[B4Ranch]

The U.N. International Parks and Biosphere Preserves of the World Heritage Sites System is recognized by the United States as the Supreme Park System by our legislative representatives in the United States.

This in turn puts the land under a whole different set of operating treaty rules.

Common sense, of course, no longer applies to anything done there because the treaty is with the beloved United Nations.

The NPS employees are attempting to operate all national parks under these rules.

(Congressional Research Service Reports) National Park System: Establishing New Units

World Heritage Sites and Preserves in Alaska and the Yukon"

[1rudeboy]

Your first link doesn't even mention the U.N., and directly contradicts your position. It does, however, do an excellent job of describing the National Park System's authority under U.S. statute.

Your second link merely identifies some locations in Alaska that are World Heritage Sites. A World Heritage Site is a site where the U.S. has voluntarily agreed to follow international guidelines in preserving the area. You have not demonstrated that the U.S. would behave differently concerning the preservation of these areas in the absence of such an agreement.

Incidentally, because the agreement has been duly signed and ratified, it also has the force of U.S. law under the U.S. Constitution. In a legal sense, it is U.S. law. Naturally, you have the right to petition our government to abrogate this treaty, and the U.S. has the right to secede from its conditions at any time.

In sum, your argument until this point appears to be UN=bad; UN=different; UN=treaty different; therefore, UN treaty=bad. Not much to hang your hat on.