Not sure why weâve wandered down this path, but from what I can gather, the US nominated sites for UNESCO World Heritage Site designation. Itâs a pretty decent list (sure were a lot of mound-building cultures).
Considering the US made the UN, founded it in San Francisco, based the charter on our previous Atlantic Charter, and then hoisted it onto the rest of the world with Stalinâs and Churchillâs help. I think itâs kind of a moot point, no? The UN or any part of it declaring anything is essentially the US declaring it. If the US didnât like it, good chance the UN isnât gonna do it.
I wouldnât go that far, though itâs no doubt difficult getting things passed that the US is staunchly opposed to.
I think I read that you are Canadian. Different world. Here if you call BLM even over something simple they give you the run-around. I once had a legitimate question about boundaries and until I passed the âsmellâ test I got nowhere. Eventually after being cleared face to face with a ranger a BLM supervisor called back and answered all my questions in a friendly manner. But I had to get 'permission".
Donât make the mistake of thinking Canadians are more reasonable. We arenât.
Fuck you weâre not! 
Not sure if itâs been discussed here but one thing about Nation Parks being federal land also means that Cannabis is illegal at all of them no matter the state. My cousin got pulled over at a park in California years ago, cop or ranger seen his medical marijuana card as he was looking for his id and asked if he had any on him, cousin admitted to having a little baggy, believe it was just a ticket.
I think this was the video to that story. 
This is a fascinating discussion. I read through it. However, Iâm still confused. Did yâall achieve clarity on the question?
Just to throw sand into the gears (this may have been covered above) - arenât our national forests (not parks) opened to economic exploitation such as harvesting trees and minerals with permits? Iâd always thought that this one a differentiator. Iâm probably wrong.
Regardless, I appreciate the people who had the foresight to preserve these wonderful places for generations to come.
I donât think so.
Here is a quick summary.
Lol, no I have had to call Quebec. Not reasonable.
Thanks @shag!
Just to clarify a bit, since you only quoted a small portion of my answer, Iâd answer roughly the same thing if you asked whether it was possible for China to call in a claim on their portion of our national debt and ask for payment in dead babies. 
It is technically possible that a group of fickle, fallible humans known as politicians might decide to take such a ridiculous step. It is technically possible that theyâd all decide to commit suicide and attempt to write laws to leave you or me in charge, too. Unlikely, but technically possible. Itâs also possible that if they did write any such laws, the courts would smack them down as they regularly do, or it would prompt an armed rebellion and massive civil war. This is a matter of national politics, so I tend not to get into hypotheticals all that often - the answer is always hypothetically, yes, people can decide to do anything with the power weâve granted them. In theory. Most of the time, theyâre concerned enough about keeping that power that they tend to act in ways that at least appear reasonable and responsible to the rest of us.
So yeah, absolute clarity is not really an option on this question IMO, any more than any other political question. Until people can predict their own actions 5 minutes in the future with perfect accuracy, much less 5 years, it probably never will be.
Itâs not impossibleâŚLOL
If they called in our national debt weâd be losing EVERYTHING !!
Without question, Henry Lamb is the foremost expert in the nation on the subject of the U.N.'s drive for global governance and its blueprint called Agenda 21 .
Under the UNâs concept of land and resource management, the owner is not even considered as one who may have a right to determine how his land is to be used. It is a higher authority that represents the âcommunityâ to whom âproofâ must be offered that a proposed use is justified. This process effectively separates the right of ownership from the right of use, an objective discussed in Recommendation D.5(c)(v) of the 1976 document. And who, exactly, is this âhigher authorityâ to whom proof must be presented? The authority envisioned by the UN is not local elected officials, but rather local âstakeholder councilsâ dominated by NGO professionals.
Note:
This idea is known as âthe social licence to operateâ and can be equated to a National Environmental Policy Act procedure, such as Travel Management, that opens land use to scrutiny from the general public. It is a form of what Karal Marx called the Prolatariet Dictatorship where people were encouraged to organize into unions to control the means of production.
Whereas todayâs non-governmental organizations position themselves to dictate the future of land use while claiming to represent the views and beliefs of the general public concerning the environment, wildlife, and land use.
This guy has some thoughts on this.
