By Tom DeWeese

One tiny American community has taken a major step to protect its liberty. Freedom-loving Americans everywhere should rush to join them. On July 4th, as the rest of the nation treated Independence Day as just another day off, LaVerkin, Utah (population 3,000) declared itself a ‘UN-Free Zone."

The ordinance set off a firestorm in the media. The anti-UN action spread across the nation through the activist grapevine. Articles appeared in major newspapers across the nation. Even the Russian newspaper Pravda carried a report on the LaVerkin actions against the United Nations.

Specifically, the LaVerkin UN-Free Zone ordinance bans aiding the United Nations with town funds; prohibits displaying any U.N symbols on town property; requires residents who work on UN-financed projects to post a sign, pay a town fee and file an annual report to inform the community of such activity; declares that any attempt by the UN to impose taxes or a UN criminal court would be invalid; Bans UN personnel from operating in town limits; empowers the city, through educational activities, with the right to promote awareness of the UN’s work; empowers residents with the right to sue anyone who violates the ordinance; and places signs at all main entrances to the community stating LaVerkin is a "UN-Free Zone." Anyone found guilty of disobeying the ordinance will be charged with a misdemeanor crime and fined.

Immediately, the main-stream news media attacked, claiming the ordinance "trashed the Constitution," The media claimed that the community’s efforts to curtail UN activities would eventually lead to a "witch hunt," painting the picture of LaVerkin officials storming into the homes of UN supporters and tossing them into the town stocks. LaVerkin citizens were ridiculed as "nitwits" by radio talk show host Tom Barberi, who charged that the community leaders needed a "civics lesson."

The storm of media attention eventually reached the Utah state capital, where concern brought a quick visit from Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtliff to LaVerkin. Shurtliff recommended that the town council repeal the ordinance, saying it violates basic American freedoms. "Throughout this document, Shurtliff charged, "you are violating the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and possibly the Fifth Amendment" by restricting commerce with pro UN businesses.

As the pressure built, most expected the besieged councilmen to throw in the towel and resort to a meaningless resolution condemning the UN as a way to state their opposition, thereby bringing the controversy to an end. UN supporters have always been able to discourage criticism by labeling opponents as "black helicopter nuts" who are too naive to understand the legalities of the UN’s structure. Normally, so chastened, UN opponents slink away to their appointed oblivion. Not so, the town council of LaVerkin.

They fought back, refusing to repeal the ordinance. Councilman Victor Iverson, who wrote the ordinance, said he would consider new wording. But he rebuffed Shurtleff’s request to repeal the existing ordinance and its enforcement clauses, for fear that would send a message that the city is backing down. "The only thing wrong with this is it’s not politically correct. If we repeal it, I can tell you what the headline in every paper is going to be," Iverson said. "If we repeal it I’m saying I’m wrong, and I’m not."

To make sure it was strong, Constitutionally, the council did amend it to remove the provisions which required residents who work on UN projects to post a sign, pay a fee and file an annual report. The amendment also revokes the power of residents to file suit against anyone violating the ordinance. But all the rest stands, including the ban on UN personnel from operating in LaVerkin; the invalidation of UN taxes and courts; and the ban on city funds going to UN projects. The "UN-Free Zone" signs will stand at the entrances of town next winter as Olympic torch runners pass through the community on the way to the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Olympics. The Council passed the ordinance with one purpose in mind, to begin a dialogue about the United Nations agenda. They believe the public debate has begun.

So what is so dangerous about the UN that a town in the middle of rural Utah feels threatened? Well, in fact, LaVerkin has every reason to feel they are in the cross hairs of UN policy. As UN expert Henry Lamb wrote in the September 2001 issue of The DeWeese Report (Vol. 7, Issue 9), "LaVerkin is in Washington County, Utah. So is Zion National Park, less than ten miles from the small town. LaVerkin is within 100 miles of four other properties inventoried for future nomination as UN World Heritage Sites." Such sites are used as core areas to begin to abolish human development, in compliance with UN environmental policy and treaties. Many towns and private ranches and farms have been affected by those policies. LaVerkin is very aware of those dangers and simply responded by the only legal means at its disposal, a city ordinance to ban such UN policy.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is at the core of the problem. Section 2, paragraph (4) of the ESA (a federal law) says the law is enacted "pursuant to: the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora," and five other treaties. Writes Lamb, "Most of the treaties were actually drafted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in Gland, Switzerland. This IUCN membership consists mostly of environmental organizations and governmental agencies. Six U.S. federal departments maintain independent membership in the IUCN – at an annual membership fee in excess of $50,000 each."

These U.S. agencies work hand in hand with UN agencies to implement and enforce environmental regulations that endanger U.S. private property rights. There are cases across this nation clearly demonstrating the effects of these regulations, particularly through the ESA. From Klamath Falls, Oregon, where the ESA was used to stop the flow of water to farmers in order to save a fish, to the stopping of a proposed gold mine on private property near Yellowstone National Park. Whole towns and industries have been decimated through enforcement of the ESA, a law that got its start from United Nations treaties.

However, many attempt to paint the UN as an unstoppable power that is using force to usurp our Constitutional liberties. Those who promote that view are quickly discredited by a review of UN documents and its Charter guidelines. While it is true that none of those treaties or accompanying regulations specifically say that the United States relinquishes sovereignty to the UN, sovereignty is a question of "who is in charge."

The truth is, as Dr. Michael Coffman reports, the United States "has bound itself to international agreements and treaties that stipulate that the United States will manage its lands in prescribed ways in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our rights of sovereignty over these lands… The problem is not in the noble-appearing goals of these programs, but in their mandates which would subvert our Constitutional protections and republican form of government if fully implemented." In truth, the UN doesn’t use force to achieve its goals. This nation, through a series of treaties "voluntarily" surrenders American control of its own land.

Some who opposed the LaVerkin UN-Free Zone ordinance did so saying it was a "non issue" for a local town council. Clearly the town leaders know that the UN is a true threat to its ability to self govern, perhaps even to its very ability to exist, based on actions taken in other parts of the country. LaVerkin decided to take a stand and say "not in our town."

Now it is time for more communities to ake that same stand and offer their own UN-Free Zone ordinances. Whether they should all pass or not, one thing would be accomplished. Citizens would suddenly begin to hear their own local leaders debating the United Nations and its policies. The fact is the UN can ’t stand such scrutiny. Let the debate begin. In time, when the truth is finally known, the whole nation will become a UN-Free Zone.