[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16340-16343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     ABROGATING OUR NATURAL RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be our last day in 
formal session, actual session, of the year. There may be something 
coming up. I always worry about unanimous consent requests when nobody 
is here.
  I know the administration likes to brag that it has been a good year 
for enforcing the border, but this story from Brooke Singman says:
  The number of unaccompanied children crossing into the U.S. from 
Mexico nearly doubled this year citing from Border Patrol figures.
  Hopefully, we will get the Trump administration moving as quickly as 
they indicate they intend to.
  It is worth noting that this story came out from The Hill. Mark 
Hensch said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11, 
says that in his view, immigration into the United States is al Qaeda's 
deadliest weapon against the United States. That is what he has 
apparently indicated.
  A witness said:

       From his perspective, the long war for Islamic domination 
     wasn't going to be won in the streets with bombs and bullets 
     and bloodshed. No, it would be won in the minds of the 
     American people.

  This is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's thinking. Thank God--literally, 
thank God--that President Obama has not released the mastermind as he 
has so many others who have contributed to the deaths of Americans.
  But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 
9/11 mastermind, said:

       The terror attacks were good, but the ``practical'' way to 
     defeat America was through immigration and by out-breeding 
     non-Muslims.

  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

       Jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United 
     States, taking advantage of the welfare system to support 
     themselves while they spread their jihadi message.
       They will wrap themselves in America's rights and laws for 
     protection, ratchet up acceptance of sharia law, and then, 
     only when they were strong enough, rise up and violently 
     impose sharia from within. He said the brothers would 
     relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people 
     eventually would become so tired, so frightened and so weary 
     of war they would just want it to end.

  According to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that is when radical Islam--
sharia law--would take over for the United States, and the Constitution 
of the United States would no longer have meaning here.

[[Page 16341]]

  It is rather interesting. When we find out exactly what the enemies 
of freedom have in the way of plans to destroy our liberty and freedom, 
it really should catch the attention of some of our United States 
Federal Government.
  We passed a bill today, and I love and respect the people that pushed 
for it, but I need to make further comment about it. This was H.R. 
4919. It is a bill that was supposed to be just a reauthorization. 
Well, it has got a program, and people that start these kinds of 
things, knowing where they will end up, start with a small amount of 
money. If you start with just millions, then you can go later on from 
there. When you paint it as being simply to help families who have 
autistic or Alzheimer's patients, people with dementia, things that 
Americans like me understand because we have had family members who, 
because of organic problems, a very brilliant person can become 
confused, not know where they are and become lost. But life here in 
Congress would be so much easier if I simply would not read the bills.
  This bill creates a Federal tracking program, and it starts with 
Alzheimer's patients and autism patients, people with those 
disabilities. It also includes, according to the bill, developmental 
disabilities, and that is broad enough that you can start including all 
kinds of things now that the law has been passed.
  My understanding, it is told that in the Senate it was likewise 
breezed through. Somebody went on the Senate floor when other Senators 
weren't there, maybe two people or so, and said: I ask unanimous 
consent that this bill be passed; hearing no objection, so ordered.
  It was not much of a vote. We didn't even have a hearing in 
subcommittee or committee where we bring witnesses, talk to experts, 
talk to people involved, see what the problem is and see if the cure is 
worse than the problem. We didn't have that. We didn't have 
constitutional experts talk about the indications for our future 
freedom.
  Instead, we got this bill. I am grateful that proponents tried to fix 
things, but as I read through it, the fixes didn't really fix things. 
This program that is supposed to help people with mental health 
issues--confusion, getting lost, and dying. We know these things 
happen. There is nothing anywhere in the law that prevents a parent 
from having something that helps that parent track or keep track of 
their autistic child or child with, according to this bill, 
developmental disabilities--nothing. There is nothing that keeps a 
guardian from using some kind of tracking methodology to keep up with 
someone who has Alzheimer's.
  Yes, I know it is a serious issue; but why wasn't this left, then, to 
the Department of Health and Human Services if it is really just a 
mental health issue? The answer is it was left to the Attorney General 
and to the Department of Justice because the truth is, if it would need 
to expand, that is where they want it to expand.
  We were assured that this is strictly voluntary; but once you have a 
program in place, it is very easy for someone to file a petition and 
ask a judge, such as I once was back in Texas: Here are the 
indications. We need an order for the good of this person and the 
safety of the public so that this person can be tracked.
  It is not just a danger to themselves, the bill talks about, or an 
injury that could be caused by the patient. We know from the Department 
of Homeland Security that many in the Department of Homeland Security 
think the biggest threat for hate crimes, for destruction and death in 
America are from people who are veterans that may like the idea of the 
Second Amendment allowing them to keep guns.

