"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."[1]  Excerpt from Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech to a Joint Session of Congress, January 6, 1941. [His view of "free countries" included the Soviet Union]

"Members of the European Parliament from France, the Netherlands and Italy, among others, vilified Poland as 'hateful' and 'repulsive' for refusing to allow promotion of homosexuality in schools. A vote was held today to approve an EP resolution chastising Poland for 'homophobia.' ... At issue was a proposed law in Poland which would forbid 'homosexual propaganda' in schools. ...
       "France's MEP Rour Martine called statements in defense of the traditional family by Polish parliamentarians, 'diatribes' and noted that they 'must stop', adding that they were 'repulsive' and 'hateful'. ... Italy's Giusto Catania joined in the attack on Poland adding an attack on the church as well, which, he said, never stopped in expressing hatred toward homosexuals....
      "...the most powerful response came from Poland's Bogdan Pek. 'This was an artificial piece of theatre,' he said.... '[I]n the recent histories of your countries there has been persecution -- persecution of Jews for example who took refuge in Poland.... Poland is a tolerant, hospitable country. It is absurd to suggest that Poland is an island of intolerance in Europe."[2] European Parliament Passes Resolution Vowing to Take 'Homophobic' Countries to Court

"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."[3] Columnist John Leo

---

 

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?"[3]

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?"[3]

President Clinton mentioned this last Convention in his summary of Executive Order 13107. 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."[8]

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 in Congress has officially 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.

---

1. Excerpt from Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech to a Joint Session of Congress, January 6, 1941, http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/neworderFDR.html

2. John-Henry Westen, www.LifeSiteNews.com, BRUSSELS, April 26, 2007. 

3. Columnist John Leo "What have Zimbabwe's laws to do with ours?" at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20030713.shtml

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

Home ~ Articles ~ Why hate crimes laws would ban Biblical Christianity