Clinton signed another Emergency Order - EO 13107greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Did you all know that Clinton has been busy while we weren't looking? Can anyone read this and tell me in plain English what it is saying? I get so lost in legalese. Should I be worried????
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release December 10, 1998 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES 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 as follows: Section 1. Implementation of Human Rights Obligations. (a) It shall be the policy and practice of the Government of the United States, being committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, 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. (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. Sec. 2. Responsibility of Executive Departments and Agencies. (a) All executive departments and agencies (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 101-105, including boards and commissions, and hereinafter referred to collectively as "agency" or "agencies") shall maintain a current awareness of United States international human rights obligations that are relevant to their functions and shall perform such functions so as to respect and implement those obligations fully. The head of each agency shall designate a single contact officer who will be responsible for overall coordination of the implementation of this order. Under this order, all such agencies shall retain their established institutional roles in the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of Federal law and policy. (b) The heads of agencies shall have lead responsibility, in coordination with other appropriate agencies, for questions concerning implementation of human rights obligations that fall within their respective operating and program responsibilities and authorities or, to the extent that matters do not fall within the operating and program responsibilities and authorities of any agency, that most closely relate to their general areas of concern. Sec. 3. Human Rights Inquiries and Complaints. Each agency shall take lead responsibility, in coordination with other appropriate agencies, for responding to inquiries, requests for information, and complaints about violations of human rights obligations that fall within its areas of responsibility or, if the matter does not fall within its areas of responsibility, referring it to the appropriate agency for= response. Sec. 4. Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties. (a) There is hereby established 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. (b) The designee of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall chair the Interagency Working Group, which shall consist of appropriate policy and legal representatives at the Assistant Secretary level from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other agencies as the chair deems appropriate. The principal members may designate alternates to attend meetings in their stead. (c) The principal functions of the Interagency Working Group shall= include: (i) coordinating the interagency review of any significant issues concerning the implementation of this order and analysis and recommendations in connection with pursuing the ratification of human rights treaties, as such questions may from time to time arise; (ii) coordinating the preparation of reports that are to be submitted by the United States in fulfillment of treaty obligations; (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; (v) developing recommended proposals and mechanisms for improving the monitoring of the actions by the various States, Commonwealths, and territories of the United States and, where appropriate, of Native Americans and Federally recognized Indian tribes, including the review of State, Commonwealth, and territorial laws for their conformity with relevant treaties, the provision of relevant information for reports and other monitoring purposes, and the promotion of effective remedial= mechanisms; (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; (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, in order to determine whether there should be consideration of any modification of relevant reservations, declarations, and understandings to human rights treaties, or United States practices or laws. The results and recommendations of this review shall be reviewed by the head of each participating agency; (viii) making such other recommendations as it shall deem appropriate to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, concerning United States adherence to or implementation of human rights treaties and related matters; and (ix) coordinating such other significant tasks in connection with human rights treaties or 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. (d) The work of the Interagency Working Group shall not supplant the work of other interagency entities, including the President's Committee on the International Labor Organization, that address international human rights issues. Sec. 5. Cooperation Among Executive Departments and Agencies. All agencies shall cooperate in carrying out the provisions of this order. The Interagency Working Group shall facilitate such cooperative measures. Sec. 6. Judicial Review, Scope, and Administration. (a) Nothing in this order shall create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. (b) This order does not supersede Federal statutes and does not impose any justiciable obligations on the executive branch. (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. (d) To the maximum extent practicable and subject to the availability of appropriations, agencies shall carry out the provisions of this order. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, December 10, 1998.
-- just me (email@example.com), December 22, 1998
Can I ask where you found this?
I don't think this EO itself is scary.
What scares me is why? What is happening that we no nothing about? Why the need for a Human Rights Emergency Order? The EO seems to set up protection for human rights, not suspend them.
-- Michael Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 1998.
EO stands for Executive Order, not Emergency Order. Executive Orders are routine when the President needs someone in the govt. to take action.
-- Buddy (DC) (email@example.com), December 22, 1998.
Whit e House web site Executive Orders search screen
-- Buddy (DC) (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 1998.
