The Principles of '76 and the New World Order

0:00Dr. Livingston wanted me to say a few words about the 14th Amendment and the theory of selective incorporation and just very briefly ties into what we'll be discussing for a few minutes. The court, well let me begin with the Congress in the post-Bellum period when they were discussing the 14th Amendment. There was a congressman from Ohio, congressman Bingham and he made a motion a proposal to make the bill of right applicable to the state. So this is 1787 revisited and he was soundly defeated. I think he had one co-sponsor in the Congress and we're talking about a

1:00Republican Congress primarily but also you had Northern Democrats but they said no way we're not going to make the bill of right applicable to the states. The states have their own constitutions. They have their own declaration of rights, bill of rights and so on but you still have that language where Bingham and his co-sponsor gave a speech in the Congress advocating this position. So for the next several years there was still this attempt to make the bill of rights applicable to the states and the Supreme Court actually adjudicated a couple cases where reiterated 1833 case bearing of the Baltimore which Chief Justice John Marshall specifically said and this dealt with eminent domain that the bill of rights do not apply to the state governments. They are only applicable those provisions of the bill of rights to the national government. And so we see the court

2:00reiterating that position up until about 1925. It was a first amendment case and it had to do with a guy named Gitlow who was a communist socialist who was arrested for passing out seditious literature trying to block US participation in the First World War and he was convicted. His conviction was upheld but the Supreme Court decided yes that the bill of rights, some of them, especially the right to free speech and press are so important and so necessary to a democracy that they will be made applicable to the state governments. And how did they make this leap? They made the 14th amendment due process clause the bridge between portions of the bill of rights to the states.

3:02So what they did is they revived Congressman Bingham's initial proposal that was soundly rejected and built that into American case law. The First Amendment says for example the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion and so on. It's quite clear the bill of rights were directed against the national government. So 1925, 1930s, 1940s, 50s, 60s. You have a series of cases in which the court incrementally and slowly took portions of the bill of rights and through that bridge the due process clause of the 14th amendment made the bill of rights applicable to state governments. That's why you don't have school and prayer. That's why you have it abortion laws were overturned. That's why you name it. So the bill of rights for all intents and purposes most of them, not all of them. Justice Black said this is nonsense. He's what we call a total incorporationist.

4:06He said let's get done with it in the 1960s. He said stop this step by step approach and just make whatever's applicable at the national government make it applicable to the states. So they just about incorporated every relevant part of the bill of rights with the exception of one amendment and everybody want to take a guess the second amendment and there are people NRA types that want them to do the second amendment but the second amendment even Madison talks about this in the Federalist Papers. It's an important check on the national government. He talks about the ratio between armed citizens and armed organized military in the national government. He says it's except I think the ratio is 200 to 1. These states have nothing to fear from the national government because the states will be heavily armed. That the United States government can never fill an army large enough to crush the states. So the second amendment and we call it

5:09ordered liberty. First amendment you have speech, expression, ideas, religion. Those are important concepts to ordered liberty and the framers they didn't articulate it as such but they knew for democracy to work or republicanism with a small r you had to have these rights to communicate to organize to petition the government but they also realized that you also when those checks break down you need to be armed and that's what the second amendment essentially does. It acknowledges that the state citizens will be armed if the quote tug comes. Now the state government under its police powers can regulate your right to keep in bear arms. That's a prerogative under the quote police powers but that's still a product of what the people in that particular state want and we still do have some diversity among the states as to access to carry weapons, have weapons,

6:12concealed weapon permits and so on. So the we have this notion of self-elected from corporation. What does that have to do with the topic that we're going to discuss for a few minutes? Well 1776, Declaration of Independence, there's something about government being based upon the consent of the government. Now go back to what I was trying to discuss yesterday regarding the this notion of globalism and the human family. So you have the Bill of Rights but we also have this thing called the United Nations Declaration of Rights. Two very different set of rights and this was in your packet. Let me just quickly read through some key parts because my argument is that the court is on the verge of another type of incorporation. Remember I read that quotation from Justice Ginsburg and Breyer in the concurring opinion of Lawrence V. Texas yesterday and they talk about

7:18international rights, these are racial discrimination. This is that creeping process of taking rights from the international community what is what rights that are recognized internationally and making them part of American law. So rights such as I'll skip over the preamble it's all that about the human family nonsense but Article 1 reads all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Endowed not created but endowed with reason and conscience. Article 2, everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration. Without distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social

