Trading U.S. Rights
for UN Rules
A
report on President Clinton's Executive
Order 13107:
"The
Implementation of Human Rights Treaties", signed on December 10,
1998
By Berit Kjos
Skip
down to The UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child
While Americans focused on more scintillating news,
President Clinton quietly signed a new executive order titled "The
Implementation of Human Rights Treaties." The media ignored it and our leaders
didn't tell us. Yet we will pay the cost -- in freedom as well as dollars --
for the creation of a massive government bureaucracy to promote, monitor, and
enforce compliance with human rights regulations mandated by the United
Nations. Remember, this governing body shows only contempt for biblical
values, American sovereignty, and the U.S. Constitution.
Clinton's
timing was perfect. An attack on Iraq had been planned. And after December's
impeachment proceedings, Congress would adjourn for the holidays. Without its
objection, the executive order would take effect within 30 days (not a hard
and fast rule)[1], and become a federal law. Once implemented, no one would be
free to do or say anything contrary to the new global ideology.
Hard to believe? Before studying the
executive order itself, take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It illustrates the deceptive meanings behind the noble words used
to persuade the American people to accept unthinkable regulations. Even so, on
December 10, 1998, President Clinton used its 50th anniversary to celebrate
its ideals, to honor its late sponsor Eleanor Roosevelt, to announce his Human
Rights Initiatives, and to sign this executive order.
Background
Information
At the first glance, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights sounds good, as do all the intrusive
UN human rights treaties. Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to
freedom of opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers."
But Article 29 states that
"these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these
"rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who would criticize the UN or its
policies. Your rights would be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your
message supports official ideology are you free to speak it. As Andrei
Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, "There can be no place
for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of
socialism."[2]
The Convention on the Rights of
the Child has not been ratified by the Senate. Yet, it would be included among
"other relevant treaties" in this executive order which begins with these
words:
"By the authority vested in me
as President by the Constitution and bearing in mind the obligations of the
United States pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and other relevant treaties concerned with the protection
and promotion of human rights to which the United States is now
or may become a party in the future, it is hereby ordered."
Like the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child uses manipulative and misleading language.
According to Article 13, "The child shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers..." In other
words, parents have no authority to keep a child from reading a sexually
explicit magazine or visiting pagan chat rooms on Internet.
While parents lose their right to
set safe boundaries for their children, the State assumes full power to
"protect" the child and define the rules. Thus Article 13 concludes with:
"This right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be
such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or
reputations of others; or for protection of national security or public
order."
Likewise, if parents restrict
their child's "right to freedom of association" or their child's ambiguous
rights to "privacy" or "conscience and religion" (Articles 14 -16), they would
break this law and face the potential loss of their child to the state's
"protection" services.
In the context of UN ideology,
"national security or public order" refers to the concept of solidarity, a
utopian community oneness based on shared values defined by globalist leaders.
In their minds, anything less than social solidarity in every community could
stir conflict or incite violence. In this context, dissenters become foes;
facts or beliefs that clash with its vision of unity become threats; and the
uncompromising truths of biblical Christianity become intolerable, even
dangerous to public safety.
These "human rights" restrictions
are already filtering into American culture. For example, any Christian
website that promotes biblical standards for right and wrong could be targeted
for censorship by Cyber Patrol, the world's most powerful Internet thought
police. Owned by The Learning Company, America's "premier developer of
educational software," it has formed some powerful "partners"
around the world. These include AOL, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, CompuServe, IBM,
Microsoft, Netscape, Scholastic Network, and others. Its website [3] shows
the categories in its CyberNOT Block
List, a list of offenses that determines which websites should be
screened to protect schools and families that buy their service. These dangers
include Violence/Profanity, Nudity, Sexual Acts, Intolerance,
Satanic/Cult, Drugs, and Militant/Extremist.
Notice "Intolerance" amidst the
more obvious threats. CyberPatrol warns us that "any picture or text that
elevates one group over another" would be considered intolerant. Their filters
now "protect" children and schools across the country from visiting American
Family Association and other Christian websites simply because they present
God-given warnings and view Christian truth and lifestyles as superior to
pagan alternatives.