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately my impression is that many in this forum "want" it to be an Emergency Order instead of an Executive Order. It doesn't matter what the government says or does, someone here will construe it as part of a great conspiracy.
Don't even mention 1999 because if you take the last three numbers and turn them upside down, you get 666 and some nutcase will be sure to point that out to you.
Don't even mention contingency plans because someone will shout you down by saying that they're not enough or if it's not all fixed it will all come crashing down anyway.
I've always appreciated your comments on this forum and think you post some accurate and balanced situation. Unfortunately, the "Road Warrior" noise levels are getting far too loud and many of the extremists will simply not hear you.
-- Craig (email@example.com), December 22, 1998.
This is located at: http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/ 1998/12/11/4.text.1
Sec. 3. Human Rights Inquiries and Complaints. Each agency shall take lead responsibility, in coordination with other appropriate agencies, for responding to inquiries, requests for information, and complaints about violations of human rights obligations that fall within its areas of responsibility or, if the matter does not fall within its areas of responsibility, referring it to the appropriate agency for= response.
[Contingency planning for complaints of violations of human rights]
(b) The designee of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall chair the Interagency Working Group, which shall consist of appropriate policy and legal representatives at the Assistant Secretary level from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other agencies as the chair deems appropriate.
[All other departments are reporting to the NSA]
(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;
[They expect the international community to file complaints]
(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;
[Setting up checks and balances]
(v) developing recommended proposals and mechanisms for improving the monitoring of the actions by the various States, Commonwealths, and territories of the United States and, where appropriate, of Native Americans and Federally recognized Indian tribes, including the review of State, Commonwealth, and territorial laws for their conformity with relevant treaties, the provision of relevant information for reports and other monitoring purposes, and the promotion of effective remedial= mechanisms;
(vi) developing plans for public outreach and education concerning ... human rights-related provisions of domestic law;
[What IS the domestic law? States?]
(viii) making such other recommendations as it shall deem appropriate to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, concerning United States adherence to or implementation of human rights treaties and related matters;
[Anticipating state oriented human rights violations?]
Could Clinton be anticipating terrorist acts in the U.S. violating human rights here too?
-- Diane J. Squire (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 1998.
Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This was sent to me, but as I said I can read technical manuals with no problem, but not legalese. It does make me wonder what is instigating this.
-- just me (email@example.com), December 22, 1998.
This will be all that he needs to eliminate Capital Punishment in the few states that still have it.
-- Chuck a night driver (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 1998.
Craig, You are right about the 1999 - here's something else to ponder (just for fun, ok) year 2000 has the same dates/days as 1984, maybe Orson Wells wasn't so far off (Big Brother is watching - especially your bank accounts!) Time to dust off that old book and give it another read. Diana
-- Diana (email@example.com), December 22, 1998.
>year 2000 has the same dates/days as 1984
No. January 1, 2000 will be a Saturday. January 1, 1984 was a Sunday.
The is the second time in 24 hours that I've seen that incorrect assertion. Where did you pick it up?
-- No Spam Please (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 1998.
Hey guys - the calendar day/dates are exactly the same every 28 years.
-- deano (email@example.com), December 23, 1998.
This E.O. seems to be timed three months prior to our NATO involvement with Kosovo, meaning that there were plans to intervene as far back possibly as Nov. 98 or even earlier.
-- Mary (M.Doe@usa.net), March 27, 1999.
Why do you imply that there is a connection between EO 13107 and NATO involvement in Kosovo?
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 27, 1999.
Nope, just bureaucratese. But what is interesting is Clinton's penchant for the use of the word "covenant," which belies an ego of messianic proportions and a instict to view the power of the state as supernatural or divine.
-- coprolith (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 27, 1999.
Because it gives Mr. C the first step to the right to intervene anywhere he "perceives" human rights violation without as many steps.(Did he ever ask Congress about Kosovo?) Not that I know of (coulda missed it) - he went directly to NATO, did not pass go, started bombing. NAS Whidbey planes got 48 hrs. notice before shipping out and the bombing started shortly thereafter.
