Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 37 (Friday, March 11, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 37 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1762-H1766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1420
AMERICA'S HERITAGE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
the remainder of the hour, approximately 48 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, these are trying times. Charles Dickens
said ``the best of times and the worst of times.'' More freedoms than
any nation has ever enjoyed in the history of the world are right here
in this country. We have been blessed so richly. And

[[Page H1763]]

lest we begin to think we've been blessed because of something that we
did to deserve to be born in America, for all those wonderful people
who have immigrated to America, we didn't deserve to be born here or
immigrate here. So why did we end up being in the country with the
greatest freedoms in the history of the world, since it wasn't because
of something we did to deserve to be here?
The answer is very clear. We've been blessed as a nation because of
the actions of those who went before us. For those who believe in the
Bible, it's full of one incident after another, historically, where it
was shown that generations ended up being blessed because of the
faithfulness of one generation.
One of the things that was difficult for me to come to grips with as
a judge is how often children pay for the sins of the parents. And
that's bringing me to where we are today. We are a nation that has done
the unthinkable, a nation that has brought in around $2.1 trillion for
the last couple of years and yet has spent 3.6, 3.5, $3.6 trillion. How
irresponsible could that be? And the problem is future generations will
have to pay and pay and pay for the self-indulgence, the arrogance and
the self-centeredness of this generation. And it's heartbreaking when
you step back and take a good look at what's going on.
Polls indicate that 70 percent or more of American adults believe
that this will be the first generation--my generation will be the first
in American history that does not leave the country to our children
better than we found it. It's why I'm here. We can do better than that,
but we'd better hurry. Because if we have 2, 3, 4 more years of what
the President proposed, $1.65 trillion in deficit spending, there's not
going to be a country. I don't care how much smarter we think we are in
this country, how much more intellectual some of the liberals may be
here, you can't outrun history.
There are lessons that are established. And if you commit this act,
then in the laws of nature and history, you're going to get this
result. If you spend too much money you don't have for long enough,
you're going to lose your country. It's happened over and over. It
doesn't matter how smart you are. It doesn't matter how many letters
you have after your name. It doesn't matter if you commit certain acts;
you're going to get certain results, just as sure as if it's a
scientific experiment that's been proven over and over.
Well, it has been proven. If you spend too much, you're going to lose
the country. Now the Germans, after World War I, thought perhaps they
could print the money fast enough so that they could pay the massive
indebtedness they had after World War I and that could get them on
solid footing. Some remember the cartoons from history books. There are
people alive today that remember, themselves, wheelbarrows with cash
being carried to buy bread. That was a cartoon I saw in my history
book.
And, ultimately, as the country's economy collapsed, they became so
desperate that they were willing to elect a little guy with a mustache
who began to blame those of Jewish origin, leading to the worst
holocaust in the history of mankind. Nothing we can be proud of. What
led to it? What opened the door for this barbarian to take over such a
proud country and lead them into this unthinkable, horrible crime
against humanity, over 6 million Jewish people were killed,
exterminated? Economic problems, spending too much, owing too much and
trying to print money to make it up didn't work. So they got desperate.
Look at the Soviet Union. Most historians give credit to President
Reagan because he was unflinching even when some described a defense
shield as Star Wars as some fictional, ridiculous thing that we might
try to do. On the other hand, President Reagan could see clearly that
the truth was that to have a doctrine called ``mutual assured
destruction,'' properly called MAD, then that was truly mad. You're
going to have two countries racing to make nuclear weapons. The only
defense is that you both agreed you'll never put up a defense. So if
one country launches its nukes at the other, then the other will
certainly launch theirs, and both will be mutually assured that they
will both be destroyed. And that's the defense? President Reagan saw
that as no defense. It was not a proper defense.
And some called him a nitwit and ignorant. I can identify. I'm
accused of those things on blogs every day. Maybe I am. But I know
history. And the history and the truth is that by his moving forward
with a way to actually defend the people of the United States with a
defense shield that would stop incoming nuclear weapons, then the
Russians had no choice. They had to try to keep up. They couldn't keep
up financially, and they went broke.