8:20origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political jurisdiction or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs whether it be independent, trust, non self governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. So the rights that they're going to apply are going to be applied universally, the universal declaration of rights. Article 3, everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person. Article 4, no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, slavery in the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5, no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This Article 5 is popping up in capital cases. In the early 70s, Justice Thurgood Marshall referred to this that the US Constitution specifically

9:22sanctions capital punishment in at least four places. And Marshall said in the Ferman V. Georgia case, he said something to the effect, even though the Constitution sanctions it, we have outgrown the Constitution. And there are new standards of what constitute cruel and unusual punishment. And capital punishment has no longer sanctioned because of progress, new values and so on. Article 6, everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7, are law equal before the law in our entitle without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination, violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. I mean, these things are just loaded. A judge could interpret that these are ticking time bombs. You could take the language of these articles at boom, just blow up a community, a culture, a society,

10:27and impose a new way of living. Article 8, 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. And then I'm going to skip down. There are all types of things which more or less attack the concept or the practice of nationalism. There are things about, you have a right based upon this to Article 26. For example, everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages, but that leaves open higher education at least. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available to higher education. Shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of human personality,

11:30to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. So we're a party to this. This is something that this could be adjudicated in the court of law. Somebody going to a university because they say, hey, wait a minute. My professor said something negative about the United Nations. We're supposed to support the United Nations based upon Article 26. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. It has all, you have the right to form a labor union, a right to vacation or right to this or right to that. So like I said, the UN Declaration of Rights is a somewhat loaded document. This is Article 15 and strikingly year in the me. Everyone has

12:34the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or denied the right to change his nationality. So arbitrarily deprived, deprived. The United Nations had a good reason they could take your nationality from me. And also, it also indicates open borders, and so far as you should be able to declare what nationality you want. Doug had a comment. You were reading Article 26, right? You clearly said before I think I've got another semi-colonist or a homadest. That was admission into university based on merit. That it completely kills any alternative action policies. You would think so, but read Lawrence V. Texas. Their notion of merit, Clantz Thomas makes it quite clear that they have redefined what merit means. Merit doesn't mean that you pass certain tests to get admitted into the school. Merit means

13:38you have the potential, perhaps an undeveloped potential, an untapped potential. So that's what the merit. Now, just to prove my case, I'm going to, this is a chapter out of a work in progress, so it's going to be a bit sketchy, but I'm going to refer to certain parts of it. To the extent that the US Supreme Court mandates adherence to UN Declaration of Human Rights to the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, these are from the 1970s, the latter two. The Lineated Human Rights Popular Control of Republic Policy is commensurately curtailed. Okay, let me give you a brief overview. The preamble to the 1948 UN Declaration of Rights is applicable to all members of the human family, the aspirations of the common people and the peoples of the United Nations.

14:38The significance of a UN that is representative of the human family, as opposed to exclusively representing nations, is that the former constitutes a higher standard which could exercise a style of international supremacy over national standards which deviate from acceptable universal norms. And this is exactly what Justice Ginsburg and Breyer made reference to just a few weeks ago. From a juridical perspective, the supremacy of universal standards over nation-based standards, not to mention state-based, which don't count, could be rationalized on the grounds that nation-states have been integrated through these UN documents into the human family, a transcendent political unit in its own right. National sovereignty will be transformed when the basic norms of national legal orders are substantively qualified by international legal norms. And we're seeing

15:41this in the UN, they're really struggling with this. The national standards have to capitulate to European standards. We saw this recently in Ireland on the abortion issue. Ireland's going to really have to change its character. They will have to allow Irish women to have access to abortions on Irish soil. The European Court has made this clear. Now, here's a nation that's predominantly Catholic and you're striking at the core of that community. The complex relation between national and international systems is evolving towards hegemony of the latter over the former. Justice 14th Amendment Selective and Corporation Doctrine authored state constitutional orders. The incorporation of international legal norms was similarly impact the US constitutional order. And there's this well-known scholar who writes about this, his name is Ian Brownlee.

16:46And Demi briefly summarizes position. Ian Brownlee explains developments regarding the links between international and domestic laws. Brownlee acknowledges that Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter restates the classical rule of international law. So if you read Article 2, paragraph 7, you would say, what we're safe. Nation states will be intact. And this is what that Article 2 reads. Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene and matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit to such matters to settlement under the present charter. So in 1948, when this was being discussed, just like with the US Bill of Rights, the states felt secure. In 1948, nation states felt secure because of this Article 2.

