You are on page 1of 18

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St.
Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former
science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and
lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures
which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global
warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once

compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If
credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important
issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and
trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this
December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most
of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get
money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber
stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to
be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes
of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries
of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly,
“climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been
screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new
entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or
“ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t
appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into
the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded
it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis
as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.
You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s
going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of
course he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that
it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that
treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because
you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a
privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in
the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom,
your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent
government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is
how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world]
government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you
whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire
– it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and
fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing
that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with
climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your
president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War.
He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from
members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the
forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has
shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious
government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And
there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing
this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I
believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics,
because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct
procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where
the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and
get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the
president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in
this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about
this treaty.
If they go to, they will find (if they look carefully
enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not
so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their
democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no
scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this.
Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you
don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed

by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of
skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as

president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign
as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a
certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would
be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be
able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or
not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate
ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the
White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-
thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to
ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they
actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it.
They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of
both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point
– is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard
for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen,
because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic
legislation, you can repeal it.

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by

human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans
without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional
protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew
their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their
every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent
course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American
sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

In Addition:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment

of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be
based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial
mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary
body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of
the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current
Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth

b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change

fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window,
to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt"
Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory
components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window,
to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD

With Enforcement Authority

© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for
adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology
action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body
on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring,
reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring,
reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and
the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to
developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative
support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

By Walter Scott Hudson

October 15, 2009


PDF file of the Treaty can be found at:

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft – wealth transfer defined, now with new
and improved “dignity” penalty

This is the draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty currently out of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change working group dated
September 15th.

Below are some excerpts from the treaty:

Page 62:

33. Each Party’s national schedule shall include:

(a) A long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitation or reduction pathway;

(b) A country-driven nationally appropriate mitigation strategy, differentiated
in terms of the ambition, timing and scope of its mitigation commitments or
actions, which could be, inter alia, project-based, sectoral or economy-wide.

(c) Each Party’s nationally appropriate mitigation strategy shall include:

(i) Except for the least developed countries and small island developing States,
quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, consistent
with its long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction
pathway, subject to regular review; and

(ii) Measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation policies and measures to

meet its quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, as
appropriate, and to support its national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or
reduction pathway, subject to regular review.

34. All countries prepare low emission development strategies. Note that further
paragraphs would be required to describe in more detail their function and
relationship to the national schedules described above and a potential
facilitative/matching platform.
35. All Parties shall develop and regularly update and submit information
relating to the implementation of their nationally appropriate mitigation
strategies. Such information shall be reviewed and verified according to agreed
rules and guidelines.

36. All Parties, except for the least developed countries and small island
developing States, shall develop and regularly update and submit a national
inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all gases
not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.

37. National inventories shall be:

(a) Undertaken in accordance with the latest agreed Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; and(b)
Submitted, reviewed and verified according to agreed frequencies, rules and

Page 122, Item 17 is quite troubling.

15. [Developed country Parties [shall][should] provide support to developing

country Parties, particularly those specified in Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the
Convention, in order to allow developing country Parties to address issues related
to social and environmental development, economic diversification, risk
assessment, modelling and insurance to prevent the adverse effects of the
spillover effects.]

Alternative to paragraph 15:

[In the implementation of paragraphs 11 (c)11 and 11 (d)12 above (159.1 and 159.2
in FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1) , through the provision of financial resources,
including for access, development and transfer of technology, at agreed full
incremental costs in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Convention;
Recognizing that there are ways and means to reduce or avoid such impacts through
careful and informed selection of policies and measures, to evaluate the
effectiveness of existing tools, and to consider new ones, in order to assist
developing country Parties in addressing these impacts.]

16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should]

be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including
promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and
dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular
attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing
country Parties.]
Alternative to paragraph 16:

[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed

by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling
economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and
dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner
fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country

Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]

(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost
opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become
environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably
compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the
implementation of response measures.