                              {time}  1615

  They are people who believe the Constitution should be literally 
followed, and the words that the Constitution actually says should be 
followed. The Founders of this country would be, of course--if they 
were around today--at the top of this administration's no-fly list 
because they wanted liberty above all, they wanted freedom. They did 
not want a government that interceded into their own personal private 
decisions and lives.
  Now we have this bill. The attorney general will tell us what the 
rules are because the bill says he or she will, and the attorney 
general will set up the best practices. I know that there is language 
added that says: Oh, no, the parent or guardian, they have to 
voluntarily use this program; it is not forceful.
  Well, no, the grants are not for anyone except voluntary, but I can 
guarantee you the program will ultimately be used to involuntarily 
place tracking information on people.
  Then, despite some of my friends in Congress saying, This is really 
not a danger, it is nothing to worry about, I get back to the office 
and my staff hands me an article regarding Japan. And, lo and behold, 
it is from Yahoo News. ``Japan Tags Dementia Sufferers With Barcodes.'' 
And the article goes on to point out that in Japan, where, until after 
World War II and the surrender in 1945, Japan had a history of 
submitting to whatever the emperor, the totalitarian leader, dictated.
  Well, now in Japan, they have come up with the best way of tracking 
people. It is by putting barcodes on fingers. All you need is a barcode 
on one finger, a barcode on one toe, and then the Japanese Government 
will be able to accurately and adequately track people they are 
concerned about.
  So I don't think anybody needs to be worried about the government 
having this Orwellian program unless, perhaps, they are Christian, 
because the Commission on Civil Rights thinks that people who talk 
about religious freedom, religious liberty, Christians that use words 
like ``evangelical,'' that those are the biggest threat, perhaps, for 
hate in America because of the ignorance in this administration. It is 
nothing against them personally. It is just all of us are ignorant in 
some areas.
  Apparently, in this administration, there is widespread ignorance 
over the fact that Christianity is the religion based on love; that God 
so loved the world, he would send his son, and that his son would so 
love the world, he would lay down his life for his friends, which he, 
Jesus, said was the greatest love. True Christians follow the teachings 
of Jesus just as most Muslims try to do; to follow the teachings of 
Jesus.
  Anyway, if you are a Christian, or you believe the Constitution 
should be literally followed, or you believe that you should have a 
right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, or you believe 
the Tenth Amendment means what it says, that any power not specifically 
enumerated for the Federal Government, it is reserved to the States and 
people, anybody that believes those kind of things is really a threat, 
according to some in this administration and some in what has become 
more of a permanent government.
  Administrations come and go, but we have got liberals that are so 
tolerant, they want to take away the rights of anybody with whom they 
disagree. The blacklist experts. They talk about blacklists of the 
fifties, and they go beyond anything that the fifties may have had in 
store for those who wanted to bring down the United States Government.
  Anyway, there just was not enough attention paid to this bill. It 
breaks my heart--and I am not kidding, I am not being sarcastic--that 
there were some that were pushing for this bill that have some of the 
biggest hearts, that want to do more to help people--and I am afraid 
because of the bill's passage today, and I am sure the President will 
sign it into law, gee, we get to track people we are concerned about in 
America, maybe we will use a barcode.
  If we can have the attorney general, in his opinion, find that a 
subcutaneous chip implant is noninvasive, then we can do that. But 
maybe the barcode would be better than a chip.
  Anyway, we have passed the program. Someday, I am very afraid for my 
dear friends that push this bill that history will not so much remember 
the wonderful things they have fought for in this legislative body, the 
great moral issues they have stood for, but one day they will be 
remembered as the ones who quietly pushed this bill

[[Page 16342]]

through that allowed a Federal Government to begin tracking for the 
first-time students--not students, but young people, whether they are 
students or not, people with disabilities. I am sure we will be seeing 
the attorney general add definition, since it is up to her, or someday 
him, perhaps, to determine what really is developmental disability.
  So those things are coming. People need to be aware of them. Perhaps 
someday we will have a Congress before it is too late that will back up 
and say: Wait a minute, we are not going to be funding with Federal 
taxpayer dollars a tracking system for American citizens.
  I had some colleague say: Well, I could have voted for it if it was 
only people who were known terrorists, but we don't want to track known 
terrorists. This bill would be considered an abomination if we tried to 
put a barcode or a chip into a known terrorist in the United States. 
No, this needs to be reserved for people who get confused, and so it 
goes.
  In the words of Billy Joel:

       So it goes, and you are the only one who knows.

  So also being as how this week included the 75th anniversary of the 
day of infamy when right at that level the President of the United 
States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said--actually, 75 years ago today, he 
said:

       Yesterday, December 7, 1941--a date which will live in 
     infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and 
     deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire 
     of Japan.

  He went on. It is about a page-and-a-half speech, double spaced. And 
he concludes by saying:

       With confidence in our own forces--with the unbounded 
     determination of our people--we will gain the inevitable 
     triumph--so help us God.

  It is interesting, Roosevelt so often referred to God. He is the only 
American President, which I am aware, who went on national radio, or 
TV, but he went on radio--that is what they had at the time--on D-day, 
when thousands of American troops were landing in France on the 
beaches, thousands were being killed, and he led the Nation in a 
Christian prayer on national radio.
  Why?
  Because he was a true leader of the United States. He knew our Nation 
was in great trouble. So the natural thing to do was lead the Nation in 
prayer.
  If we go back to the man who is called the Father of the 
Constitution, as I understand it, the Federal Government mandates a 
test to be taught in order for people to get a little bit of the money 
that they send from their States to Washington, D.C., to the Department 
of Education. The Department of Education, if you do what they tell 
you, will send you a little bit back of your own money. So they don't 
require that the statements of our constitutional Founders be learned.
  My understanding is the biggest thing the current folks want to be 
taught and learned about World War II is not that America was attacked. 
There was a day of infamy and that America was fighting and losing 
lives around the world, not as much for America, but for liberty, for 
freedom; that there would be places in the world where people could 
live and have opportunity and make their own decisions without the 
forces of radical Islam, which had joined forces with the Nazis and 
with the emperor in Japan.
  But if you go back to James Madison, he said:

       We have staked the whole future of American civilization, 
     not on the power of government; far from it. We have staked 
     the future of all of our political institutions upon the 
     capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of 
     each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, 
     to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of 
     God.

  That is rather important. That is why if you go through the writings, 
the pronouncements, the proclamations, the laws of the United States 
for the first 100, 150 years or so, we finally got the Constitution to 
a place where people understood you can't have slavery legally exist 
under a constitution that grants freedom. Thank God, they finally got 
past the ridiculous decision in Dred Scott, and we got past the Civil 
War.
  In 1890, there was a case that the Supreme Court sat in on, 136 U.S. 
1 (1890). The Supreme Court said this:

       It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the 
     civilization, which Christianity has produced in the western 
     world.

  Two years later, in the case of United States v. Church of the Holy 
Trinity, the Supreme Court went on for pages talking about the evidence 
of Christianity in America not so that Christianity would be forced or 
imposed on anyone, but as Madison understood, and as Adams understood, 
and as Washington understood, you could not maintain self-government, a 
democratic Republic where we will elect representatives as our 
servants. You can't maintain that if it is not a religious and a moral 
people. That cannot be a majority of religious and moral people who 
believe that the Constitution must totally be subjugated to a 
particular law, whether that be Sharia or others.
  So in the Declaration of Independence--this is the Supreme Court 
citing this in their 1892 decision:

       The Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of 
     the Divine in human affairs in these words:

       ``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 . . . appealing to the Supreme 
     Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions . . . 
     And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance 
     on Protection of Define Providence, we mutually pledge to 
     each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.''