17:50Summarizing commentaries on the relevance of Article 2's domestic jurisdiction reservation, Brownlee explains how the Article 2 reservation will be negated on three fronts. Now he's advocating this. He says, don't worry about Article 2 in this new world order. And this is how he says, we're going to take care of it, do an end-run around it. First, the reservation applies to specific organs of the United Nations, and not with the rule of general international law already operative in nation states. Second, the reservation is an operative when a treaty is involved. And treaties are in others very interesting part of American case law. In a 1938 case, US versus Curtis Wright, Justice Sutherland specifically states in that case. It had to do with FDR and War going on in South America and could the Congress delegate their war-making powers to

18:54the President and Justice Sutherland quite clearly states that when it comes to foreign relations, there is no US Constitution that the President has more power than a king that the Constitution does not apply. Now this sounds strange because you say, well what about Article 1 section 8, the Congress shall make a declared war. Sutherland is attacking that concept going back to Oliver Wendell-Hombs notion that the nation has evolved, it has grown, times have changed. Same thing in the War Powers Resolution in 1973. So you see this consolidation occurring at that level. And thirdly, going back to Brownlee, human rights obligations which in 1947 were simply recommended have subsequently been construed by the UN as presenting definite and active legal

20:00obligations on nation states. And that goes back to those governance and protocols from the 1970s that I mentioned. So the 1948 UN Declaration of Rights have been changed by subsequent international agreements and treaties that the United States has a party to. Articles 55 and 56 of those two charters that's an alphabet soup, I'll just say the protocols, are the teeth that Brownlee suspects will make the substance of Article 2 paragraph 7 disappear. These UN agreements supplement the moral force of the 1948 Declaration with legal obligations. Nevertheless, the 1948 Declaration is the central document with subsequent documents functioning its clarifications and implementation guidelines. Let me just very briefly, one of the protocols most

21:01directly assumes national and state identities and subsumes national and state identities into that of the human family. So in other words, when you're thinking about the United States, you shouldn't be so how should we put it? Nationalistic because now you're part of the human family. It's a larger community. The nations have been more or less subsumed into this new world order. And if you remember yesterday I was talking about the internet and they see that as the nervous system. I mean these people have this a very vivid imagination but they also have some power through these courts. The document proclaims that the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. The potential impact for the US is the shifting of sovereignty away from the states and nation to the United Nations, the governing

22:06unit representing the human family and determining what is and is not a universal fundamental right. When those rights have been violated the nations are responsible for providing an effective remedy. The fact that a remedy is an inherent right to the claimant, domestic law notwithstanding, is a significant development. Moreover the claimant need not be a citizen against the nation against which the claim is filed. Article 2 stipulates that each state party to the present covenant undertakes to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction. That's citizen and non-citizen, alien, illegal and illegal. The rights recognize in the present covenant without distinction of any kind such as race, color, language, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

23:10So, US citizens might have a right to a free education but so doesn't the illegal alien who now comes into the United States, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. To remove any ambiguity that citizens of a country may enjoy rights and privileges denied to non-citizens but nevertheless citizens of the human family, Article 26 of the Protocol stipulates that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and affect a protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whatever that means or other status.

24:16Part five of the covenant of the Protocol and covenant establish the Human Rights Committee and procedures for an ad hoc conciliation commission. I mean look what's happening and people aren't aware of this, what's happening in the United Nations. The committee consists of 18 nationals who, quote, shall serve in their personal capacity and quote, national allegiance is not withstanding. To wit, quote, every member of the committee shall before taking up his duties make a solemn declaration and open committee that he will perform his functions impartially and conscientiously. End quote in other words no national bias. The committee serves as a court of last resort between nations after the committee has quote ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted. What that provision does is you have an appeal beyond the Supreme Court of the United

25:17States, an appeal beyond your State Supreme Court. There's a higher overarching court. Following similar rules of procedure accepting the closed sessions, nations that are seated to the optional Protocol to this, to many letters, I'll just call it the covenant, are open to claims by individual subjects to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of human rights violations. And the absence of the optional Protocol on individual was dependent on an other nation to file a claim on his behalf. For example, a non-citizen inhabitant of the United States seeking protection against the State for rights violations would have to secure the assistance of a second nation to file a complaint. For example, an illegal alien living in the United States would have to hope that Canada or Mexico would file on their behalf because only nation states had standing

26:18in these international tribunals. But under the optional Protocol, the individual may directly file his claim. Remember the 11th Amendment? That notion of sovereign immunity we talked about? So an individual may directly file his claim before the Human Rights Committee. This is a major departure from traditional international law that govern relations between nations and not individuals. This departure is the real test of the, now this is a quotation. This departure is the real test of the effectiveness of a system of international protection for human rights. Traditionally, the individual had no locus stand-eye within the context of international law, but that traditional rule was promised upon the relevance of sovereign nation states. A relevance no longer sustainable in a world where, quote, a common standard of achievement for all peoples in all nations is the goal.

