|
|
- A spark is struck! UTAH town says, "No to U.N.!" By: Daniel New (Texas) This to inform you that as of July 4, 2001, the city of Laverkin, Utah, struck a spark for liberty. The city council passed a local ordinance declaring themselves a "United Nations-free Zone," effective immediately. It is now illegal to fly the U.N. flag on city property. The city has forbidden itself from doing business with the United Nations in any way. It also forbids doing business with contractors who do. As soon as possible, they will post a sign on the city limits signs at all approaches to the city, stating, "Welcome to Laverkin - a United Nations-free Zone by city ordinance, 2001." The City Fathers of Laverkin were careful to preserve the First Amendment rights of all citizens to fly any flag from their private property. Mayor Dan Howard and Counci! ! lmen Allison Snow were particularly pleased with the community support. Where normally five to ten people show up for a city council meeting, there were 150 citizens present for this 225th birthday of the USA. The Laverkin version has modifications from the version drawn up by Dr. Herb Titus and myself. I am waiting to see what changes they made. The original version forbids the paying of any levy, tax or fee to any United Nations agency, forbids any judgement by any International Court to be imposed upon local citizens, forbids the quartering of United Nations troops in the city limits, forbids the forcing of local citizens for involuntary servitude as soldiers under a United Nations, etc. See for yourself: United Nations-free Zone Ordinance Mayor Jay Lee, of nearby Virgin, Utah, expressed his support, even though he was disappointed that Virg! ! in did not beat Laverkin to the punch. In a conversation with Mayor Lee (night of July 4, 2001), he told me that nearby Toquerville has asked for someone to present the ordinance to their next town council meeting. Can city councils do something like that? Well, there's a pretty good precedent, which apparently withstood several court challenges in the Sixties, when Berkeley, California, decided to declare themselves a "nuclear-free zone." It really didn't affect the city of Berkeley so much as it affected the national debate. Supporters of this ordinance agree that the psychological effect is probably the greatest. It expresses the way people feel about the United Nations, and about their own nation's sovereignty. As one in Virgin told me last week, "American has a lot of problems, and nobody's saying it's perfect, but I would rather they be fixed by Americans than by some foreign bureaucrat who has no clue about what makes America work." The legal doctrine of "interposition of the lower magistrate" is well recognized. When a higher governmental authority either breaks the law, or refuses to enforce it, it is the right and the duty of lower magistrates to intervene and function as a check and a balance on the system. That is how Magna Carta was passed in 1215. It's how the Declaration of Independence was passed in 1776. It's how Sheriff Richard Mack sued the US government over the Brady Bill, and at great personal cost, wound up with a Supreme Court decision declaring Brady as unconstitutional. It's how Army Spc. Michael New said, "No, I'll not violate my exclusive oath of allegiance to my country by wearing a United Nations patch and headgear, and serving under foreign (illegal) officers." And it's how the town of Laverkin, Utah, tells "elected servants of the The People" that they have gone too far. Inquiries from towns all over the United States are be! gi! nning to roll in. The question now becomes, "What will this nation do with such a spark?" Will it die for lack of tinder? Will others nurture it, and add fuel to the fire, and strike other sparks in their communities? What can I do? If you know your city councilors, or county commissioners, and if they are already informed on the threat the United Nations poses to our national sovereignty, to our very concept of private property, to freedom, then get a copy of this ordinance and urge them to pass it. If they aren't informed, then don't go in and badger them with this out of the blue. Start today, educating them to this issue, and their role in protecting the private property of our local citizens. ===================================================== NEWS RELEASE The John Birch Society doen not support the notion of UN-free zones and denies any connection with the anti-UN ordinance adopted by the city council of La Verkin, Utah earlier this month. The Society's chief executive officer, G. Vance Smith, has issued the following statement: The tactic of establishing so-called UN-free zones is contrary to the programs and principles of the John Birch Society. It is confrontational, populist in character, and invites more government, more laws, and more enforcement powers -- all of which diminish liberty and make a mockery of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. According to the press reports, the UN-free zones concept and the La Verkin ordinance were created by Daniel New and fomer ACLU attorney Herb Titus, neither of who have any affiliation or association with the John Birch Society. Concerning the ordinance, both the premise and the conclusion are hopelessly flawed. In Section 3 of the ordinance the authors make several strange assertions, namely: 1) "The United Nations Charter is not a treaty made under the authority of the United States." Not true. 2) The ordinance asserts that the UN Charter has "never been submitted to, nor ratified by the People of the United States." This is nonsense. The people do not ratify treaties. Treaties are made by the President and ratified by the Senate, which did indeed ratify the UN Charter. 3) Again, the ordinance asserts that ratification is "required by the Declaration of Independence." False again. The Declaration of Independence has absolutely nothing to do with our nation's treaty-making power. But notwithstanding the ludicrous basis on which La Verkin ordinance is presumably justified, the City Council, after proclaiming allegiance to the United States Constitution, proceeds to deny its protections to citizens who might feel differently about the United Nations, or who may be employed by the world body. The ordinance thereby denies freedom of speech and the constitutional provision that "The Citizens of each State shall be entiled to all privelages and immunities of citizens in the several States." (Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.) The John Birch Society futher rejectsthe notion that a municipality is the proper level of gevernment to administer relief from the offenses of the United Nations. U.S. ties to the UN were proposed by the President, ratified by the Senate, and implemented by legislation adopted by both houses of Congress. The United States Congress, therefore, bears the full and final responsibility for our nation's entanglements with the UN and its threat to freedom in our cities, counties, and states.
|