I learned a great deal during the summer I spent in the Soviet Union
as an exchange student in college. That was when it was truly the
Soviet Union. I saw socialized health care up close and personal. I saw
it. I went through a medical school, I went through hospitals, I went
through clinics and I needed some help at one point. But I knew one
thing: I sure didn't want to ever go to socialized medicine. That was
for sure. Because the doctors, I was surprised to find out, really
weren't respected over there unless it was some national doctor
nationally known, otherwise these doctors were like poorly paid
plumbers. Plumbers got a lot more respect.
It was a 9-to-5 type job. They'd show up. They didn't care if they
hadn't seen you before. They'd see you; it didn't matter whether you
got that well or not. That was largely the case. You'd run into
somebody that tried to do a good job every now and then, from what the
Russian students would tell me; but, basically, you might as well try
to heal yourself and be your own physician.
Because when you go to socialized medicine, just as Dr. Berwick has
indicated before President Obama put him in charge of our health care,
when you go to socialized medicine and you put the government in
charge, whether you want it or not, whether you will admit it or not,
historically, if you go to socialized medicine, if you go to
government-controlled medicine, then you're going to have rationing.
Dr. Berwick made that clear. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of
when and how much.
So unless ObamaCare is repealed, we will get rationed care. Our
President told people on that side of the aisle the day they were going
to vote on and pass ObamaCare that he had some good news: if they would
just vote for it, then things would be different. Whereas in the past--
and these are his words--in the past you go to the doctor and get five
tests; now you'll go to the doctor and get one test.
Well, for those of us that have experience, I know that if my mother
had been given one test, they would never have found her brain tumor.
It took 6 days. It prolonged her life for 15 years; and she made
invaluable contributions to mankind, to east Texas, Texas and the
country during that period and was an invaluable teacher of students,
of children in the eighth grade.

{time} 1430

One test, she would have been dead. Six days of tests, they found it.
Well, Mother would have been dead.
I have a lady in my district who contacted me when this whole debate
started and said: You need to know my experience. I immigrated from
England. My mother got cancer over there and died. The sole reason my
mother died of breast cancer was because she was in England. And in
England, you have to be put on a list. You're on a list to get a
mammography. You're on a list to be treated. You're on a list to get
radiation or any other kind of chemotherapy. You're on a list, and that
is the way you deal with government-controlled health care, because
ultimately government-controlled health care does not break the bank
because you ultimately, unless the nation just completely goes broke.
They say, You know what? We have this much money. And, therefore, we
can only give out this many tests. We can only do this many
transfusions, this many transplants. We only have this much chemo,
radiation. And let's see, sir or ma'am, we don't think you're
productive enough, and so you're not getting it. We, as your
government, overseeing your health care, have to make a call. Somebody
has got to.
That's where government-controlled health care goes. It's where it
has to go or it bankrupts the country.
But the good news is, for those who worry about health care
bankrupting

[[Page H1764]]

the country, we may not have to get that far unless we take responsible
steps that any right-thinking group of leaders should take, then we
could finish out with a whimper. Every country meets its demise at some
point. No nation lasts forever, and anyone who thinks so has never
studied history appropriately. And this Nation will be no exception.
The only question is are we going to be a generation that takes such
responsible steps and follows the rules of history, many of which Jesus
laid out. You want to be a generation that is blessed and have your
children blessed, here are the rules. Well, we need to follow the rules
if our children and our grandchildren are going to be blessed, because
the track we are on right now, and all those left-wing blogs that like
to take shots at us who are conservatives, they will one day be looked
at as such blatant fools because that's the way it goes. A country,
toward the end of its demise, the liberals who say there can be no end
to this wonderful, hedonistic society, they are the most popular
because they are playing to people's hopes. There will be no end to
this society. Sure, there will be no end. It will go on. Forget these
naysayers.
Well, I'm not a naysayer; I'm a yeasayer. And I would like this
generation to say yea to blessing at least the next couple of
generations. But it's in our hands. But once the naysayers who are
truly the naysayers who say nay, nay, you people who want to be
responsible, spend within your means, who want to provide for the
common defense, you guys, you're crazy. You're nuts.
I've been called nuts for pointing out the fact that we have actually
had people, men, associated with known terrorist groups send over their
wives to have children in this country. Then the wife comes back with a
baby with an American passport and an American citizenship. You can go
online. China provides birthright citizenship. You pay a fee and we
will get you an American visa. Come into the United States.
There is a Muslim-owned hotel in New York City, and they were upset
online, it seemed like, because people were not giving them credit for
being the first group to come up with birthright citizenship. You pay a
big fee to this hotel in upper New York, and they would put you up for
a month. If you are pregnant, they get you a doctor to help deliver
your baby, one of the best in New York, and they had the mechanism in
place to help you get that American passport.
And then the most precious gift that anybody could be given, a child,
a blessing, not a terror, a gift of a child is born with an American
passport, and it is taken back. And in some cases, I hope and pray it
is not many, but I know it is happening, they are taken back, and until
they are adult, they are trained to hate Americans. And that the
greatest thing they could ever do for eternity is help destroy the
American way of life.
They look at our way of life and they see rape and crimes occurring
in America and they say: See, that is what happens when you don't have
a totalitarian, religious sharia law existing where we tell everybody
what they can and can't do. We don't allow that kind of freedom because
it leads to debauchery. I happen to think that God gave us that much
freedom and the freedom to choose; and, unfortunately, some choose
wrong. Eventually, every country has too many who choose wrong, and
that's when they lose their country.
So it made sense, if you're interested in providing for the common
defense, that we would take a look at those who are trying to destroy
us. And, by the way, the State Department is not going to take a look
at that. I made an official inquiry of the State Department, my office
did, and asked: Tell us how many times women have come into this
country and had babies when their husband was known to be on the
terrorist watch list or associated with a terrorist group. The State
Department came back and told us: We can't tell you because we don't
check. The husband's name is on any woman's application for a visa, but
we don't inquire if there is going to be hospitalization. You wouldn't
want it to be specific as to one gender, but you could inquire. And to
help keep immigrants from bankrupting our country, it would seem like
the State Department would inquire: Are you anticipating
hospitalization when you come into this country?