                              {time}  1630

  When I saw a copy of the original Treaty of Paris of 1783, in which 
we forced England to swear under something so important that they would 
not want to break the oath, what do you come up with to get Great 
Britain--the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful 
navy and army--to swear under that they would not willingly be wanting 
to break that oath? The big words--huge letters--starting the treaty 
that recognized our independence for the first time starts out:

       In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity, that is 
     Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

  The opinion goes on and cites so many examples of Christianity in 
America. They say:

       We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country 
     is deeply engrafted upon Christianity and not upon the 
     doctrines of worship of those impostors.

  It goes on and reads after many more recitations:

       These and many other matters which might be noticed add a 
     volume of unofficial declaration to the mass of organic 
     utterances that this is a Christian nation. We find 
     everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. The 
     happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of 
     civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and 
     morality.

  Not that we would ever force Christian beliefs on anyone, but as we 
find historically--and as even a Muslim leader and a descendant of 
Muhammad told General Jay Garner in Iraq when he was inquiring as to 
what kind of government we should have--he said it should be based on 
the teachings of Jesus because that descendant of Muhammad--that Muslim 
leader--understood that it is, really, only if you have a government 
that is under the teachings of Jesus where an atheist, a Buddhist, 
Hindu, Islam--any religion--can prosper without fear so long as they do 
not try to undo the Constitution of the United States.
  Franklin Roosevelt, so endeared to liberals in this Nation, on 
December 24, 1933, said:

       This year marks a greater national understanding of the 
     significance in our modern lives of the teaching of Him whose 
     birth we celebrate. To more and more of us, the words ``thou 
     shalt love thy neighbor as thyself'' have taken on a meaning 
     that is showing itself and proving itself in our purposes and 
     in our daily lives. May the practice of that high ideal grow 
     in us all in the year to come. I give you and send you, one 
     and all, old and young, a Merry Christmas and a truly happy 
     new year. And so, for now and for always, God bless us, 
     everyone.

  Another example is from Franklin Roosevelt on December 21, 2 short 
weeks after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. I won't read the whole thing, 
but

[[Page 16343]]

it is deeply moving, and he finishes by saying:

       Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the 
     dignity and brotherhood of man, which Christmas Day 
     signifies. Against enemies who preach the principles of hate 
     and practice them, we set our faith in human love and in 
     God's care for us and all men everywhere. Our strength, as 
     the strength of all men everywhere, is of greater avail as 
     God upholds us.

  In 1942, on Christmas Eve, he finished by saying:

       It is significant that tomorrow, Christmas Day, our plants 
     and factories will be stilled. That is not true of the other 
     holidays we have long been accustomed to celebrate. On all 
     other holidays, work goes on--gladly for the winning of the 
     war. So Christmas becomes the only holiday in all the year. I 
     like to think this is so because Christmas is a holy day.

  John F. Kennedy, on December 17, 1962, said these words--and I won't 
read the whole thing--in the conclusion:

       This has been a year of peril where the peace has been 
     sorely threatened, but it has been a year when peril was 
     faced and when reason ruled. As a result, we may talk at this 
     Christmas just a little bit more confidently of peace on 
     Earth, goodwill to men; and, as a result, the hopes of the 
     American people are, perhaps, a little higher. We have much 
     yet to do. We still have to ask that God bless everyone.

  Then last for today, before we adjourn for Christmas, Ronald Reagan, 
on December 19, 1988, concluded his Christmas address by saying:

       Our compassion and concern this Christmas and all year long 
     will mean much to the hospitalized, the homeless, the 
     convalescent, the orphaned, and it will surely lead us on our 
     way to the joy and peace of Bethlehem and the Christ Child 
     who bids us come, for it is only in finding and living the 
     eternal meaning of the Nativity that we can be truly happy, 
     truly at peace, truly home.

  I conclude, Mr. Speaker, as Ronald Reagan did: Merry Christmas, and 
God bless you.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________