An international "Declaration on
Tolerance," prepared by UNESCO and signed by its member nations, defines the
new global standard for right and wrong. All nations would be responsible for
fulfilling this international contract by teaching the "right" kind of
tolerance and training their people to "respect" every kind of ritual and
lifestyle -- no matter how contrary to God's Word. Though the U.S. didn't sign
this anti-Christian Declaration [4], our leaders are fueling the transformation.
Consider how its decrees would undermine our Bill of Rights:
- "Tolerance is respect,
acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures
It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal
requirement."
- "Tolerance involves the
rejection of dogmatism and absolutism." [Biblical truth?]
- "Tolerance... means that one's
views are not to be imposed on others." [Would this end freedom to share
the gospel with others? Could the UN still share its views?]
- "Intolerance... is a global
threat."
- "Scientific studies and
networking should be undertaken to coordinate the international community's
response to this global challenge, including analysis of root causes and
effective countermeasures, as well as research and monitoring... "
- "Tolerance promotion and the
shaping of attitudes of openness, mutual listening and solidarity should
take place in schools and universities, and through non-formal education...
at home and in the workplace."
- "Promote rational tolerance
teaching methods that will address the cultural, social, economic, political
and religious sources of intolerance-- major roots of violence and
exclusion. [5]"
As you read on, you will see how
the suggestions in the last three points are worked into President Clinton's
Initiatives and Executive Order. But don't forget, the first four points
provide the rationale for the last three points.
Clinton's Human Rights
Initiatives
A White House Press Release,
posted with the executive order at the White House website, explained that "on
the historic anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
President Clinton announced several policy initiatives to advance human rights
at home and abroad." These initiatives include the following:
1. "Signing of a Human Rights
Executive Order, that strengthens our efforts to implement human rights
treaties, and creates an Administration working group to coordinate these
efforts." Its main points are listed below.
2. "Establishment of a Genocide
Early Warning Center, jointly run by the State Department and the Central
Intelligence Agency, to train intelligence resources on situations that could
potentially lead to genocide."
The response of the liberal media
and politicians to the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building gives us a
clue to the rising hostility toward those who refuse to embrace the new global
visions. Remember how Christian and conservative radio hosts were accused of
"creating a climate of hate" that could incite violence. In this cultural
atmosphere, such an Early Warning Center, using intrusive CIA surveillance
technology to monitor those who dissent, could well lead to repression of
contrary opinions.
In fact, that might be its main
purpose. Remember UNESCO's Declaration on Tolerance which equates intolerance
with biblical absolutes. Since "intolerance is a global threat," today's
crisis calls for analysis "of root causes effective countermeasures" and
"monitoring..."
When the US delegation signed the
Action Plan prepared at the 1995 UN Conference for Women in Beijing, we agreed
to "develop gender-sensitive databases, information and monitoring systems."
These information systems would monitor every school, workplace, and home for
compliance with "women's rights" to cast aside traditional gender roles in the
home and assume 50-50 representation in business, entertainment, and political
leadership. This massive global information management system would be
controlled by the UN Social and Economic Council [6].
The technology needed for
worldwide surveillance has been created. Existing databases are being linked
and the information management systems completed [7]. The planned "unique
personal identifier" is becoming reality, and the process of intrusive
surveillance is under way. We are ready for the next step:
3. "Enhancing our response to
human rights emergencies. The U.S. Agency for International Development
will provide up to $8 million over the next five years to non-governmental
organizations to enhance their rapid response capacities. Organizations
can use these funds for a variety of purposes, including the creation of
assessment teams, monitoring units or other means of addressing
situations where human rights may be imminently threatened."
Whenever you see the open-ended
word "other", beware. It could be interpreted to mean anything the authors
might later include [8].
4. "Preventing youth hate crime
through publication in January of a guide for schools entitled 'Protecting
Students from Harassment and Hate Crimes,' developed jointly by the Department
of Education and the National Association of Attorneys General. The guide
provides suggestions to school systems for addressing the issue of school
violence."
Remember, words such as violence
and hate have been redefined to reflect a global perspective. They now include
various forms of conflict, biblical "intolerance", and failure to comply with
the new global standards for mental health, i.e. the attitudes, values,
beliefs, behavior, and collective mindset required for community solidarity.
(See "Zero Tolerance for Non-Compliance" and "Clinton's War on Hate Bans Christian values")
6. "encourage greater reporting
to and cooperation with U.S. authorities in targeting abusers of human
rights."