-- Valkyrie (email@example.com), March 27, 1999.
Your biases are showing badly in your anti-Clinton drivel.
If you actually did a word search on the EO, you'd find that the word "covenant" appears _only once_, capitalized, as part of the _title_ of one of the treaties. "Covenant" wasn't Clinton's word selection. As for his supposed "penchant" for its use -- it such actually existed, then explain why Clinton never took the opportunity to use the word "covenant" other than when citing the actual title of one of the treaties.
And, of course, like practically all anti-Clinton drivel along these lines, yours omits any mention of the fact that the _U.S. Senate_ (Republican majority, last time I looked) ratified the treaty.
Is it your position that a president should not issue orders to enforce the provisions of international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate?
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 27, 1999.
>Because it gives Mr. C the first step to the right to intervene anywhere he "perceives" human rights violation without as many steps.
Oh, don't give us that! EO 13107 does no such thing.
Where do you get "perceives"? That's not in the EO.
I challenge you to specify which clause(s) of the EO give Clinton "the first step to the right to intervene anywhere he 'perceives' human rights violation". Where do you read that?
>(Did he ever ask Congress about Kosovo?) Not that I know of (coulda missed it)
That has nothing to do with EO 13107. Why do you imply that it does?
Do you just blame anything Clinton does that you don't like on whatever EO is handy?
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 27, 1999.
The concept of "human rights" violations (as defined by the U.S.) and the link to treaties of commerce is expected to be challenged in the court of world "public opinion." As an example, the use of incarceration statistics by the U.S. as evidence of oppression will be challenged using the following data:
Russia has the highest national rate of incarceration in the world, about 835 per 100,000 of population. China's rate is less than Russia. The use of these data points by the U.S. will backfire because the the incarceration rates in Texas and Louisiana are higherthan the rates in Russia (over 860 per 100,000 of population). The rate and racial balance of prisoners will be offered as evidence of U.S. oppression of minorities.
So the argument is being made that sections of the U.S. have the highest rates of racial oppression and incarceration in the world.
-- PNG (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 27, 1999.
There's only one thing wrong with this. It's unconstitutional. The congress holds the power to ratify treaties, and we are supposed to have a president, not a KING. This, taken along with the EO of Dec. 17th which declared all of us and our children citizens of the United Nations (I beg to differ!!!) constitute a steady and methodical erosion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What he is doing here is destroying yet more of the soveriegnity of the United States, just as NATO is currently destroying the soverignity of Yugoslavia. Wake up folks, Clinton is a trilateralist, Bildenberger, CFR member, and Rhodes scholar. He is the ULTIMATE NEW WORLD ORDER SOCIALIST. Every action he takes is working towards the destruction of the U>S> Constitution which he is sworn to defend, and the implementation of a one world government.
-- Nikoli Krushev (email@example.com), March 27, 1999.
>There's only one thing wrong with this. It's unconstitutional. The congress holds the power to ratify treaties,
The Senate DID ratify them. So what's your beef? Or didn't you bother reading the EO all the way to the end?
>Wake up folks, Clinton is a
Wake up, folks. Like all too many attacks on Clinton, this one didn't bother getting its facts straight first.
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 28, 1999.
Orson Wells, hmm, could it be George Orwell ?? At least until the missiles begin to fall on northern New Jersey...
-- Blue Himalayan (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 28, 1999.
Hi No Spam. No I didn't bother reading it all the way through until you responded. I had read it before in December, and assumed it was the same wording. Clinton origionally wrote this so that it implemented all kinds of U.N. treaties which had not been ratified, and tried to sneak it through when congress went on Christmas recess while he was in the process of being impeached. I am still looking for an origional text copy of the order and will post it as soon as I find one. Here are some articles on the origional text that show pretty clearly what was in it. Apparently congress did their job for once and made him take out the Unconstitutional Treaty Ratifications and Enforcement. The Origional order also created an entirely new federal agency to oversee the State Govenments and scrutinize their Constitutions for compliance with U.N. treaties. If they were non- compliant they would have to be amended.
The implementation of global governance
By Henry Lamb ) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
Executive Order 13107, which, barring a congressional override this week will become the law of the land, is a perfect example of how global governance is overtaking self-governance in the United States.
Despite the rejection by the U.S. Senate of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the refusal of the Senate to even consider many of the other 81 U.N. Human Rights Treaties, the president has laid the foundation through this EO to implement the objectives of those treaties. The will of the U.N. is being implemented voluntarily by the Clinton/Gore administration. The process was not initiated by this administration; George Bush, with his Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly, was eager to usher in the "New World Order."
Nor is the process limited to Human Rights Treaties. This administration is actively implementing the unratified Convention on Biological Diversity, the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the policies of Agenda 21. With the implementation of each of these UN policies, another piece of America's national sovereignty is eroded.
Defenders of these policies say "so what, these are good policies that should be implemented." Not all Americans agree, and therein lies the great danger to America. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism for grinding the differences of opinion out of public policy through public debate, and questions are resolved by the public, accountable votes of elected officials. When public policies are adopted by elected officials which differ from the will of the people, the people can change their elected officials and thereby change the public policy. When public policies originate in Geneva, Rio de Janeiro, or Kyoto, and are implemented by executive order and administrative decree, those who dissent, or who may have a better idea, are silenced. Policies are imposed upon the people who neither give their consent, nor have recourse to change those policies.
The process is bad enough, in that it bypasses the fundamental process prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. But even worse is the underlying philosophy of governance upon which U.N. policies are based. Consent of the governed is the empowering principle of American government; control of the governed is the empowering principle of global governance.
The Kyoto Protocol exemplifies this principle: to achieve its objective, the UN document would allow the UN to control the use of energy in rich nations in order to force industry to move to poor nations that have no controls on energy use. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights seeks to "create the conditions" to grant "freedom from want" to those who want. The only way to achieve that result is to "take" from those who have, and "give" to those who have not. Control of people is the essential ingredient in the implementation of virtually all U.N. policies because the underlying philosophy demands it.
By contrast, the philosophy that underlies the U.S. Constitution is the belief that people who are free to pursue their own survival and prosperity will create the interpersonal and business relationships necessary to achieve their own objectives. In 200 years, this philosophy has demonstrated its validity by producing national prosperity unmatched by nations that have existed for thousands of years.
Proponents of global governance deny a desire to control people. In fact, they claim their objective is to ensure a greater degree of freedom and prosperity to those who are now denied even basic freedoms and live in crushing poverty. That, they say, is the purpose, hope, and objective of the 81 Human Rights Treaties. What they fail to recognize, or admit, is the fact that neither freedom, nor prosperity, is a commodity that any government can give; they can only be limited, restricted, or denied by government. Any attempt by any government to expand either the freedom or prosperity of some, necessarily requires that the freedom and prosperity of others be limited, restricted, or denied.
The American experiment in self governance is just over 200 years old. It has been incredibly successful -- so far -- a beacon of hope to the world. The only hope of the developing world to escape the cycle of impoverished servitude is to follow America's example of casting off governmental constraints and allowing free people to use the resources provided by their creator to pursue their own survival and prosperity.
Executive Order 13107 diminishes the candlepower of America's beacon of hope. What's worse, it allows the United Nations a larger measure of control over the beacon. If the trend continues, even for another few years, the United Nations will extinguish the light altogether, and America will be stripped of its wealth in order to achieve "equity" in the new "sustainable" millennium, by those who think they know how everyone ought to behave.
Henry Lamb is executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
-- Nikoli Krushev (email@example.com), March 28, 1999.
And here's another...
While national attention was focused on the impending impeachment, President Clinton signed an executive order which critics say promotes a globalist agenda and endangers the Bill of Rights. Dec. 10 marked the half-century anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations.
Fifty years ago, representatives of the member states met in Paris and put their signatures on the document that was hailed by many as a great freedom landmark of human history -- on a par with England's Magna Carta and America's Bill of Rights.
The date of the signing has been commemorated annually by presidential proclamation designating it Human Rights Day, and the week following as Human Rights Week.
Taking advantage of the historical significance of this year's celebration, President Clinton, at a morning ceremony at the White House, unveiled a set of eight policy initiatives (including an executive order) intended as a way "to advance human rights at home and abroad."
"Today we commit ourselves to the ideas of the Universal Declaration, to keep moving toward the promise outlined in Paris 50 years ago," Clinton solemnly intoned -- and pledged American resources to combat virtually every iniquity in the world from genocide in Africa, to the suffering of women in Afghanistan, to "hate" crimes and sweatshops in this country.
As a publicity generator, the event fell flat. Although an undisclosed number of dignitaries and members of Congress were present, apparently national attention was so focused on the impeachment proceedings that the White House ceremony was ignored by the public and the press. Not even the president's announcement of the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award -- a new annual award honoring the former first lady and crediting her as the driving force behind the creation and adoption of the Universal Declaration -- could draw attention away from the discussions in progress on the Hill.
Not surprisingly, the initiatives went largely unreported -- until now.
Heading the list was a far-reaching executive order, Number 13107, calling for Implementation of Human Rights Treaties (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and directing agencies and departments of the executive branch to set up mechanisms for carrying out the obligations mandated by these treaties. This will require the states to change their laws and programs to assure conformity and bring them into line with the treaties' requirements. A number of human rights treaties (like the Convention for the Rights of the Child) have yet to be ratified by the Senate, despite considerable arm-twisting by the administration.
The executive order creates a new Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties, headed by the assistant to the president for national security affairs and comprised -- for a start -- of policy and legal representatives from the departments of State, Justice, Labor, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Other agencies can be brought on board if the chair deems it appropriate. The working group would develop "effective mechanisms" to make sure that legislation proposed by the administration (as well as that originated by Congress) is reviewed for "conformity with international human rights obligations." The working group is specifically tasked with monitoring the actions and legislation by the states, commonwealths, and territories of the United States -- and the Indian tribes as well -- to ensure that non-federal entities are brought into "conformity" with the treaties.
The other initiatives are not as broad in scope, but expand government powers nonetheless, in some instances, into foreign countries. Here, a synopsis of each:
Establishment of a Genocide Early Warning Center -- run by the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency -- to focus intelligence resources "on situations that could potentially lead to genocide," in various parts of the world, particularly Africa.
To increase U.S. response to human rights "emergencies," $8 million will be given over the next five years to non-governmental organizations "to develop rapid response capacities." The NGOs are to create overseas "assessment teams" and "monitoring units" to keep tabs on "abuses" in foreign countries. To help victims of human rights abuse, several NGOs that assist human rights victims -- for instance Afghan women and survivors of genocide -- will receive funding, and contributions to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture will be increased.
$30 million will be allocated this year to the International Labor Organization's Internation Program on the Elimination of Child Labor.
The federal government will push for legislation allowing illegal aliens who are the victims of "serious abuses" in the U.S. -- for instance, forced labor or forced prostitution -- to gain lawful status if they identify abusers.
New guidelines are to be issued for easier adjudication of asylum claims by children in the United States.
To prevent youth hate crime, the Department of Education will distribute a publication of a guide for schools entitled "Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crimes." In terms of expanding federal power, these human rights initiatives -- in particular, the executive order -- go even further than other Clinton proposals, such as E.O. 13083 on federalism. Had E.O. 13083 not been suspended, critics say it would have wiped out the last vestiges of state authority and given the federal government complete power over state government and the people. These recent initiatives open up the matter of treaties and treaty-based law.
Larry Becraft, a constitutional attorney in Huntsville, Alabama, has made a long-term study of how treaties are used as a tool to expand federal jurisdiction. In a telephone interview he discussed with WorldNetDaily the hows and whys of these latest spinnings from the Clinton White House.
According to Becraft, treaties have been used for decades by both lawmakers and the executive branch to make end runs around the Constitution and loosen its restraints on government power. Executive orders, an administrative tool which Clinton has used freely to forward his own ends, can be either benign or malignant.
"Basically, executive orders are intended to govern the executive branch," Becraft explained. "Under Title 5, Section 301 of the U.S. Code, the president can issue rules and regulations to tell the agencies what to do. If you had a constitutionalist president, he'd be issuing constitutionalist-minded executive orders. If you have a 'Red' president he's going to issue 'Red' executive orders -- like the one he signed about Federalism. So that's what this is. Clinton is directing his departments to start implementing the Human Rights treaties and their provisions. He's using the legal tool he has with Title 5, Section 301, to begin the implementation process.
"Now if you look at these 'human rights' that they're talking about in those treaties, they're not really what we'd call absolute rights -- they're privileges. They're granted by the government. They can be suspended in the time of a declared national emergency, there are a lot of conditions attached," Becraft noted.
In talking about the interagency working group headed by the president's assistant on national security affairs, a part of the National Security Council, Becraft minced no words in his discussion of Clinton's goal of world government and the importance of the military.
"If your agenda is to establish world government -- which Clinton's is -- the military of all nations must be converted into law enforcement," he observed. "If they make these human rights provisions a policy, they've got to have some way to enforce them. Right now they've got the militaries around the world doing it, but I'll rue the day they come up with a world police.
"In all the treaties -- the environmental ones, like the human rights ones -- there's always some international agency that will eventually enforce it. But they need a national one meanwhile. That's what this interagency working group is all about. It will start dictating to the state, territories, and Indian tribes what their legislation is going to be," Becraft said. "That's the objective."
Aaron Zelman is another critic of the new policy initiatives. Zelman heads Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a non-profit public policy group based in Wisconsin, dedicated to defending the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
Zelman believes his is the only civil rights organization that actively promotes the celebration of Bill of Rights Day Dec. 15, the day the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified in 1791. Presidents issue proclamations formally recognizing the occasion -- at the same time designating Dec. 10 as Human Rights Day. But somehow, the Bill of Rights gets downplayed in the cacophony generated over Human Rights -- a happenstance Zelman believes is very wrong.
"The Human Rights Declaration is a sham," he remarked bluntly.
As Zelman sees it, "The ultimate human right is the ability to keep oneself alive, and the present administration -- through its support of gun control schemes -- has shown a complete disregard for that right and for the right of a people to defend themselves against a government that's gone bad."
Without the Second Amendment, the other rights in the Bill of Rights would not survive, observes Zelman. There would be no right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press. "The Second Amendment is the insurance policy for the other rights -- and the Declaration of Human Rights ignores this completely," he said. "It does not recognize the right to keep and bear arms." The human rights treaties declare that people have a "right to life, liberty, and security of person," Zelman noted. He then asked, "But how in the world do you support that? Security, like charity, starts at home. The best security for a nation is a heavily armed citizenry. The treaties don't specifically negate the holding of arms -- yet. But they will," he predicted.
Zelman fears government emphasis on the "sham" rights of the Universal Declaration will destroy the Bill of Rights, because the public will in time lose awareness that it even exists.
"The Bill of Rights will be buried because no one is paying attention to it," he said. "Things like the executive order for Human Rights will bury the Bill of Rights. Then the Human Rights Declaration will be substituted in its place."
-- Nikoli Krushev (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 28, 1999.
And one last time before I go to bed.
Executive Order 13107
From where do our rights descend? The Bill of Rights? No. The Constitution? No. The Federal government? No. The United Nations? Certainly not. But, apparently, that's what Bill Clinton thinks. For earlier this month, Dec. 10 to be exact, he issued another one of his infamous executive orders -- this time on "the implementation of human rights treaties." In Executive Order 13107, Clinton sets up a new federal bureaucracy for the purpose of implementing U.N. treaties, whether ratified by the U.S. Senate or not. And that federal bureaucracy will implement the treaties on the U.N.'s terms.
Sound like a deal? It gets worse.
Though President Clinton said he issued the order to further his goal of promoting human rights around the world, it's important to understand exactly how the U.N. defines "human rights."
That definition is offered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which talks about the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, and expression. All good stuff, until you realize whom the ultimate authority is. Who is the sovereign that imparts such blessings upon the populace of the world?