Rebels and Radicals: The New American Revolution

Here are declared the general principles and ideas that inform the commentary of
Fighting Words:

Nature and Nature’s God

I seek truth. That does not make me unique. Many people seek truth in many
different ways. People seek scientific truth, religious truth, philosophical
truth, legal findings of fact and so forth. I believe truth to be comprehensive,
encompassing all of the above.

I agree with William Wulf, professor of Computer Science at the University of

Virginia, who wrote, “There is only one nature – the division into science and
engineering is a human imposition, not a natural one. Indeed, the division is a
human failure; it reflects our limited capacity to comprehend the whole.” I have
no idea if Wulf intended what I take away from his comment; but, it is my belief
the compartmentalization of thought into the religious and the scientific, the
corporeal and the spiritual, is a retarding tendency which limits us from pursuing
the whole truth.

I believe, if you want to understand one aspect of the world you live in, you must
consider the context of all other aspects. This is the fundamental flaw of science
which makes it incapable of providing meaningful explanations for the natural
world. Science can explain much of the how, the what, perhaps the where and when.
But it is inadequate to comment on the question that matters most – why? Why is
the world the way it is? Why do things work the way they do? Why are we here? Why?
These are not factual questions with clean academic answers. These are
philosophical questions, spiritual pursuits, matters which touch upon that aspect
of reality which virtually all humans recognize in spite of being unable to
physically observe it.

Secular humanists, like the evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins, would have us
believe all forms of spirituality are delusion. His is a minority view which,
ironically, has no substantial support of its own and requires a kind of faith to
maintain. It is true one cannot prove God exists. It is also true one cannot
disprove God. To believe one way or the other requires faith.

Belief is a condition common to all humanity. We each acknowledge reality outside

our immediate experience based on evidence and the testimony of others. Whether
there is a place called China is not a controversial question, in spite of the
fact many of us have never actually been there. One would think it odd to
encounter someone who doubted whether China existed. Most of us likewise believe
in something greater than ourselves, greater than this physical reality, something
as meaningful and real as that directly observed.

I rely heavily on my sense of this larger reality to arrive at my conclusions

regarding the world I live in. Call it what you want – collective consciousness,
the Holy Spirit, intuition, some kind of sixth sense we all share to varying
degrees – I believe there are certain things that ring true in our hearts and
minds even though we might struggle to deny them. For instance, I believe everyone
is an intrinsic theist, even Richard Dawkins. I believe everyone instinctively
knows there is a god. I believe this because the universal reflexive reaction to
tragedy is petitioning the expanse of heaven to ask, Why, God? Why? We need to

It is our nature to ask. It drives us to extremes, motivates enormous risks to

explore dangerous and uncharted environments, and to do so with a seemingly
irrational sense that the answer to what lies beyond is somehow worth it. We know,
in our core, it is somehow worth risking all to discover why. Where could such a
sense come from? What process of random evolutionary development accounts for
curiosity overriding self-preservation? What unspoken rationale do we rely on when
venturing forth into the void?

Few if any thought it crazy to go to the moon. In fact, there was a race to do so,
to plant the flag, to be the first. Why? For bragging rights? Maybe. But wasn’t it
much more than that? Wasn’t there something meaningful just outside the scope of
language? I submit, like salmon swimming upstream to reach the place they were
born, we are each driven by our nature to seek our Source.

We know it is there, though we have never seen it. It exists in our memory, so
instinctual and autonomic we may not consider it consciously, just as we rarely
think about breathing. But it is real. It is there. And it is universal. We admire
our explorers and justify their risk and celebrate their discoveries because we
intrinsically know, with each step they take to expand our understanding, we get
closer to that from which we sprang.