Assessing, monitoring,
re-educating, and tracking every person around the world is key to the UN
vision of global governance [9]. And, as President Clinton stressed at his 1997
White House Conference on Hate Crimes, "reporting" intolerant words and
attitudes is the duty of every person in the community. The following
executive order adds legal authority to this unconstitutional plan.
The Executive
Order
The President summarized the scope of the
executive order in its opening paragraph:
"By the authority vested in me as
President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,
and bearing in mind the obligations of the United States pursuant to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD), and other relevant treaties concerned
with the protection and promotion of human rights to which the United
States is now or may become a party in the future, it is hereby
ordered."
Notice that it includes "other relevant
treaties concerned with the protection and promotion of human rights..." In
other words, it would apparently include such unratified treaties as The
Convention on the Rights of the Child and other treaties "to which" we may
"become party in the future." As you read its precepts below, consider whether
this executive order protects human "rights" or oppressive
"responsibilities."
Section 1(a) commits the U.S. "fully
to respect and implement its obligations under the international human rights
treaties to which it is a party, including the ICCPR, the CAT, and the
CERD."
Don't assume that this EO only applies to
ratified treaties. This section doesn't rule out all the other present and
future unratified treaties included in the opening paragraph and in Sec.
4(vi).
While the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women has not been
ratified, its values has been established as a cultural norm through the
liberal media, education, and a variety of laws, rules and regulations. To
speed the process, President Clinton established an agency to manage and
oversee the implementation of the Beijing Plan for Action signed after the
1995 UN Conference for Women. It includes all the key provisions of the above
Convention, such as 50-50 representation in influential positions.
"(b) It shall also be the policy and
practice of the Government of the United States to promote respect for
international human rights, both in our relationships with all other
countries and by working with and strengthening the various
international mechanisms for the promotion of human rights, including, inter
alia, those of the United Nations, the International Labor
Organization, and the Organization of American States."
Don't forget that ILO, the International
Labor Organization, shows little concern for the rights of those who oppose
its liberal, political, and global agenda.
Sec. 2 titled, "Responsibility of
Executive Departments and Agencies" brings all these agencies
together in a coordinated effort to follow UN guidelines for human rights and
global solidarity.
Sec. 4 establishes "an Interagency
Working Group on Human Rights Treaties for the purpose of providing
guidance, oversight, and coordination with respect to questions concerning the
adherence to and implementation of human rights obligations and related
matters." It would be chaired by the "designee of the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs."
The functions of this Interagency
Working Group would include:
"(i) coordinating the interagency
review of any significant issues concerning the implementation of this
order..."
"(iii) coordinating the responses of
the United States Government to complaints against it concerning
alleged human rights violations submitted to the United Nations, the
Organization of American States, and other international
organizations;"
"(iv) developing effective mechanisms
to ensure that legislation proposed by the Administration is reviewed
for conformity with international human rights obligations and that these
obligations are taken into account in reviewing legislation under
consideration by the Congress as well;"
Apparently, the United Nations and its
Human Rights treaties would replace the U.S. Constitution as our main standard
and filter for legal action.
"(v) developing recommended proposals
and mechanisms for improving the monitoring of the actions by the various
States, Commonwealths, and territories of the United States... for their
conformity with relevant treaties, the provision of relevant information for
reports and other monitoring purposes, and the promotion of effective
remedial mechanisms;"
Remember UNESCO's Declaration on
Tolerance. It, too, called for "analysis of root causes [of intolerance] and
effective countermeasures, as well as research and monitoring...."
Just as the provisions of the unratified
Biodiversity treaty are being implemented through the EPA regulations,
executive orders, and environmental guidelines so unratified human rights
agreements are being implemented through executive orders, reinterpretation of
old laws, and a variety of local, state and national regulations that bypass
Congress. However, the heart of the transformation is UNESCO's plan for
Lifelong Learning, a psycho-social process of re-learning: replacing
traditional beliefs, values, attitudes, and individual thinking with the new
global ideology and collective thinking.
This program demands everyone's
participation in the Hegelian dialectic (or consensus) process. Everyone must
be willing to compromise in order to find "common ground". People from every
cultural background must agree to dialogue to consensus over divisive social
issues under the leadership of a facilitator trained in psycho-social
manipulation.
