"Here's a useful rule of thumb about international
conventions, U.N. documents and the findings of foreign courts: Any time
an American judge cites one in an American court, something alarming is
probably about to happen. The source of the alarm is usually that the judge
has spotted some important 'emerging world consensus' that requires
him to defy the plain meaning of American law."1 Columnist John Leo
"Since the beginning of our American history we have
been engaged in change – in a perpetual peaceful revolution – a revolution
which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions....
The 'World Order' which we seek is the co-operation of free countries,
working together in a friendly, civilized society.... Freedom means
the supremacy of human rights everywhere."2 Excerpt from Franklin
D. Roosevelt's speech to a Joint Session of Congress, January 6, 1941,
"Roosevelt as he looked at the colored reproduction of the Seal was first
struck with the representation of the 'All Seeing Eye,' a Masonic
representation of The Great Architect of the Universe....
Roosevelt like myself was a 32nd degree Mason. He suggested that
the Seal be put on the dollar bill."3 Henry A. Wallace, Socialist Sec. of Agriculture
and, later, Vice President under Roosevelt.
After a series of disturbing Supreme Court briefs based, in part,
on foreign court decisions, columnist John Leo raised a provocative question:
"What have Zimbabwe's laws to do with ours?"
I'm glad he asked, for Zimbabwe's president illustrates the legal
absurdity behind such transnational court opinions. President Mugabe was elected to the UN Commission
on Human Rights in spite of his murderous assaults on political opponents,
his eviction of white farmers (which caused mass famine), and his atrocious
treatment of reporters who expose his inhumane values. His laws and actions
mock the very notion of freedom and justice. So do most UN treaties. Even so,
"The courts of several Western nations have moved to interpret their
own constitutions in the light of international conventions, U.N. treaties
and other similar materials. This is a dicey proposition because so much
of these materials are produced by U.N. bureaucrats and powerful U.N. non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) with little publicity and almost no democratic input.
"The NGOs, most of them American, are predominantly far out on the cultural
left. They specialize in producing non-binding and apparently harmless documents
that they work to convert into explosive and legally binding texts that
undermine national sovereignty and democratic procedures. This is not a
system that deserves a nod of respect from Supreme Court justices....
"Justice Breyer is perhaps
the court's most zealous advocate of finding legal answers abroad. In a
case focusing on allowable delays of execution (Knight v. Florida) he said
he found 'useful' court decisions on the matter in India, Jamaica and Zimbabwe.
We're getting our legal cues from Zimbabwe?"1
The backbone of the Human Rights Commission (which is currently
led by Libya and includes China, Sudan and Cuba as well as Zimbabwe and the
USA) is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Whether specifically mentioned in courts or not, it has
become an integral part of the global understanding of "human rights" and
"responsibilities" around the world. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations "as a universally accepted standard of achievement for
all nations" on December 10, 1948, it was
introduced by its main co-author, Eleanor Roosevelt, with these promising
words:
"We stand today at the threshold of a great event both
in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This declaration
may well become the international Magna Carta for all men everywhere.
We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable
to the proclamation in 1789 [of the French Declaration of the Rights of
Man], the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the U.S., and
the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries..."4
Do you wonder what this foundational UN law -- touted by
U.S. presidents 5 and celebrated by the
people -- actually says?
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, the promised "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who
would criticize the UN or its policies. [See Homeland
Security and the transformation of America]
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."6
When President Clinton signed his Executive
Order 13107 ("The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties") he claimed authority to establish
a vast system for enforcing UN Human Rights standards in the U.S. It
would assess and monitor social attitudes everywhere, prevent contrary beliefs,
and remediate anyone found guilty of non-compliance.
Hard to believe? Then read The
UN Plan for Your Mental Health. The World
Health Organization (WHO) co-ordinates this "mental
health" system around the world. It has considered China a model nation.
On December 10, 1998, President Clinton led a celebration of the
Universal Declaration's 50th anniversary which introduced a national coalition that "would advance respect for
human rights both at home and abroad."7 It
helps explain why U.S. soldiers may be called to give their lives for nations
like Iraq and Liberia, doesn't it?
In the Supreme Court's decision on racial preferences (Grutter v.
Bollinger), Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer cited the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. But they turned the clear Constitutional message upside
down in order to implement the hidden message behind UN ideology. As John Leo
pointed out,
"it turns out to mean that we need double standards: non-whites will be
favored, whites will be disfavored. It won't last forever, though. Ginsburg
and Breyer explain that this system of planned inequality, in the words of
the convention, "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of
unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives
for which they have been taken have been achieved." So Caucasians will be
unequal under the law only until exact group equality breaks out or until
hell freezes over, whichever comes first. Two Supreme Court justices signed
on to this?"1
President Clinton included this last Convention in the summary of Executive Order 13107.8 He wrote,
"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 far as I know, no one has
questioned or opposed this amazing executive order which now stands as a law
of the land.
The framework for this "global consensus" was
envisioned and planned over a century ago. By the early forties, the vision
was becoming reality. Among the leaders of this movement were Soviet spy Alger
Hiss (an adviser to President Roosevelt and the first Secretary General of the
United Nations), the liberal church leaders behind the World Council of
Churches and John Foster Dulles who would become Secretary of State in the
Eisenhower administration.
To be continued.
1. Columnist John Leo "What have Zimbabwe's laws to do with ours?"
at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20030713.shtml
2. Excerpt from Franklin
D. Roosevelt's speech to a Joint Session of Congress, January 6, 1941,
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/neworderFDR.html
3. http://www.greatseal.com/levels/fdr1935.html
4. http://www.udhr.org/history/frbioer.htm
5. "The United States will continue to denounce contraventions of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will press for constructive
change. And, at times, it is necessary to take a stand against aggression....
The documents we celebrate this week -- the Bill of Rights, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the more recent Helsinki accords -- derive
their value and promise from the timeless, immutable truths they contain and
our solemn commitment to upholding them.... NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE BUSH,
President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested
in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim
December 10, 1990, as Human Rights Day. http://envirotext.eh.doe.gov/data/eos/bush/19901210.html
6.Encyclopaedia Britannica (1968), Volume V, page 164.
7. http://www.udhr.org/index.htm
and Trading
U.S. Rights for UN Rules
8. Executive Order
13107 at http://www.idir.net/~cnc/EO_13107.html
Provided by
Berit Kjos
See our selection
of wonderful
books by Berit Kjos
If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal
Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need
to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly
forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you
need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.
If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as
Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the
Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so
now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually
Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then,
you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.
If you would like to become Born Again, turn
to our Salvation Page now.
Finally, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us
by mail or email.
God bless you.
Subscribe to our email updates and messages
from our editor by entering your email address below
Return to:
