Rights and Privileges - a Comparison
First, let us make clear the distinction between the UN's concept of rights and
the American view on rights. The UN acknowledges only the state, not any supreme
organizing intelligence that is responsible for the order of the universe, it
doesn't acknowledge the author of natural law. This is in direct opposition to
the basic American view that there is a supreme being that is the author of
natural law who acted to create humankind that possesses intelligence and the
capacity to develop that intelligence. So, the distinction between the UN
globalist view of rights - which are actually privileges by definition - and the
American view of rights - is night and day. Americans believe rights are
inalienable, that is that they are non-transferrable, not being in the human
domain to grant or revoke. Thus government is of the people, by the people and
for the people.
UN rule, on the other hand, is capricious and can decide - based on political
currents of the times and the whim of corrupt individuals with their own agendas
- which rights they will grant and which they will revoke, placing the subjects
of that tyranny under an arbitrary system of laws where those subjects are never
sure whether they are violating some law and must therefore always seek
permission prior to doing just about anything, for fear of running afoul of
arbitrary, capricious statutes and their dire consequences (read "cruel and
A side-by-side comparison is in order so that you can see the clear verbiage
which hightlights the distinction between the two views on rights and how they
apply to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to self-defense.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.*
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that
among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note that in the UN Declaration, it says "rights granted him by the constitution
or by law."
Obviously, this is a far cry from the premise that rights are endowed by a
Creator. You see, the Bill of Rights only ACKNOWLEDGES rights already bestowed
by a higher authority. It doesn't grant them. The real difference is that these
inalienable rights are placed outside the domain of humankind, unlike the UN
version which clearly places "rights" in the domain of government or of law,
thus actually defining privileges while calling them "rights".
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full
development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject
only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of
securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and
of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations.*
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the
time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to
prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
Bill of Rights
Clearly, section (1) above asserts that "full development of his personality" is
only possible only as one carries out their "duties" in the community. You
couldn't devise a clearer definition of
socialist slavery than that.
Here, the word "rights" is once again given the definition of privilege and
there is no mention of any limitation on government. In fact, it clearly states
that government shall be all-powerful. It also refers to a "democratic" society.
That should make your hair stand on end!
In the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it is made abundantly clear that the Bill
of Rights was intended to limit government by defining areas where government
may not pass law, which is completely opposite the UN stance on what it calls
"rights". Note that this part of the preamble to the BoR places "further
declaratory and restrictive clauses" - on government, specifically. Now, read
the first amendment (linked above) where it states that "Congress shall make no
What you should keep in mind after comparing the two views side-by-side is that
American rule of law, the written body of law on which our country is based - is
based on the idea that people have inalienable rights that cannot be revoked by
government. Even the Bill of Rights only acknowledges these rights.
Compare that with the "Univeral Declaration of Human Rights" of the UN, which,
as it turns out, uses the definition of the word "privilege". You see that UN
rule of law is based on the idea that GOVERNMENT grants and revokes rights. So,
the UN rule of law is based on no constants and is therefore fiat rule of law
where the underpinnings of government may be changed at whim by government
itself. This therefore places government beyond the reach of people to change it
from inside that system, since the citizens are placed inferior to government
and since government can and will enact laws which protect government, making it
superior to the citizenry, thus casting citizens into the role of peasants or
* The "fine print", directly from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human
What good is the UN?