"(vi) developing plans for public
outreach and education concerning the provisions of the ICCPR, CAT, CERD,
and other relevant treaties and human rights-related provisions of
domestic law;"
The last sentence would include Clinton's
hate-crimes initiatives and legislation as well as other prohibitions against
any information that would be offensive to our politically correct thought
police. That Christian websites are being tagged by the Cyber Patrol because
they violate its guidelines on "tolerance" shows how "private" organizations,
in partnership with our government, are implementing the international
political agenda.
Remember the last two points in UNESCO's
Declaration on Tolerance. They call for "rational tolerance teaching methods
that will address the cultural, social, economic, political and religious
sources of intolerance-major roots of violence and exclusion." No person would
be free from the duty to conform to UN standards through its manipulative
program for "shaping... attitudes of openness, mutual listening and
solidarityin schools and universities, and through non-formal education... at
home and in the workplace."
These two points summarize the UNESCO
plan for re-learning" or "remediation" for adults as well as children. Tied to
the national-international plan for School-to-Work signed into law by Clinton
in 1998, this section probably means that no one would receive a work
certificate without conforming to the new ideology and group thinking
[10].
"(vii) coordinating and directing an
annual review of United States reservations, declarations, and understandings
to human rights treaties, and matters as to which there have been
non-trivial complaints or allegations of inconsistency with or breach of
international human rights obligations..."
A typical inconsistency would be churches
that refuse to hire pagans or homosexuals. Such "separatism" could be
challenged both on the bases of discrimination and refusal to enter into
dialogue and seek "common ground." The UN vision of solidarity rules out such
"separatism." Al Gore summarized this sentiment well at a 1991 Communitarian
conference in Washington: "Seeing ourselves as separate is the central problem
in our political thinking."
Clinton's Hate-Crimes Conference called
for "some sort of club or organization at the school -- because if you think
about it, your parents are still pretty well separated.... Most houses of
worship are still fairly segregated. We have to find a disciplined, organized
way out of this so that we reach every child in an affirmative way before
something bad happens..."
But that isn't enough. Every person-young
and old -- must be held responsible for reporting violations. As in Nazi
Germany, children would have to report on parents, neighbors on neighbors,
etc. Our president outlined the plan at his 1997 Hate-Crimes
Conference,
"The Justice Department will make its
own hate crimes training curriculum available. A lot of hate crimes still go
unreportedē. If a crime is unreported, that gives people an excuse to ignore
it."
"the real answer to our success
in this endeavor is obviously that we all have to work together. And all of
you can strike new energy into this entire endeavor around the
country."
At the same conference, Attorney
General Janet Reno added:
" ...the first line of
defense is to prevent it. But then it is very important when you see
hate to speak out against it immediately and strike it down. How can we in
the federal government improve our coordination with local law enforcement,
with the state authorities, and with groups such as the churches or other
advocacy groups in the community, one, to get it reported, and two,
to work with you so that the investigations and the prosecutions aredesigned
with one objective in mind to eliminate hate..."
This executive order links
Clinton's goals to the UN vision of controlled solidarity. For the Interagency
Working Group would coordinate its efforts with "international human rights
institutions, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the
Special Rapporteurs and complaints procedures established by the United
Nations Human Rights Commission."
Sec. 6, "Judicial Review,
Scope, and Administration" gives an example of Clinton's ambiguous and
misleading legal language: "(c) The term 'treaty obligations' shall mean
treaty obligations as approved by the Senate pursuant to Article II, section
2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution."
This statement appears to be
little more than a smoke screen, for the actual executive order extends far
beyond ratified treaties or, rather, "our treaty obligations" (remember the
first paragraph and Sec. 4 vi). Our president intends to create the American
part of the United Nations' massive management system and monitoring process.
He is betraying our nation into the hands of a global government with a newly
established International Criminal Court with authority to prosecute its
opposition. And he is ready to provide the technology the UN needs in order to
track every person and community in the world. Once this monstrous system is
in place, it may not matter whether human rights treaties are ratified or not.
We will have yielded control of our lives and thoughts to an anti-Christian
world government. Let's hope Congress will awaken to this threat, blocks this
executive order, and refuse to fund any of its seditious programs.
Meanwhile, the deception grows. In
his speech commemorating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our
president gave a glimpse of the changing meaning of "rights" and
"freedom":
"In the future days, which we seek
to make secure, we look forward to a world founded four essential human
freedoms.