Why do I bring this up? Why do I speak of abstract truths and spirituality and God
in what is primarily a political statement? I do so because the objective of
politics, which is to find a way to live which works best, is also the objective
of religion. I believe one’s political ideology is inextricably linked to their

I have found over years of debate with people of various political stripes that
the position one takes on a political issue is motivated, at its root, by their
spiritual perspective. Even if one claims atheism, that is a spiritual stance, a
position on the nature of reality beyond the observable. One’s spiritual
positions, particularly regarding the nature of man, form the foundation of their
entire paradigm. To opine on politics then, one must begin as our American
founders did, at nature and nature's god.

Let us revisit those timeless words, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature
and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind
requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ---That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed, --- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a
long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces
a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future

A plain reading of these words indicates that the author, revisers, and
signatories of the Declaration understood the comprehensive nature of reality,
that there is more to life than what we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell, and
the way we conduct our lives must be guided by an essentially spiritual principle.
Unalienable rights, god-given rights, not privileges, are recognized by the state,
not granted. This was, and in many corners of the Earth remains, a radical idea.
It is the basis of our American system of government, and the basis of my personal
The Value of Freedom

Radicalism and rebellion can be vilified or canonized without much thought. In the
context of the American Revolution, we view the radicalism and rebellion of our
founding fathers as good, even sacred. Yet we often use the terms radical and
rebel as pejoratives in a modern context. Why is that?

Radicalism and rebellion are healthy when the system rebelled against acts to
deprive free men of their natural rights. But radicalism and rebellion can also be
used against a system which recognizes and preserves those rights. This is the
situation we find ourselves in today, with radicals rebelling against the American
system in the name of progress and social justice.

This New Revolution is distinct from the First American Revolution in that the so-
called rights being fought for are not rights at all, but entitlements.
Understanding the difference between the two is essential. Rights are like fences.
They erect boundaries which others cannot cross. Entitlements have the opposite
effect, tearing down boundaries, eliminating individual distinctions, and granting
ownership of all to the collective.

Today’s radicals wish to erect a society of entitlement, and thereby necessarily

deprive free men of their rights. This effort could rightly be called the Anti-
American Revolution, as its goal is precisely the opposite of the First American

What’s so great about America anyway? Why shouldn’t it be overthrown? Why

shouldn’t we have the fundamental change our so-called progressive leaders would
impose upon us? Why should we care about liberty? Why is it more important for men
to be free than fed? If curtailing freedom and eroding rights and expanding
entitlement result in the hungry getting fed, or the sick being cared for, or the
cold being sheltered, isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t we be good people for
sacrificing our freedom to serve those ends? Isn’t it self-indulgent to cherish
one’s personal freedom at the expense of providing for those less fortunate? Did
not Jesus Christ himself compel us to give to the poor? Is charity not a virtue?

These are all excellent questions which underscore a pivotal point which often
goes unarticulated in political debate because it straddles a spiritual reality.
We do not value freedom for freedom’s sake. Freedom is a means, not an end. The
end is actually servitude. What men fight and bleed and die for is the freedom to
choose who and what to serve. Absolute freedom would be anarchy. Few crave that.

Conversely, the most efficient and effective form of government would be a

dictatorship were the will of every subject was perfectly aligned with that of the
leader. I submit this is, in fact, the ultimate goal of every religion and
political ideology. All wish to be The One, The Way, the Alpha and Omega. Muslims
desire a world converted, as do communists, as do Christians and capitalists. The
difference between them is the means of conversion – force versus reason,
compulsion versus choice. Ultimately, all see a world where everyone else falls in
line. Even so-called tolerance, as defined by so-called progressives, is an
ideology on the march to convert or destroy. It is not a solution to conflict,
simply another faction. To say all paths lead to heaven damns those who claim
otherwise. There is no way for all to win.
I wish to make this point perfectly clear. The value of freedom is in its
surrender. Charity is a virtue; what makes it so is the free will to give or deny.
When the choice is removed, gone too is the virtue. Christian theology teaches
that God began history under a dictatorship were the will of every subject was
perfectly aligned with His own.