The answer to that question is stated unequivocally in article 29 of the U.N. document, which states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
That pretty much explains who the "massa" is and where the plantation boundaries end. What a stark contrast between the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and the founding documents of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution both make it clear that basic human rights are inalienable, meaning they descend from the ultimate Sovereign, the Creator, God. Therefore, no human authority, no government, no criminal, no individual can abrogate or abridge those rights.
Remember, any right government can bestow upon a people, it can just as easily take away. This is a profound principle Americans have forgotten. The day they accept the principle that rights descend from government authority is the day they lose their freedoms. It's as simple as that.
In effect, that is what Executive Order 13107 decrees. It's an attempt by Bill Clinton to persuade Americans that human rights descend not from God but from worldly government authorities -- with the ultimate authority represented by the United Nations.
In other words, the U.N. believes people have the right to dissent, unless it's a dissent against the United Nations. It reminds me of the old Soviet model. There it was even more bluntly stated: "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism." Basically, the U.N. has rewritten that maxim: "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of the United Nations."
The U.N. practices what it preaches, too. In Bosnia, the U.N. forces have seized control of radio and TV stations broadcasting pro-Serbian news and propaganda. In fact, U.S. troops participated in those raids. How does one justify such actions under the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the rights of all people -- not just Americans -- to speak their minds and express themselves freely?
Welcome to the Brave New World of U.N. doublespeak. And President Clinton is dragging the U.S. deeper into this quagmire than has any other president in history.
Not only does Executive Order 13107 promote an unworthy and dangerous goal, but the road to that objective, namely the executive order itself the way Bill Clinton has employed it, is a corrupt and unconstitutional process.
Executive orders are supposed to be a presidential tool for running the executive branch of government. Clinton has used them freely during his terms in office to make policy affecting other branches of government, the states, and individuals. Now, with 13107, he's attempting to implement international treaties! Executive orders were never intended to be used as imperial orders.
Once again, though, the only people with the authority to curb the misuse of executive orders are the members of Congress, who have 30 days from the issuance of an order to reject it by majority vote. Trouble is, they seldom bother to read them. And the press seldom bothers to cover them -- even when they represent sweeping new interpretations of human rights and compromises of U.S. national sovereignty.
It's time for Congress not only to reject Executive Order 13107, but also to review, in the context of the ongoing impeachment process, all of President Clinton's more than 200 executive orders. In both substance and in intent, they represent one of the worst abuses of power in an administration characterized by abuse of power.
PREVIOUS STORY: "None dare call it fascism."
-- Nikoli Krushev (email@example.com), March 28, 1999.
>No I didn't bother reading it all the way through until you responded.
See, folks? That's why I keep recommending that when evaluating these attacks on Clinton's Executive Orders, you go to the actual text of the EOs rather than depend on the (often biased) summaries given by critics.
>Clinton origionally wrote this so that it implemented all kinds of U.N. treaties which had not been ratified.
Cute story. Let's see whether Nikoli comes up with the supposed original text copy with this alleged stuff in it.
>Here are some articles on the origional text that show pretty clearly what was in it.
pretty clearly?? Heh. As I've pointed out before, comparing summaries written by people with an ax to grind against Clinton to the actual texts often reveals significant differences.
>Apparently congress did their job for once and made him take out the Unconstitutional Treaty Ratifications and Enforcement.
Will Clinton-attackers ever admit that no such unconstitutional stuff was ever in it? Or admit that no EO can ratify a treaty and there never was any such provision in any of Clinton's EOs?
Now, I don't mind discussion and critique of Clinton's actions and orders that are based on fact. I think some of our current President's actions and orders are reprehensible. But the volume of exaggerations, lies, and ignorance by many Clinton critics tends to drown out the factually-based portions, to the detriment of US citizens.
What I ask of Clinton-critics is: First get the facts straight. Then leave out the exaggerations and lies. Then you'll get improved credibility. You'll no longer have to rant about Clinton's approval ratings because the portion of them that is due to backlash against excessive and unjustified attacks will fade away.
-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 28, 1999.