The Department of Peace

by | Sep 5, 2004 | POLITICS

The ability of some in Congress to completely trash our U.S. Constitution is simply breathtaking. Witness H.R. 1673, a bill introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) a year ago but roused from its subcommittee slumber just this March, with the addition of Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) to its co-sponsorship list of almost 50. That this […]

The ability of some in Congress to completely trash our U.S. Constitution is simply breathtaking.

Witness H.R. 1673, a bill introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) a year ago but roused from its subcommittee slumber just this March, with the addition of Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) to its co-sponsorship list of almost 50.

That this bill, which seeks to establish a cabinet-level, Orwellian-style Dept. of Peace, is co-sponsored by only the most radical in Congress — namely, Progressive Caucus members, also known as disguised socialists, and several of their non-affiliated but Democrat Party cohorts — and therefore has little chance for actual passage, is not the point. What is the point is that a measure so unabashedly unconstitutional, so decidedly pro-United Nations, could seep its way into our congressional corridors at all.

What is the point, too, is that the ideology contained in this bill, if left unchecked, will likely replicate itself in another measure, and another and yet another, until its message and means of constitutional encroachments finally do receive the backing of the American people and the signatures of both parties’ of elected leaders.

So, this is the road to which H.R. 1673 leads.

The Dept. of Peace, as outlined in this bill, will be “dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to both domestic and international peace.”

Holding “peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society,” the Presidentially appointed department secretary will oversee pretty much all aspects of U.S. life, culture and politics, from the military to the treatment of animals.

Section 102 empowers the secretary to “work proactively and interactively with each branch of the federal government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace,” to “serve as a delegate to the National Security Council,” and to “make policy recommendations for developing and maintaining peaceful conduct.”

Toward achieving this end, this new Dept. of Peace and its secretary are given a wide range of authority, including oversight of domestic violence issues; drug and alcohol abuse programs; “crime, punishment and rehabilitation,” or in short, the courts; the Second Amendment; gang warfare, school violence and racial, ethnic and gay or lesbian crimes; and violence against women.

The secretary is also charged with recommending policy to the Attorney General, at present the highest law enforcement official in the United States, and to the Dept. of Defense, pertaining to “civil rights and labor law” and to the ethics and values of military action, respectively.

Section 102(b)(4) would be laughable, except when the realities of present day and age PETA-like policy hit, and realization dawns that no longer can it be taken for granted that animals are, well, animals.

This clause gives the secretary the right to “develop policies to address violence against animals.”

But these are just the domestic powers. The Dept. of Peace would assume numerous international responsibilities, also.

Aside from advising the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense “on all matters relating to national security, including the protection of human rights,” the Dept. of Peace would hold jurisdiction to train our nation’s military when it was tasked — as it usually is nowadays — with peacekeeping missions. The newly created department would also advise the Secretary of the Treasury to hire and train “investigators to help with the enforcement of international arms embargoes;” the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations on Security Council matters; the Secretary of Education on curricula that teaches students from grade school through college to achieve “peace through reflection” via U.S. and international civil rights movements; the Secretary of Labor, to develop “strategies to promote full compliance with domestic and international labor rights law;” and even the president of the United States, to draft “treaties and peace agreements.”

Indeed, the powers granted to this Peace Secretary would be so great that this country could not even dare declare war without first receiving this appointee’s approval.

“The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall consult with the Secretary (of Peace) concerning nonviolent means of conflict resolution…prior to the initiation of any armed conflict between the United State and any other nation,” Section 112 reads.

If that’s not enough to jolt you, consider this: the Peace Secretary would also hold power over aspects of the environment. The logic of this, of course, is that “the conservation and sustainability of natural resources” will help “prevent future conflicts regarding scarce resources.”

So from where does Kucinich draw his inspiration for creation of this Dept. of Peace?

Well not from the Constitution — though he tries to have us believe this in Section One, with a lengthy but skewed discourse on Founding Father intent. Rather, Kucinich’s vision for this department comes solely from the United Nations, as evidenced with his references to the global body’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Section One, the Children’s Fund report in Section 109 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Section 110.

It should be noted, too, that the United Nations’ own University of Peace, headquartered in the non-militarily manned nation of Costa Rica, promotes the same agenda of conciliation-at-all-costs via formal education of the world’s leading students.

Curious that this bill does not draw this parallel with mention of UPEACE — but then that slight omission is no more bizarre than the entire notion of forced peace and a government’s attempt to brainwash and regulate calm by bureaucracy and law.

Cheryl K. Chumley is a columnist who writes for <a href=""></a>.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Related articles

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest