IPFS Chuck Baldwin

More About: Philosophy: Political

H.R. 1 Puts America In A Giant Bird Cage

Visit Chuck's website: Chuck Baldwin Live

This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070112.html

The very first bill passed by the House of Representatives this year was H.R. 1 named, "Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act." The vote was 299 Ayes, with 68 Republicans voting with the majority, and 128 Noes.

Drafted by the 9/11 Commission following the terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City, the report proffered 41 recommendations to the federal government ostensibly for the purpose of making the United States more secure against future terrorist attack. The implementation of this report was new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first priority for the 110th Congress. She succeeded. The House of Representatives easily passed it. The Senate is expected to do the same, and President Bush will doubtless sign it into law. But what, exactly, does this bill accomplish? Does it make America more secure? And if so, at what cost?

I well remember my father telling me, "A bird in a cage is safe, but it is not free." That proverb pretty much summarizes H.R. 1. When fully implemented, the new law will create a federal police leviathan that will place the American people into a giant bird cage.

As many have already observed, a close analysis of the 9/11 report reveals the creation of Homeland Security identity checkpoints on America's roads and highways. Mandatory biometric iris and finger scanning systems at all American airports and seaports. The creation of a national I.D. card. The expansion of "no-fly" and "watch" lists. The implementation of special screening for all airline passengers, which paves the way for invasive body scanners. The federal takeover of publicly owned communications networks and increased government surveillance of Americans' financial records and activities.

In addition, H.R. 1 mandates that America becomes increasingly meddlesome in the internal affairs of foreign nations, thereby pushing the United States further down the road of international governance. For example, one recommendation requires that the U.S. "defends Muslims against tyrants and criminals . . ."

Of course, nowhere in the 9/11 Commission Report is there a call to defend Christians against tyrants and criminals. And the truth is, the most rampant and bloodthirsty acts of tyranny and criminality are committed against Christians. In The Sudan alone, Marxist and Muslim warriors have tortured, murdered, and enslaved more than two million people, mostly Christians, over the past twenty years. However, their suffering is mostly ignored by the international community and by our own government.

Yet, back to the issue. How many nations must we invade and how many governments must we overthrow in order to "defend Muslims"? Furthermore, are we also obligated to defend Buddhists and Shintoists?

Another recommendation wants the United States to "generously [support] a new International Youth Opportunity Fund" for the purpose of "building and operating primary and secondary schools in . . . Muslim states . . ." How many billions and even trillions of taxpayer dollars will be required to build and operate Muslim schools? Schools that will no doubt teach Muslim doctrine. There is certainly no shrill cry against the separation of Mosque and state heard here, Martha.

Yet another recommendation requires "global border security" using "extensive international cooperation." What the heck is this all about? What, pray tell, is "global border security"? Does this mean using foreign troops to guard our borders?

Are we supposed to believe that our own National Guard and Border Patrol are unable to protect our borders, and, therefore, we need foreign troops to do the job? Balderdash! The fact is, the Bush administration simply does not allow our forces to protect our borders. Perhaps this recommendation in the 9/11 Commission Report helps explain why.

Still another recommendation requires the federal government to "set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses." In other words, a national, or maybe even international, I.D. card or computer chip.

One of the most egregiously extreme recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report is this next one. Without specifically naming it, this recommendation calls for the implementation of President Bill Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott's brainchild. It is called Continuity of Government (COG). COG has strong support from many notables such as former GOP Senate Whip Alan Simpson, Clinton's former Secretary of HHS Donna Shalala, former House Speakers Democrat Tom Foley and Republican Newt Gingrich, former GOP Minority Leader Robert Michel, and Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO of the NAACP.

In a nutshell, proponents of COG envision a terrorist attack that would precipitate the suspension of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, COG would authorize Congress to appoint its own members, including those in state legislatures, without a vote of the people. COG even envisions the enactment of such authority for reasons of "incapacitation" (whatever that is) even if no emergency exists.

As one should easily be able to see, the passage of H.R. 1 simply continues the policies of both Democrat and Republican administrations to put the bird in its cage. Of course, the bird is the American people and the cage is a national, even international, curtain of total control.

Aldous Huxley called it a "Brave New World." George Orwell outlined it in his book "1984." Bible theologians call it the "Revived Roman Empire." Whatever one calls it, both George W. Bush and the Democrats in Congress are pushing hard and fast to implement it. And unless the American people offer the strongest resistance quickly and loudly, our children and grandchildren will find the cage locked shut with no chance of escape.

The American people need to heed the warning of Winston Churchill who said, "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

America, are you listening?