And of course I have a bill on health care that says any immigrant,
in order to get a visa, is going to have to show that they have already
purchased health insurance for any health care they will need in the
United States. We are willing to let people in. We let in more people
on visas than any nation in the world. We are willing to let you in,
but you've got to pay for your health care while you're here. Well, we
don't do that.
One lady had said, The great thing about my daughter coming in and
having a baby--and yes, her husband was a member of a terrorist group
in the Middle East, on our terrorist watch list--but the good news is
she doesn't even have to pay for anything. She can leave with an
American passport, and she doesn't have to pay for anything. The
Americans pay for it.
We have to stop that. It's nuts. The State Department doesn't inquire
if you anticipate hospitalization. And even though the spouse's name is
on the visa application, they say, as a rule, we don't bother to check
to see if the spouse is a terrorist.
You have groups out here who are condemning Justices on the Supreme
Court because their spouse may be politically active. They show
themselves to be blatantly extremely partisan, like Common Cause,
because they have never raised that issue with a former leader of the
ACLU whose husband, late husband, apparently a fine man, but he did
have political interests and they were affected by decisions of the
Court, and those groups never complained about that. But they only come
after conservatives on the Court, like Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas,
who believe that the words on the page of the Constitution, the pages,
mean what they say. They don't change over time; otherwise, you can
have no consistency as a nation.
So it would only make sense that somebody up here in Congress who has
taken an oath to provide for the common defense would say: You know,
we've noticed that every one of these terrorists in the last--well,
since 1991 who have really wanted to do anything to destroy our way of
life as a whole, that they seem to have a connection that they are not
Muslim; they are radical Muslims. They are radical Islamic jihadists.

{time} 1440

So wouldn't it make sense to take a look?
We know the largest percentage of Muslims in America are peace-
loving. They don't believe that ``jihad'' means you go kill your
neighbor. They believe it's an internal jihad, where you change your
life and leave the old behind; but there are disagreements over what
percentage of Muslims are these radical Islamic jihadists who want to
destroy our way of life. Wouldn't it make sense that we'd make inquiry
into that? It sure seems to me that we should. Yet Pete King, the
chairman of the appropriate committee, wanted to do just that, and he
has been under death threats ever since it first came up.
Now, for some of us, we say, Gee, in order to keep my commitment to
my oath to provide a defense for this country, I think we need to look
at this issue of radical Islam when you have a Major Hasan at Fort Hood
who kills American soldiers in their place of refuge while yelling
``Allah Akbar.'' Perhaps we should look at that issue. This is despite
the fact that the Defense Department didn't even want to mention the
word ``jihad'' or the word ``terrorist,'' did not want to point out the
fact that they had made him the imam for Fort Hood or the fact that he
had apparently told many people, If I get orders to deploy to the
Middle East, I cannot risk spiritually having to kill a Muslim for one
of the reasons besides the three for which I'm allowed to kill another
Muslim, one being converting to Christianity. I can't risk that
spiritually, so I'll have to go on a rampage and kill people here if I
get orders to deploy.
Amazingly, he got orders to deploy, and he killed American soldiers--
but none of that was brought up in the record. It's extraordinary that
it's not even mentioned in the report. How blind do we have to be?
So we have one responsible committee chairman who says--well, there

[[Page H1765]]

are plenty of responsible people here. He is the committee chair with
jurisdiction. He is going to have a hearing, and he gets blasted in
death threats.
So, to my way of thinking, when someone announces ``you know what?
I'm going to have a hearing, and we're going to look into whether
radical Islam is violent'' and if the radical Islamists respond by
saying ``we're going to kill you and kill your family,'' I think they
kind of help make Pete King's case. If he says he just wants to have a
peaceful hearing and you say ``we're going to kill you for it,'' well,
that seems to me they're making his case.
The peace-loving Muslims are not the problem, but there is an element
of radical Islam in this country and in this world that wants to
destroy our way of life. There will be books that will ultimately,
someday, belittle those people who are accusing Pete King of all kinds
of impropriety--racism, bigotry, xenophobia--all those things a lot of
us are accused of because they don't know us and because they don't
know our hearts. Someday, books will point out: Look how silly these
people were. They had people saying, We're going to kill you; and they
said, Uh-oh, we'd better not make them mad and try to defend ourselves
and figure out how to do that. Let's just try to placate them.
History shows, when you try to placate radical Islamists,
particularly since 700-800 AD, you're going to not only not placate
them; you're going to grow more contempt because, not only do they see
you as an infidel, but they see you as a stupid infidel who is trying
to pay off the people who want to kill them.
So we know that, in the hearing, our friend across the aisle, Mr.
Ellison, testified. He brought up the case of Mohammed Salman Hamdani--
and my apologies if I mispronounce that--who was a Pakistani-born
Muslim American. As Mr. Ellison pointed out, Hamdani rushed to Lower
Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001, to assist in rescue
efforts, and died in the collapse at the World Trade Center.
Mr. Ellison was thinking--and I'm sure, absolutely, there was no
intent to mislead and that he actually believed what he was saying. But
he said, after the tragedy, some people tried to smear his character
solely because of his Islamic faith. They spread false rumors and
speculated he was in league with the attackers, all because he was
Muslim.
So I'm proud to be able to point this out, and I hope that it's a
comfort to my friend Mr. Ellison; but in fact, as Matthew Shaffer
pointed out in this National Review article last night, he said that,
in fact, 6 weeks after the September 11 attacks, before Hamdani's
remains were identified, Congress did sign the Patriot Act into law
with this line included--and this is in the Patriot Act:
`` `Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically
during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman
Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed
to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and
is now missing.' ''
The article goes on. It reads:
``That is, Hamdani was actually singled out for particular high
honors among the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks.
There is little evidence,'' if any, ``of the `rumors' that he did
otherwise. You can go to Google and search for Mohammed Salman
Hamdani's name, using various time frames from before today's
hearings.'' That was yesterday. ``You'll discover two discordant sets
of returns, none for sites and news reports accusing Hamdani of being a
terrorist and many thousands of pages honoring him as a hero while
claiming that he was `widely accused' of being a terrorist.''
They can't find the allegation of his being a terrorist, only those
saying he was widely accused and what a hero he was.
``Web pages that do source that claim that Hamdani was `widely
accused' of being a terrorist typically trace back to a single report
from the New York Post, dated October 12, 2001, and titled `Missing--or
Hiding? Mystery of NYPD Cadet from Pakistan.' The piece has been taken
offline, but its content is preserved elsewhere.
``His family distributed missing person flyers in the fear that the
23-year-old, who is trained as an EMT, went instead to the World Trade
Center to help and was killed. But investigators for the FBI and NYPD
have since questioned the family about which Internet chat rooms he
visited and if he was political.
``Hamdani, a graduate of Queens College, with a biochemistry degree,
had been in the NYPD cadet program for 3 years. He became `inactive'
because he needed to work full time, his mother said. Police sources
said he hadn't been to work at the NYPD since April, but he still
carried official identification.
``One source told the Post: `That tells me they're not looking for
this guy at the bottom of the rubble. The thing that bothers me is, if
he is up to some tricks, he can walk past anybody using the I.D. card.'
``Hamdani's mother, who has been in the United States for two
decades, denied her son was political or a religious fundamentalist.
Cops at the Midtown Tunnel reported spotting someone who looked like
Hamdani yesterday morning.
``So the Post reported (1) that Hamdani's family believed he died in
the World Trade Center attacks; (2) that the FBI asked Hamdani's mother
a few background questions after a mistaken sighting; and (3) that an
unnamed source felt such questioning implied guilt. No doubt, that was
hard on the grieving mother; but frankly, this--a mistaken sighting and
very preliminary investigations of many people, most of whom turn out
to be innocent--is the kind of thing that inevitably happens after a
major terrorist attack.''
So the article points out that Mr. Hamdani has been singled out by
this Congress and by people in New York for being the hero that he
apparently was. There is no allegation by this Congress, of which I'm
aware, of blanket smearing, saying that all Muslims are evil. They're
not. The disagreement is over what percentage. Is it 1 percent or 10
percent that is being radicalized and wants to destroy our way of life?
It's a question worth looking into.

