Congressman Flies UN Flag Outside Washington Office

Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com, June 02, 2003

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Walking down the hallway of any congressional office building on Capitol Hill, visitors see a myriad of flags on display at the entryways to members' offices. Most senators and representatives display only the flags of the United States and their home state, although many include flags of the branch of the military in which they served or the Prisoner Of War - Missing In Action remembrance flag.

In many ways, the doorway into the office of Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) is not unique. The U.S. flag is on one side of the entryway, and the California flag is on the other. Next to the California flag is the flag of the Peace Corps, in which Farr began his public service career in 1941. But what stands next to the Peace Corps flag is what makes the office - and Farr himself - completely unique.

Farr is the only one of the 535 members of the United States Congress to display the flag of the United Nations outside his office. The congressman was working in his district Friday and was not available for media interviews, but Rochelle Dornatt, his chief of staff, told CNSNews.com that Farr flies the U.N. flag outside his office because he believes in the ability of the U.N. "to work toward global solutions to global problems.

"The United States cannot be a sole player out there," Dornatt said. "We need the support and assistance of other countries in the world to make sure we have a world that can function as a civil society." Farr, who was born on the 4th of July and now serves on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, "believes in the U.N.," Dornatt added.

"He thinks that it is the appropriate forum to discuss issues of war and peace," she continued. "And, as a person who has served in the Peace Corps, the congressman feels very strongly about the need for international collegiality, and that is what the U.N. flag represents."

Some of Farr's colleagues in the House, however, are not quite as excited about the body many fear may one day try to challenge U.S. autonomy. Jeff Deist, spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), believes most U.S. citizens would be "outraged or shocked" if a member of Congress was honoring the flag of another nation and compares that situation to Farr's display.

"It would be obnoxious enough, I think, to most folks if you had another country's flag, but to have the U.N. flag, which, to me, is worse than another country?" Deist questioned in an interview with CNSNews.com. "That's an organization that is actively hostile to us, that actively wants us to change, wants us to conform to another way of life.

"Our Constitution is incompatible with having laws and rules made for us in Geneva or Brussels or even at the U.N. Headquarters in New York," he added.

Rep. Paul shares Deist's passion for U.S. autonomy. Paul recently reintroduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (ASRA, H.R.1146).

The ASRA would repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which authorized U.S. membership in the body. It would also direct the president to "terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations" and to close the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

In an April 29 speech, Paul warned about the ambitions of U.N. bureaucrats and their supporters.

"U.N. globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax and gun laws," the Texas Republican, who previously ran for president as a Libertarian, declared. "U.N. global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts and possibly a standing army.

"This is not an alarmist statement," he added. "These goals are readily promoted on the U.N.'s own website."

The ASRA would also repeal the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act and withdraw the United States from the agreement granting the U.N. the use of its current headquarters property. The appropriation of any taxpayer money for any U.N.-related purpose other than withdrawing from the organization would be banned, including the expenditure of any U.S. funds for so-called "peace keeping" operations.

The act would also revoke the diplomatic immunity of U.N. employees and evict them from all U.S. facilities worldwide, and it would take effect two years after the date of passage, allowing time for relocation of staff and resources. The legislation currently has 12 cosponsors.

"The choice is very clear: We either follow the Constitution or submit to U.N. global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body," Paul concluded. "If we continue down the U.N. path, America as we know it will cease to exist."

---------------------------------

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, one-time Libertarian candidate for President, is the "standard bearer" of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

"Our Constitution is incompatible with having laws and rules made for us in Geneva or Brussels or even at the U.N. Headquarters in New York," he added.

Actually, the Constitution is 100-percent compatible with this. It specifically states that ANY foreign treaty the US signs becomes "the Supreme Law of the Land," and is legally binding to the same extent as anything else in the Constitution.

Now, obviously that means you want to choose your treaties carefully...and if Ron Paul doesn't like a treaty, he has a right to bitch about it. But at the same time, you have to obey the treaties that are currently in effect; otherwise, you're not showing respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law it's supposed to represent. This is why the Iraq war broke domestic as well as international law.

It's frightening when our own lawmakers either don't understand, or refuse to honor the law.

Why is it Consititutional for the the US Government to vacate it's Constitutional obligation to implement and enforce laws to some such foreign international body such as "the International Criminal Court"?

That makes no sense. Americans can not be ruled by foreign nationals. To argue as much is to have us thrown in shackles. If you try to shackle me, you are going to have a tough time.

Besides, who is going to enforce these so called International laws we are in violation of? The USA are not signataries of the International Criminal Court.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. VI

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Eric:"Why is it Consititutional for the the US Government to vacate it's Constitutional obligation to implement and enforce laws to some such foreign international body such as "the International Criminal Court"? "

Actually, it is pretty clear if you know how to read...and I am assuming since you can type you can read...however, what is obviously NOT constitutional are rules imposed by WTO or GATT that overrule our sovereignty...