27:21That's equality, a common standard of achievement. Now, put my remarks yesterday about imagine President Bush as Governor Bush, the United States of South Carolina, as all this centralization, I mean you talk about a sucking sound, I mean think about the world court in Brussels. I mean just think about what's happening here. Not even a nation, we only have 2% of the world's population remember, not even a nation under this language has sovereign immunity. They could be sued by an individual because the nation doesn't count. It's the human family. Okay? Several points need to be emphasized. First, the guarantees against discrimination include public and private, governmental and non-governmental. Second, the reliance on the word persons is a direct link to the human family without the

28:24intermediate nation states. Remember Lincoln, we the people, the same exact process happened in this country going all the way back to Cotterview Bowl. The case I mentioned earlier were Justice Chase and Erdel talked about it's the people, not the states. Chief Justice Marshall, it's the people, not the states. Abraham Lincoln, it's the people, not the states. This is the same, same process. Third, the American federal system of reserve powers to the states are negated theoretically and technically as evidenced by articles 28, 50 and 10 of two covenants and one protocol. Once again, it's an alphabet soup. I'm just going to refer to them as that, which stipulate that, and this is a quote, the provisions of the present covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions and parenthetically such as the 10th Amendment to the

29:29U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, the more immediate threat to states' rights in the United States is domestic courts, not the world court. It's domestic courts. The current prevailing political political reality precludes any UN tribunal, whether the International Court of Justice or the Human Rights Commission, from directly implementing a human family agenda. But this is not to say that the U.S. does not have certain legal obligations as a consequence of these documents. One covenant stipulates that to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as hearing recognized or violated shall have an effective remedy by competent judicial administrative or legislative authorities or by any other competent authority provided by the legal system of the state or nation and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedies. So this is a go-slow approach.

30:31It's an incremental approach. It was the clear intent of the drafters of the Covenant's and Protocols to ensure injunctive relief through domestic courts first and foremost, leaving open the option of international remedies if domestic legal systems were to fail. Now, you know, think out. Don't think about today. Think what's going to look like 10, 15, 20 years from now. In 1985, this intent was formalized by the UN General Assembly when it adopted the basic principles on the independence of the judiciary. They are by stipulating that, whereas the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights and on the international covenant on political and civil rights, both guarantee the exercise of those rights, whereas frequently there still exists a gap between the vision underlying those principles in the actual situation, whereas the organization and administration of justice in every country should be inspired

31:36by those principles and efforts should be undertaken to translate them fully into reality, whereas roles concerning the exercise of judicial office should aim at enabling judges to act in accordance with those principles, whereas judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, freedoms, duties, and property. Now, this is what they said in 1985. Judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, rights, and property, judges. Where's the popular control, the popular consent here? And these are instructions to domestic judges, but you still have this edifice that's been put in place to appeal to a higher level. Moreover, former UN General Secretary, Bhutras Bhutras Gali, viewed the heightened role of nationally-based judiciary as not only essential,

32:38but inevitable, in part of quote, the historical synthesis resulting from a long historical process. Here's what Bhutras Bhutras Gali said right after this 1985 statement was adopted by the UN. To move from identifying inequality to rebelling against injustice is only possible in the context of a universal affirmation of the idea of human rights. Ultimately, it is this idea which allows us to move from ethical to legal considerations and to impose value judgments in judicial constraints on human activity. Now, let me read this again. You see the same exact pattern in the first part of the 20th century. We're intellectual scholars, jurists, got together and said, hey, we're going to take over the show. It's going to take time, but we're going to take over America, especially when it comes

33:41to the cultural issues. And we know that Justice Stone made that quite clear in 1937 and his famous footnote number four, because they didn't think property was all that important and they could get to property through redistribution through other means. So regulation, Congress can handle it. Fundamental rights, that's our jurisdiction. Now, let me read it again. To move from identifying inequality to rebelling against injustice is only possible in the context of universal, of a universal affirmation of the idea of human rights. Now, they're not, I mean, we're talking about equality, 2% of the world's population, and what percent of the world's wealth? That's a violation of these fundamental human rights that these individuals are referring to. Ultimately, it is this idea which allows us to move from ethical to legal considerations.

