|
The Problem With the UN Flag
Words mean
something, and so do flags. A flag is more than just a piece of
colored cloth, it's a symbol representing values and ideals. Flags
are used in many ways; they denote possession of a territory,
rule, victory, pride, loyalty, honor and submission.
In
days past, when a new territory was discovered, the explorers
claimed that territory by raising a flag. When an invading army
conquers a city, they announce their victory, claim rule, and
demand submission by flying their flag above the most prominent
building. Loyalists fly the flag or banner of their hero, whether
it be a baseball team or a nation. One of the first things Neil
Armstrong did upon landing on the Moon was plant an American flag!
Considering the importance and significance of flags,
we must ask, "Is it right to fly the flag of the United
Nations over the most eminent university of our great state?".
The answer is easily ascertained by determining
whether the United Nations is deserving of the things flags
represent. Did the UN gain some great victory over the school? Do
they rule it? Are the students to be in submission to the UN? Is
the university board of curators promoting loyalty to the United
Nations? Obviously the UN fails these tests!
The remaining
question is, "Does the United Nations deserve the same level
of honor that we grant our sovereign state of Missouri?"
Let's examine the UN, what is has done and what it proposes to
do.....
The UN Charter explicitly states that it's purpose
is to:
1) Maintain international peace
2) Develop friendly
relations among nations
3) Achieve international co-operation
in solving international problems
4) "be a centre for
harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these
common ends".
Somewhere along the line the UN has
departed from it's chartered purpose. Two recent ominous treaties
are evidence: The UN Convention on Discrimination Against Women
and The Convention on the Rights of the Child
These
"conventions", or treaties, do not deal exclusively with
interaction between nations, as the charter dictates, but rather
attempt to dictate what goes on within the countries who
enter into the treaty. In other words, they are an attempt to
force the values of other countries on our people by creating a
body of international law.
This is a scary thought when
you consider that the other countries have values vastly different
than our own; values that include things like worshiping rats to
eating cats and dogs, animals we reserve as companions.
FEDERAL
POWER GRAB - THE REAL DANGER
While it is true that there
aren't many traitors among us who truly want to cede all of our
sovereignty, there ARE a lot of people who would like to use the
UN as a means to greater centralization of our nation's authority.
Our Constitution clearly limits the authority of the
Federal Government and reserves all other rights to the states and
the people. For the feds to try to dictate what is taught in local
schools, for instance, would be grossly unconstitutional. Treaties
could provide the constitutional basis for federal laws that
pervade into local authority, however. That means entering into
the treaty for the "Rights of the Child" would destroy
one aspect of our Tenth Amendment state's rights.
While
it is debatable that treaties can supercede the Constitution, it
is clear that they can 'augment' the Constitution in such a way as
to subvert it's original intent.
It is clear that the
UN is not a benign association of sovereign nations simply
promoting the common welfare of those nations. It has taken on a
life of its own - the tail is wagging the dog - maybe to the
destruction of our self determination.
By:
Ron Calzone
Feedback
to the author
|
