Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules
A report on Executive Order 13107
"The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties", 
signed by President Clinton, December 10, 1998

By Berit Kjos


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

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"


Reply via email to