On the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, President Clinton signed a new executive order titled “The Implementation of Human Rights Treaties,” which was the creation of a massive government bureaucracy to promote, monitor, and enforce compliance with human rights regulations mandated by the United Nations. Remember, the UN, founded by communist, shows only contempt for biblical values, American sovereignty, and the U.S. Constitution.
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.”
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  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:
- “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.
- “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:
- “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
- “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“)
- “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
“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.”
(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 unreportedº. 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.
- “The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.
- “The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.
- “The third is freedom from want. . . .
- “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.
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!”