It was a dictatorship that worked, because the dictator was God. The first rebel,
the first radical, was Lucifer, described as an angel of light, a beautiful
creation, a servant of God who became covetous of power and invented the lie to
subvert the ruling system. Lucifer’s goal was liberty. What then distinguishes us
from Lucifer? What distinguishes the American reverence and pursuit of freedom
from the Devil’s? It is only this; to Lucifer, liberty was the end. To us, it is
the means. Liberty is the means by which we choose who and what to serve.

I wish to make this point again in another way, because it is crucial and
potentially difficult to grasp. America was founded as a Christian nation. A
peculiar aspect of Christianity is the desire of its adherents to submit them
selves to a dictatorship. Christians want to be ruled by God, to have their will
aligned perfectly with His in the most efficient and effective form of governance
possible. Yet the Christian founders of America created a secular democratic
republic to govern their new country.

Why? It is because the state is an instrument of compulsion. The state has the
capacity to impose on individuals with impunity, to override their free will. That
free will is a necessary component of the Christian God’s dictatorship. The state
of heaven is not compulsory. The state of heaven works whether its subjects
participate or not. God, in His infinite wisdom, has in heaven a governmental
entity that could never exist among men, a voluntary dictatorship.

A plank of Christian thought is that you choose whether to align yourself with
this kingdom or remain outside it. Christian theocracy is fundamentally
impossible. To join the state of heaven, man must enter freely. This is why there
is what Jefferson referred to as a separation between church and state, not to
protect the state from religion, but to protect religion from the state, to
preserve the ability of free men to choose who and what to serve. The religious
ends of Christianity necessitate a secular means. It can seem paradoxical, has
spawned no end of confusion, and has enabled tremendous obfuscation by radicals
willing to lie to subvert the ruling system.

The Nature of Man

Let me now reach out to those who are not Jews or Christians, or who otherwise
doubt the existence of sin. Sin is a foundational component of my personal
politics. Earlier I said that where people align themselves on the nature of man
largely determines their political orientation. I believe the nature of man to be
a state of sin. In practical secular terms, that means man’s capacity for
perfection is retarded. There is a limit to our capacity for good beyond which we
cannot achieve. We are not evolving toward some ideal. We are not progressing. We
are floundering about in the mud, tending to give ourselves too much credit for
occasionally wiping some off.

I can make this argument no better than C.S. Lewis so artfully did in his classic
apologetic compilation Mere Christianity:
I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone
else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or
this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves
the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of
excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were
very tired.

That slightly shady business about the money-the one you have almost forgotten-
came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and
have never done-well, you never would have promised if you had known how
frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or
husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would
not wonder at it-and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to
say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment
anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of
excuses as long as your arm.

The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is
that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe
in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be
so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we
believe in decency so much-we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so- that we
cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to
shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour
that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to
being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all
over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way,
and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that
way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the
foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

I submit to you that the most disparaged and degraded segment of humanity, the
most vilified political minority of all, are actually the overwhelming numerical
majority. They are those who came before us, our forbearers, our ancestors. They
have no one to speak for them, no one to defend them, no one to correct the record
in their favor. And so we vilify them relentlessly, believing ourselves to be
better than them, believing ourselves to have evolved past them, believing
ourselves smarter, greater, more advanced.

This is a post-modern tendency which our ancestors did not share. In many
societies, certainly the more civilized ones, those who came before were revered,
regarded as wise, even worshipped in some cases. Reverence for elders is the mark
of wisdom among the young. It demonstrates an awareness of the essential fact that
we are not better than those who came before. We have not advanced. We have not
become smarter, greater, or more evolved. Our technology has become more
impressive. But we have remained the same.