1. "The first is freedom
of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
2. "The
second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way --
everywhere in the world.
3. "The third is freedom from
want . . . .
4. "The fourth is freedom from fear . . .
anywhere in the world . . . . The world order which we seek is the
cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized
society."
The last two "freedoms", which
apparently are now considered human rights, would require a totalitarian world
government. The third "freedom" would require a global welfare system, and the
fourth would require absolute control of human behavior -- no guns, no free
speech, etc., except in the hands of elitist rulers.
Our
Response
We shouldn't be surprised. The Bible
tells us to prepare for a world government that would persecute all who refuse
to conform to its ideology and group thinking [11]. Since Biblical Christianity
is incompatible with the UN's global spirituality, Christians had better
prepare to face persecution even in America.
Long ago, God showed us what to expect in
this post-Christian era: "But know this, that in the last days perilous times
will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving,
unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.
From such people turn away!"
Remember, separatism is intolerable to
the UN. To "turn away" would violate its vision of social solidarity. So it's
not surprising that the passage continues with this warning:
"...all who desire to live godly in
Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow
worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the
things which you have learned..." (2 Timothy 3:1-5,12-14)
It won't be easy to continue to stand
firm in God's uncompromising Word when the world demands consensus. But there
is no other safe position in this fast-changing world. Only our King can
provide all the strength, wisdom, peace, and love we need for the battle [12].
When we choose to follow Him, He strength becomes ours! His life in us will
bring encouragement and hope to all around us. Remember, we are on the winning
side. "Blessed is the people whose God is the Lord!"
The LORD is my light
and my salvation;
Whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the strength of my
life;
Of whom shall I be afraid?"
Psalm
27:1
ENDNOTES
1.
Apparently, some executive orders take effect immediately. Others provide more
time for Congressional action. There seems to be a lack of agreement among
Congressional aides on a clear standard or procedure.
2.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1968), Volume V, page 164.
3. http://www.cyberpatrol.com/at_cp.htm
4.
Deuteronomy 18:9-13, Romans 1:18-32 and I Corinthians 10:11
5. The
Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, adopted and signed by the Member
States of the UNESCO on 16 November, 1995.
6. The
Beijing Platform for Action, #258, #314. See also "A National Information
System: Executive Order #13011, at our website:
http://www.crossroad.to
7. See
"No Place to Hide" at our website.
8. In
this case, "or other means of addressing." may refer to the UN plan outlined
in a 1995 report titled Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the
United Nations. Published by the Canadian government and written with
the aid of an International Consultative Group, it calls for a "highly
trained" UN Volunteer Force armed with America's latest surveillance and
reconnaissance technology ready to carry out the "riskier operations" which
national governments might forbid. Ponder some of its suggestions:
"This study's central objective is to recommend
changes at all levels of the UN system which would give the UN an enhanced
capability to respond rapidly to crisis situations...(p. iv)
"...the UN would need to create a database which
could capture information provided by national authorities." (page
53)
"To enhance rapid reaction, the UN and Member
States need to address... the management systems which should be put into
place to ensure that national training programs are responsive to the UN's
requirements." (page 54)
"The fact that the theoretically best solution is
not at present politically feasible does not mean that the system must
simply muddle on indefinitely in its present condition. A great deal can be
achieved without constitutional change, by changes in such salient features
as geography, legal mandates and behavior." Sir Brian Urquhart and Esrskine
Childers (page 55)
"...surveillance technologies and information
management systems could be integrated into an organization-wide system to
enhance contingency planning." (57)
"Governments are sometimes reluctant to release
their forces for duty... Even when Governments are disposed to concur the
process of seeking authorization is often slow." (600
"As professional volunteers develop into a
cohesive UN force, they can assume responsibility for some of the riskier
operations mandated by the Council but for which troop contributors have
been hesitant to contribute... Without the need to consult national
authorities, the UN could cut response time significantly... As the 1995
Commission on Global Governance noted, "The very existence of an immediately
available and effective UN Volunteer Force could be a
deterrent."(62)
9. See "No
Place to Hide" at our website: http://www.crossroad.to
10. See "Worforce Development Means life-long
Indoctrination."
11. Revelation 13
12. Philippians 4:19
BACK