34:48In other words, from ideology to the courtroom. And to impose, impose value judgments and judicial constraints on human activity. That doesn't sound like liberty and freedom to me. Indeed. Indeed. It does. And that was the point I was making. Yes, times are changing. And I have it necessarily given this as much thought as I should have. But the United States, you can make an argument that the United States is in the position globally that South Carolina was nationally in the mid 19th century within the context of these developments. I was just going to question you about a, I think there was a book review about a year ago. I think it was in Chronicles. And there were

35:49a couple of Marxists, I believe they were Europeans that had written a book about globalization. And of course, that's like the watch word of the left. Like, oh, it's a terrible thing. But their idea was that the left should just sit back and even applaud globalization instead of protesting against it at Seattle and such. Because once the world is globalized and one world government, then they would be able to introduce their schemes for a wealth redistribution. And I was wondering if you were familiar with that book or that idea. I don't recall specifically. But Harry and I were talking about that. Those protests, it's really extortion. They could get a lot of, they get a favorable response from these corporations behind the scenes. So I don't think you'll see the protesting stopping anytime soon. But I can't recall. But I agree with your premise that it's a much more efficient way to redistribute the wealth. And they're concerned not about redistribution here in the United States, but

36:51around the world. Well, I'll just bring up the question that I asked you at the end privately. I was afraid of that, but go ahead. Well, you told me to. I was hoping he'd forget his question. No, it was just the analogy. I think, I mean, I totally agree. And with all the things that you laid out up to that point. And it's a foreboding situation, especially when you have these third world, you know, vultures just waiting to get their hands on the nest egg. And they're all educated in Western universities and they think of, you know, so they get all these ideas. And there's a real threat from European jurists and elites everywhere who think this way. But I don't like the analogy of Bush as the governor of South Carolina and the United States nationalism as being the same as this as a, you know, the identity of a Southern state.

37:55For a few reasons, one, the first thing is that the Republicans every four years can use this to just get the conservatives to step in line. If you don't elect us, the Democrats are going to start a globalization crusade. And the Republicans, as far as I can see, I mean, so what have Bush didn't sign Kyoto? For the most part, they don't give a rip about what about the international criminal court? Yeah, but the, but you don't think that's a substantial, uh, well, let me put it this way. You don't think that's significant? It's significant that we're not part of that, but the point is is that, okay, and let me give you another one. What about the UN attempt to tax firearms that the Bush administration just two weeks ago stopped in its tracks that the United Nations wanted to tax every privately held firearm. That's, I agree. Is that significant? Yes, it's significant, but listen to what I'm, this is the problem with the analogy though. The problem is this. In 1861, South Carolina was in a position where

39:03it needed to interpose, you know, its authority at the state level to resist something, but the power to break that down existed at the national level. And that's what went after South Carolina couldn't do anything about, you know, whether or not Lincoln could call to arms a bunch of people from other states and come down and send an army. We need to keep our eye on the ball. The people who will be in force, the South Carolina government didn't enforce the agenda on its own people. That is not the case today. The people who will enforce the agenda on us are is our own government, our own jurists, our own troops. Even if you send a few blue helmets over here to the US, they're not going to accomplish much. It's going to come from our own government. And it's expedient to say it's great to have a guy like Bush who, because of, you know, his own personal belief. I would say it's great. I might say, no, I'm saying benefits to. For that particular, for that, I mean, it's great for that particular instance, but I don't want to make the analogy

40:04because it's the US government that has been behind. It was behind the UN in the first place. It's been behind globalization. The elites and our government are in total alliance with the elites and other places with the exception. So, you know, the neo-concertists have a different idea about the world order. It doesn't mean they don't want one. And that's what their Republicans are run by. So the thing is, is that that's who we have to fear from still. It's still DC who we have to fear from. So that's my problem. Yeah. That was, that my comment was more of a metaphor than an analogy. But even in early American history, reagents and county of states would make the same complaint against the state government. And what I'm saying is that you see this progression, you see this evolution, you see this development where centralization is, it takes on a life of its own. So from the county to the state, from the state to the nation, from the nation to transnational organizations, from transnational organizations, like regional trade associations,