Technology is the idol which has replaced tradition. Science is the new religion.
Science discards the past to embrace the future, looking down its nose at former
ignorance. Scientific discovery fuels technological evolution which creates the
illusion of societal evolution. But society does not evolve in tandem with
technology. Society is a product of human nature. Technology does not change the
way nature works. It mimics and exploits it. A dam does not change how water
flows. It mimics nature to control the flow. If the dam breaks, the water will
behave as if the dam were not there. Likewise, all our scientific knowledge and
technological applications cannot change who we are, how we work, and what we are
fundamentally capable of. Man will still murder on the moon.

The nature of man is a state of sin. This is one half of the reason human
dictatorship does not work and must be rejected. Dictatorship is the most
efficient and effective means of governance. If we could appoint for ourselves a
benevolent, wise, all-knowing sovereign, and if we could align our will with his,
utopia would be realized. But the nature of man is a state of sin. Therefore we
have no such candidate this side of eternity. Any man given absolute power will
inevitably abuse it. Even the greatest, wisest, most benevolent of human kings
throughout history, men such as David of Israel and his son Solomon, abused their
power to infringe upon the rights of others.

The cliché is true; power corrupts. This, along with the necessity of secular
means to achieve Christian ends, is the reason our founding fathers were drawn to
a constitutional democratic republic with separation of powers and checks and
balances. It was not about efficiency. It was not about effectiveness. It was not
about positive outcomes. It was about principle. It was about liberty as a means
to an end. The essential point is this; the pursuit of efficiency and
effectiveness and positive outcomes can work against the maintenance of our
constitutional system.

Enemies Domestic

Who would want to subvert our constitution? Who would want to undermine liberty?
Who might be the “enemies domestic” our military and elected officials are oath-
bound to defend against? We have a tendency, in our post-modern world, to believe
no one really wishes us harm. If they do, some of us reason it must be because we
somehow wronged them. Some of us believe, if we could only find out how we
offended and apologize, or if we could sit down with our antagonists and talk it
out, we would surely defuse tensions and avoid conflict. This is an utterly
ridiculous idea which I believe contradicts every human being’s personal life

Let me take you back to the playground when you were a kid. Did you ever encounter
a bully? Were you ever teased? Did anyone ever take your lunch money? If so, what
did you do to provoke such behavior? Were you not able to talk your assailant
down, reason with him or her, come to some amiable agreement as to how to resolve
the conflict? I am not a violent person. In fact, this commentary is a huge step
for me, because it invites attack. I abhor conflict. I have always been the
negotiator among my friends. I have gone to great lengths to keep people happy
rather than assert myself. This is a tendency I retained from childhood.

There have been moments, however, when I have been forced to draw a line in the
sand. In particular I recall a moment on the playground, surrounded by assailants
who were intent on proving their might by ganging up on the big quiet kid. They
knew that any one of them would be powerless against me one on one. But, together,
they found strength. My only provocation was my presence. I never spoke to them. I
never took from them. I kept entirely to myself. But I was there, and I was bigger
than them, and I was meek, and that made me a target for asserting their
dominance. I stood among them, pushed by one, then shoved by another, unable to
respond to the last before succumbing to the next. Instinctively, without any
instruction or prodding from an adult, I knew my only option was my own display of
They had mitigated that risk with their numbers. I could not beat them all off.
But I could beat one. I selected my target, leveled a finger at him, and announced
my intention. “You. You’re the one I’m going after.” It was the only thing I had
to say. The others continued to push and shove, but I did not let them distract me
from my advance on this one, the one who would pay for the sins of the rest.
Oddly, his reaction was to immediately call off his friends, try to talk me down,
and quickly retreat. I suppose you could say I negotiated an end to the conflict.
This story is emblematic of countless others, no doubt similar to something each
of you has experienced. It speaks to two truths. The first is that weakness is its
own provocation. The second is that strength and the displayed will to use it is
the only sure deterrent to attack.