...wanna bitch about that? No...gee, I'm so surprised...can you try to be a least a little less predictably programmed?

from Human Rights Treaty Poses Dangers for America by Andrew J. Cowin


The Heritage Foundation, Executive Memorandum #361, July 29, 1993

"Supreme Law of the Land"

Unfortunately, the treaty may do more than simply put the U.S. on record in support of bankrupt ideas. These ideas may actually become part of U.S. law. Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "... all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall become the supreme law of the land." Once the Senate ratifies international treaties, they sometimes become the basis for American case law as practiced in state and federal courts. One factor courts consider is whether the cooperation of the other signatories is needed to enforce the agreement.

The classic legal example of this involves the 1918 Migratory Birds Treaty covering the U.S. and Canada. In a landmark case two years later, the state of Missouri challenged the right of the federal government to mandate closed seasons and other treaty measures to protect migratory birds like geese. The Supreme Court, however, agreed with the argument that the birds were valued both as food and as destroyers of insects, and that preserving them was in the national interest. Protecting this interest required the cooperation of Canada. The Court ruled that the Migratory Birds Treaty was part of federal law and therefore pre-empted Missouri state law. (Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).)

Thanks for NOT answering my question, KPC.

You completely and totally failed to explain how it can be Constitutional for Congress to abandon it's Article 1 responsibilities to create the laws we as Americans agree to abide by and, in their stead, to place foreign nationals in charge.

If you think that is the correct thing to do, then you sir, are an idiot. I'm thankful that YOU are not in charge.

I have seen you lefties argue that the War Powers Act is not Constitutional, and now here you are wanting to give the Powers of Congress and the Supreme Courts over to the UN and the International Criminal Court.

Which way is it going to be?

from Human Rights Treaty Poses Dangers for America by Andrew J. Cowin
The Heritage Foundation, Executive Memorandum #361, July 29, 1993 "Supreme Law of the Land"

Unfortunately, the treaty may do more than simply put the U.S. on record in support of bankrupt ideas. These ideas may actually become part of U.S. law. Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "... all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall become the supreme law of the land." Once the Senate ratifies international treaties, they sometimes become the basis for American case law as practiced in state and federal courts. One factor courts consider is whether the cooperation of the other signatories is needed to enforce the agreement.

The classic legal example of this involves the 1918 Migratory Birds Treaty covering the U.S. and Canada. In a landmark case two years later, the state of Missouri challenged the right of the federal government to mandate closed seasons and other treaty measures to protect migratory birds like geese. The Supreme Court, however, agreed with the argument that the birds were valued both as food and as destroyers of insects, and that preserving them was in the national interest. Protecting this interest required the cooperation of Canada. The Court ruled that the Migratory Birds Treaty was part of federal law and therefore pre-empted Missouri state law. (Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).)

"Thanks for NOT answering my question, KPC. "

You get what you ask for.

While I disagree with a few of the regulars around here, I will say that for the most part they are all fairly intelligent.

KFC is simply dull witted. Simply put, and no offense because he's PROBABLY not to blame, he's just palin stupid.

So maybe the tough (or even slightly abstract) questions should be directed elsewhere.

Hope this helps.

Sticking to just a few simple quidelines can make everyones stay here a little more enjoyable.

Caducada: "palin stupid"

Maybe I'm just plain stupid and unable to keep up with your superior vocabulary....

.....but what does "palin" stupid mean, that I choose my friends poorly?

....fuckin' knucklefuck.....

".....but what does "palin" stupid mean, that I choose my friends poorly? "

That's the best you can do? Find a typo.

Here ar a faw mor for yu.

You are still of very low intellect and exhibit a strong tendency of lemming like qualities.

That said, you're still a fine chap.

...yeah, I know, it was a little lame, but then again you are not worth the effort it takes to fling a hefty booger...

...now, what exacltly is it that you dickheads, or, in your case dickenvyheads, are trying to say, if you are supporting Eric, that emptyheaded fuckwad, then what are you supporting? I don't even think you know...oh, my...a conservative parrotting the official line without thought, THAT hardly EVER happens....

That said, you're still a drippy douchebag...

"...now, what exacltly is it that you dickheads, or, in your case dickenvyheads, are trying to say, if you are supporting Eric, that emptyheaded fuckwad, then what are you supporting? I don't even think you know...oh, my...a conservative parrotting the official line without thought, THAT hardly EVER happens.... "



What in the hell are you trying to ask?

Read your post again and please translate.

If you try to shackle me to have a tough time.

"If you try to shackle me to have a tough time."

I love it! More inarticulate ramblings from the students.

OH, you mean like this:

"he's just palin stupid."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, that one typo has legs! You go girl!

Yeah!!! Just like the comment from "fresca bites!!!"

Yo go, dolt!!!!