41:07to international and from international to global. And that's, I'm in total agreement with you from that perspective. And I would even say that US corporations, these multi-national corporations, are going to be sometimes behind this process. And a lot of those are American corporations. So I totally agree with you on the trend. And that we need it, I agree with you on the importance of being able to have a sense of American nationality to posit against this trend. But even in South Carolina, there are parts of South Carolina where they had a lot of problems with the central state government. Here he had a, let, here he has a comment to make. Just to continue on that a little bit, the Republican Party now is, is a funny bed, has a funny pair of bedfellows. There's some, there is a libertarian wing of the Republican Party still. And then there's this neo-conservative power structure that exists in the party. And both of them, the Democratic Party and the Republican

42:10Party of both status, centrist, centralizers. But the question, and one of them is going for empire and one of them is going for one world participation, the Democratic. So my sentiment is not with either one of them. It's just that given the choices, we probably have a little more time and we can grapple with making arguments if you had the war party, the empire party in rather than the one world party. But that's a point of, that's a personal point of view. I don't like either one of them. So I'm with you. I don't like either one. Good point. Good point. Okay. Comment? I had another question. Okay. I was looking at the universal declaration of Swedish rights here. And they seem to enshrine the welfare state as a universal thing. Article 22, everyone has the right to social security. Uh-huh. Article 25, everyone has the right to a standard of living and they list all these

43:13exceptions and other lack of likelihood in circumstances beyond his control. And I'm wondering, you're discussing the push of the International Criminal Court. Is there a UN push in this direction for welfare rights? Is there like an international wealth distribution board being set up? How strongly is that being pushed? That's a good question, but they don't need a specific commission or board. The human right, this is all covered by the human rights commission and also by the world court or it could be eventually. And I'm glad you pointed that out. Listen to the language here. Uh-uh. Article 25, everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services. And the right to security and the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood, hood and circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care

44:16and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. So you're right. It's, you know, we don't have to say too much about that. We know what that means or what it could mean. Yeah, I was just going to ask how much of a threat you think this is. I mean, what it alarmed me was how all the citations that you gave the court citations that they're using. That's, probably in particular, but what would it really take for this to become a sort of major threat? I mean, for people to start coming out and say, well, we're going to have the vote and whether to join the world government or something like that. I mean, are there actually people behind the scenes that have sort of written about wanting this to happen explicitly or or these sorts of things? I mean, how much of a political movement is there at this point? I just didn't think it was that much of a threat, but I guess the court case is, I mean, I just, no, I mean, I think there is a, there are intellectuals and jurors who write about this and they advocate it

45:20and they want to see it happen. But think for a moment, it's 1947. You take 1947, the Everston case, where they talk about separation of church and state, applicable to the state governments, take that and transplant it into 1787, where they're discussing the Constitution. I mean, the time wasn't ripe for that type of social engineering. It's just, you know, the Constitution never would have been ratified in all probability had that been part of the language of Everston, those provisions, that interpretation of the first amendment was made explicit in the 1787 document. So the way the court operates, it does it very slowly, incrementally, it socializes people and the court has legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The international courts don't. You're right, there would be a lot of resistance to that. But that's why the folks who write about this and they specifically identify the United States Supreme Court because it's unique.

46:28And they're saying we need the United States Supreme Court to get this thing started. And they, they're very explicit about this. But they're, well, they're very patient. They're very patient. So they'll take small steps, but they, they intend to reach their destination. So a little bit here, a little bit there. Let's assume for a moment the US Supreme Court, and I suspect this will happen sooner rather than later, declares capital punishment to be unconstitutional. Okay. If you were to do a survey of most state judges and most federal judges, I bet you a majority of them would say capital punishment from a policy perspective is a bad thing. But the Constitution allows the states to make these policy decisions. That doesn't mean given the opportunity, they wouldn't strike it down and they have in some states and they've changed it substantially. Look at, I mean,

47:30for all intents and purposes, capital punishment, even in the state of Florida, you know, it takes at least 10 years because of the appellate process that the federal courts have put in place. 10 years to execute someone. Now, I would suspect that within the decade capital punishment will be not a very viable option for states to exercise on convicted in capital cases. And they will draw just like Ginsburg and Briar did in Lawrence v. Texas, they'll probably talk about these international standards and norms. Thomas talks about this. So it doesn't scalyas, as man, this is bad news. What are they doing making reference to these documents that have no bearing on the US Constitution in this case? But you have many more Clarence Thomas's and Scalayas that you're going to have on the US Supreme Court. If I can just follow up with that,