You can not reason with unreasonable people. So-called progressives, soft-hearted
liberals, and religiously convicted pacifists canonize non-violent protest and
diplomacy as effective tools which negate the need for saber-rattling. The two
greatest heroes they point to as examples of effective non-violence are Gandhi and
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Indeed, both men non-violently affected remarkable
change in their societies. But it was not ultimately due to them or their non-

Their success was ultimately due their petitioning societies composed of, and
controlled by, fundamentally decent people. The British people saw Gandhi’s
struggle and reacted from their own moral conviction. The American people listened
to King’s arguments and found them reasonable and worthy of action. Decency
appeals to decent people. To the indecent, it appears only as weakness. How would
Hitler react to a Gandhi or a King? How would Stalin treat them? What would Mao or
Castro or Hussein or Ahmadinejad do? I think we all know the answer.

It is natural to want to excuse bullies, to offer concession to avoid conflict. It

is natural to project one’s own decency upon an indecent opponent in the hope they
can be reasoned with. History shows it to be folly however. You cannot appease
those whose objective is your destruction. We must get it out of our heads that
the world is full of decent people who just want to talk and listen to us
apologize and share a reasonable amount of our wealth. I challenge anyone to
sincerely examine their personal experience and not find an adversary who wished
them harm simply for the sport of it. People are evil. The nature of man is a
state of sin.

Peace is therefore an illusion. Mankind has never existed in a state of peace, not
ever, not at any point in history anywhere in the globe, not unless he stood
alone. Wherever there are two people coexisting, there is a state of war. There
may be extended periods of ceasefire. But the conflict remains ever-present. There
will always be someone, multiple people, entire movements, who will be out to
infringe upon you and yours. That is why it is said that freedom is not free, that
we must remain ever vigilant and guard our liberties from enemies foreign and

I can make this argument no better than David Horowitz, who wrote the following in
a recent blog:

For [Saul] Alinsky and his Machiavellian radicals, politics is war. No matter what
they say publicly or pretend to be, they are at war. They are at war even though
no other factions in the political arena are at war, because everyone else
embraces the System which commits all parties to compromise and peaceful
resolutions of conflicts. For tactical reasons, the radicals will also make
compromises, but their entire mentality and approach to politics is based on their
dedication to conducting a war against the System itself…

Because radicals see politics as a war, they perceive opponents of their causes as
enemies on a battlefield and set out to destroy them by demonizing and
discrediting them. Personally. Particularly dangerous in their eyes are opponents
who are wise to their deceptions and realize what their agendas are; who
understand that they are not the innocents they pretend to be but are actors whose
reality is masked…

A war by definition is a fight to the finish. It is waged against enemies who

can’t be negotiated with but must be eliminated — either totally defeated or
effectively destroyed. Conservatives don’t really have such an enemy and therefore
are not mentally in the war at all, which is why they often seem so defenseless or
willing to throw their fellow conservatives over the side when they are attacked.

The war Alinsky’s radicals conduct is for tactical reasons a guerilla war, as his
manual [Rules for Radicals] is designed to explain. Conservatives are not at war
with the system, but are determined to defend it, including its rules of fairness
and inclusion, which provide a protective shield for cynical enemies willing to
exploit them. Conservatives embrace the system and believe in the constitutional
framework which guarantees opponents the right to declare war not only against
them but against the system itself. Consequently, there is no real parallelism in
this conflict. One side is fighting with a no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners
battle plan against the system, while the other is trying [to] enforce its rules
of fairness and pluralism…

What makes a war a war, is the existence of an enemy who cannot be negotiated with
but has to be driven out of existence.

The implication of Horowitz’s analysis is that those of us who wish to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States, be we Republican, Democrat, or
otherwise, conservative or liberal, religious or not, politically active or up to
now largely disengaged, must shift into a mindset of war. We cannot face those who
would destroy that which we hold dear and wish away their intent, particularly
when they now wield the bulk of government power and strive each day to increase
it exponentially.

