illegal Mexicans in and give them jobs at the most sacred site of the War of Texas Independence.

Of course, this is just my opinion, I've only been a Daughter of Texas my whole life, and a strong advocate for disengaging with the UN and kicking them out of the US. And of course, that's an opinion that is widely held among Freedom loving Texans. And of course, we're all getting a little tired of elected officials mocking us, dismissing us, and generally doing as they please. I'm just sayin', Mr. Patterson, you might want to consider this as you attempt to climb the ladder of Texas politics.

All quotes cited are from the following source:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/UN-takeover-of-the-Alamo-horse-hockey-4939918.php