48:37you know, I think the thing about this climate international norms is, well, they're not international, they're not international at all, they're European. And I think what there's this question of with the shrinking population there, and this being a sort of long term trend, and growing populations in the areas in Africa and South America and some areas in Asia. And these areas are largely Christian and more conservative than other areas in the world. It seems like this sort of thing at least gives me some hope of resistance in some way. Well, there would be resistance, but what do you think the elites of these countries are educated? And look at the American universities. Look at your own southern universities. I mean, the Bible belt, Christianity, what are you, would you say your university professors put that description? Bible thumping Christians? This is why this is cultural

49:37cultural level conflict, you know, I mean, this is throughout the whole West. All these ideologies have had their ferment and these people are all lying. And it's the political analogies are necessary. You have to have some people to rally around, but we have a real task ahead of us to take, I mean, the courts are going to be the ones to make this happen, the domestic courts in the United States. And the enforcement power they're going to use are the bureaucracies of the US government. I mean, when you take, we have to be able to take a state like Florida that we elect our judges. Florida is dominated by Republicans, but we have one of the most liberal states of Supreme courts in the country. I mean, it just recently a couple of weeks ago declared unconstitutional a law that was overwhelming supported by the governor in the state legislature that required some type of parental notification if a minor, no age necessarily is to procure an abortion.

50:44So a minor in the state of Florida can go to the school counselor, say I'm pregnant, arrangements are made, an abortion can be procured in the judgment of the counselor. There is a judicial bypass, but all of this is, you know, that's not how it was designed to work. Yeah, actually, I was talking to my professor at home about this at the very beginning of the documents, as we, heads of state and government have gathered at United Nations blah, blah, blah, at the dawn of a new millennium to reaffirm our faith in the organization and its charters, indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world. And there are other places in the document where it talks about our faith in human rights. I mean, it's explicitly saying there's no philosophical argument for these things. Well, this is when it was reaffirming in 2000. The millennium, yeah. No, I agree. There's nothing to say. Your points will take it. It is

51:48imposing a, I don't know if I'd call it a secular religion, some sort of religion. I mean, that's sort of begs the question of whether you could go to court and force a high school to take down the United Nations Declaration of Human, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a First Amendment claim. Yeah. I wonder if that's ever been tried. It would be interesting to see. Because even the court in 1961 defined secular humanism as a religion, they said that it has a manifesto. It doesn't have the church structures. It doesn't necessarily have an identifiable congregation in the traditional sense, but it is a religion secular humanism because of the manifestos and such. But, you know, that's something you would certainly have some judges that would be partial to your view and others that would be partial to the position of the United Nations. But, once again, we have to go back to Donald Davidson's

52:54about this time issue. And that's why the court so effective. When you think about a common law tradition, you put a little precedent here, a little precedent there, you place a plant to seed here, put it someplace else, and in time, you're going to reach, you know, have the type of cultural landscape that you're seeking. And if you were to ask most American school kids, whether or not they think this is bogus, if it's legitimate, if it's something that should be implemented, I think you'd be surprised at the answers you get. I mean, these are platitudes, and that's what they're reaching for. But the important thing, for my point of view, to remember is that it might not happen in the next 10, 20, 30 years, but there is a probability, and I'd go beyond the possibility, but a probability that this is going to start changing,

53:55and you'll find it incorporated in American case law. I just was thinking the same thing about it, but I think that perhaps maybe the way to look at what kind of religion it is, is it's something that has a whole eschatology of bringing it to Earth, that it looks at whatever it is. You mentioned Margaret Sanger, and her ideas of birth control. When you read her philosophy, it's not just to eliminate certain races. She sees birth control as the tool for human destiny, to take over human life and to channel evolution into a new race of people. But it's to bring heaven on Earth, to immunitize the eschaton. Marx had the same idea, far back had the same idea. They all do, and this is by imposing this universal human family. That's one end of it, to bring this brotherhood of man, but in putting these courts over the

55:01universal human man, they're placing man as God too, and as the judges, and placing some theoretical doctrine that they can pick arbitrarily and imposing those theories, whatever they be, in this case, their eschatology over our liberty that grows up organically in the society, in local communities here, they're in placing this worldwide universality. Yeah, let me just give you, this is from Murray Rothbard. Let me, it's an article he wrote, it was in modern age in 1973. Let me just read quickly, give you an idea as to the vision. Nowhere is the left-wing attack on ontological reality more apparent than in the utopian dreams of what the future socialist society will look like. In the socialist future of Fourier, according to Ludwig von Mees's, here's what he writes, all harmful beasts will have disappeared, and in their places will be animals which will

56:06assist man in his labors, or even do his work for him. An anti-biber will see the fishing. An anti-well will move selling ships in a calm. An anti-hippopotamus will tow the river boats. Instead of the lion, there will be the anti-lion, a steed of wonderful swiftness upon whose back the rider will sit as comfortably as in a well sprung carriage. It will be a pleasure to live in a world with such servants. And then he goes on, and this is just an article about in the 60s and 70s. It's almost hard to believe, but you know, they have this vision that, as you said, that there's going to be this progression, this evolution. There's one part in here where the ocean will be made of lemonade and you can drink it. That's, and that's the sort of, you know, mother earth, this paganism. It all ties together. Now that's a little bit way out

57:06there, but these folks were serious about what they wrote in these Charters Protocols and Covenants, and they intend to see them implemented. And as I pointed out, the courts will be the vehicle of implementation. The very serious about that too. I was just going to say that I think we've pretty well identified how it is that this, that, you know, where the danger is in this case law in American judicial activism. And, you know, at some point, some bureaucracy is eventually going to step in and begin to enforce these sorts of things. I just think it'll be helpful as we go through this to, I think it's critically important. And like Robert said, to debunk this idea of this universalist, you know, and it's somehow its objective and neutral. We need to recognize it for the religion that it is, but hand in hand with debunking that, and certainly encouraging Americans to realize the threat that is posed by these globalistic, you know, utopians. At the same time, to debunk and subvert the judicial activism that happens, people, I think,

58:13need to withdraw their consent from the judicial process of what happens in the courts. And a lot of people are afraid of that because they're like, well, what will result, you know, is an anarchist or whatever. At some point, we have to trust that there will be institutions and communities and that people will have to go back and find a better basis for law and order this, because that's the danger. We're not going to get rid of these judges. We're not going to get our guys in there. And I just think that we will have to also subvert that. You can't always just say, oh my god, look at these crazy things. Let me ask you this. Who would you rather nominate judges? Now, I know it's not foolproof and I know they've made some mistakes, but would you rather have Al Gore or George Bush? Well, that's not the question. I mean, sure, I'd rather have Republicans Senate or a democratically controlled Senate. I'd rather have Bush. I'm just saying that we do need to begin to not, we need to, when we talk about these things with people, we need to not only point out and use the language of subverting diet of bubbleism, but also the history and practice

59:18of this judicial activism around country. We have to subvert those ideas. I sort of look at it, the metaphor of a train, the Republicans and Democrats are all heading to the same destination, but the Republicans are heading there with the brakes on, but they're inevitably going to end up there. It's an I'm not saying this is some type of dialecticalism where it's inevitable, but I don't see anything to derail that train unless you return to some type of subsidarity or that just really does give local autonomy. But any case. Well, I guess what I was wanting to say, who would in the long run be better? There is a good case to say to argue that in fact, Al Gore's president would be better. It's the frog in the pot of water analogy. You know, the frog, if the heat's turned up quickly and immediately, the frog will jump out. If it's slowly brought to a boil, the frog will

1:00:21say in there and die. No, that's a good point. I mean, perhaps. There's a, I can't remember if it's linen or Bismarck, but there's someone who, you know, said the worst, the better, bring on the persecution of the immediate. Okay, that's true. But as I mentioned to some of you, when you have children, your perspective on these issues change. I'd like a little more civilization or civilization that lasts a bit longer until my four kids have grown up. Do you have children? A couple months. You may change your position. Brad mentioned something about anarchy. And I just, this is very brief. I just think it's few months or so you should break out San Francisco work on anarchy tyranny and realize that the worst anarchy we've ever seen is that which is generated by the Central State today. That's the people want to talk about. Oh, it would be anarchy if we turn from our wonderful judiciary

1:01:23system and so far. Just point out the fact that these people guarantee anarchy. I was listening to a news program, the Anglican Church in America is just, you know, getting ready to make some very divisive decisions regarding same-sex marriages and such, an ordination again. And they were talking about in this program a possible split or a break or a succession from the Church of England. In some capacity, not to the point where they'd lose their property rights. But I don't know. Religions important. I have more, gee, I don't know how to, yeah, Leo Strauss makes this remark about the Catholic Church, the last bastion of conservatism. But gee, even during the last presidential election, they were at the priest in their homelies supporting how gore because Catholic charities and such have been co-opted by the federal government. They get a

1:02:27lot of federal grants and such. And it's the social welfare attraction of many Catholics and clergy that the Democrats seem to be more supportive of. But yeah, I mean, the Church, of course, that's a pillar of any civilization, so perhaps. Thank you very much.