We cannot engage them as civil participants in a debate between parties who seek
the same ends and disagree as to the means. Today’s American radicals do not seek
our ends. They seek to destroy our system and rebuild it in their own image, to
“fundamentally transform America.” The sitting President of the United States of
America has openly disparaged the very constitution he is sworn to defend, saying
in a 2001 interview with Chicago-based National Public Radio:

If you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement, and its
litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal
rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So, I would now have the right to vote.
I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and, as long as I could pay for it,
I would be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into issues of
redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice
in this society.

To that extent I think, as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court,
it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that
were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been
interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally
the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do
to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what
the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. That hasn’t

One of, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was, because the Civil
Rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose
track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that
are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring
about redistributive change. In some ways, we still suffer from that.

Obama maligns the constitution as “a charter of negative liberties.” Again, rights

are fences; they are boundaries; rights are the negative liberties Obama speaks
against. The positive liberties he intends, the things the government should do
for you, those are entitlements. Again, entitlements are the opposite of rights.
They encroach; they impose; they steal and, as Obama here explicitly states,
redistribute. Forgetting for a moment that no one has the right to steal to feed
themselves, what reason to we have to believe the state’s “redistributive change”
will result in the utopia these progressives promise, in the hungry being fed and
the sick being cared for and the cold being sheltered? Where has consolidation of
power ever eliminated want?

In his blog series regarding Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, David Horowitz
discusses the curious fact that Alinsky dedicated the book to the first radical –
Lucifer. Horowitz highlights that Lucifer has many names – Belial, Beelzebub,
Apollyon, Leviathan, Mephistopheles. Horowitz states, “The many names of Satan are
also a model for radicals who camouflage their agendas by alternatively calling
themselves Communists, socialists, new leftists, liberals and most consistently

” I would add to that list Nazis, facists, Islamists, and any group throughout
history that has sought to impose the will of its elite upon free men. I believe
our mortality often bars us from recognizing the pattern of history. Perhaps if we
had lived through the collapse of Rome, perhaps if we had lived in the Wiemar
Republic and seen the rise of Hitler, we might now recognize the tell tale signs
of the Beast.

Don’t Tread On Me

For those of us that do, those of us who know a new revolutionary war is upon us,
what do we do? How do we fight? What can we do? The answer is quite simple. The
myth of the vampire stands as an effective model for what we are up against, a
demonic creature that feeds upon the living, stalking about in darkness, relying
upon misdirection, disguise, and seduction. Of the weapons used to defeat the
creature, none are more effective and final than the light of day. Once
illuminated, the creature bursts into a harmless pile of dust. What we need is to
shine the light of day on those radicals who would destroy us.

Take Van Jones as a recent example. Glenn Beck was his Van Helsing, casting the
light of scrutiny on his person and history. That light destroyed him. It will
destroy them all. But it is up to us to shed it, to be bearers of light in dark
times. We do that by finding diverse and trustworthy sources of real news,
becoming our own private news desk, reading history, strengthening ourselves
spiritually in whatever way we know how, sharing what we learn with our friends
and family, demanding answers and accountability from our public officials, and
sticking by our guns in the face of ridicule, ad hominem attack, and attempts at
character assassination.

We need not answer charges of Nazism, racism, fear-mongering and the like. Those
who believe such nonsense about conservatives and conservatism will believe it
regardless. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “An enemy generally says and believes
what he wishes.” We need not convince the whole world. The people we have to reach
are those who remain asleep, like we once were, going about their lives as though
they live in peaceful times with their liberties secure. Lethargic and complacent
we may tend to be; but, once stirred, there is no greater force for good in this
world than an American fighting for liberty.

I leave you with an oft cited quote whose author remains unverified, but whose
truth seems self-evident:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist

until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public
treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a
democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a
dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to
great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance
to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from
apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

We hit apathy a long time ago. Let’s see if we can’t skip a step, shall we? Let us
follow this Jeffersonian charge: “As our enemies have found, we can reason like
men. So now let us show them we can fight like men also.”

- Walter Scott Hudson

Revised September 20, 2009