{time} 1750

Because there were actual witnesses at the hearing that pointed out
that their young children had been taken--I say young, a teenager to me
is young these days--and had been turned against the United States
through a mosque, taken to a foreign country and radicalized to finish
the process. Why wouldn't we want to look into that? It only makes
sense. Because if you bury your head in the sand, even though you don't
see any danger your rear end is hanging out there to some pretty
significant danger, and we shouldn't be in that posture as a country.
Now we also know that the Muslim Brotherhood has been active in
foreign countries. We've seen what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya,
other countries around the Middle East. But I would humbly submit that
the thing that ought to scare Americans the most about our stature in
the world, about the way our allies and friends look at this Nation and
about how they perceive whether or not we will be able to--and will--
help in a crisis, came when we saw that King Abdullah, King of Jordan,
had made an appointment to apparently work out some kind of deal with a
madman named Ahmadinejad. Abdullah, I've met him before, he's a
brilliant man, we've visited a couple of times, he's a brilliant man,
he has a different world view, but this country in the past has
appreciated his ability to keep order and keep peace in his country.
When an ally like King Abdullah makes an appointment with a madman--
possibly to cut his own deal for protection--it ought to send off
alarms all over this Nation that we're in trouble. The world perceives
us as weak. Our friends have seen we don't stand with our friends.
We'll snub Israel. We'll leave them hanging until the last second on
whether or not we'll even veto a resolution Lebanon brings to the
U.N.--which is what this administration did. We'll snub their prime
minister when he comes early on, as this administration did. Oh, sure,
the administration tried to warm up to him right before the election
and tried to jockey for political help back in the fall of 2010, but
our allies and our enemies are not as stupid as some in this town
think. They see the way we treat our friends, our allies, those who
have

[[Page H1766]]

stood with this country through thick and thin, and they've seen the
way we've turned on them.
They see what we've done with enemies of ours, as Qadhafi has been in
the past, as Ahmadinejad has been, as Kim Jong Il in North Korea has
been, and they say, gee, if we go strongly against this country, the
Obama administration will come rush to see what they can give us to try
to make us friends--obviously they won't make us friends, but we'll
take whatever they've got to give. In fact, in the case of North Korea
and the Clinton administration running over there and saying, look,
we'll build you a nuclear power plant if you will just quit trying to
make a nuclear weapon. You'll give us a nuclear power plant? Doesn't
that have nuclear fuel? Yes, it does. We might be able to take that
fuel and make a nuclear weapon? Sure, yeah, I mean, it's possible. But
if you'll just promise us you won't do that, we'll give you the nuclear
material, the facility, we'll show you how to do it. Well, sure. Okay.
Yeah, we'll give you that promise. And of course we provided them what
they needed to go nuclear and build nuclear weapons. It makes no sense.
We ought to be smarter than that.
But we didn't learn our lesson with North Korea that you can't
placate a terrorist leader, so this administration has talked about
sanctions. And we've had some sanctions against Iran, and I really
think that they're going to work by 2015 or 2020, but unfortunately by
then, Iran will have nuclear weapons, and they will have the ability to
say you either withdraw your sanctions or we're going to use the nukes
that we've now sent on yachts and are outside major places you care
about to blow your major cities up. It's a crazy way to defend the
country, to placate your enemies.
I've had this bill--I've filed it three Congresses and I'm hoping now
that we're in the majority we'll get it passed; it seems like I pick up
more supporters every time--called the U.N. Voting Accountability Act.
It simply says that any nation--you know, they're sovereign nations,
they can do what they want as long as they don't come after us, don't
commit crimes against humanity, but they're sovereign nations, so
basically what it says is any nation that votes against a U.S. position
more than half the time in the U.N. will receive no financial
assistance of any kind from the United States in the subsequent year.
As I've said before, you don't have to pay people to hate you, they'll
do it for free. We can save the money, we need to save the money.
We heard that President Mubarak--really a king, but called President
Mubarak--one report said he had $70 billion in a bank, now there's only
$7 billion. Where do you think he got that money? We've been giving him
somewhere around $2 billion a year for years. We have propped up so
many evil people in countries where they devastate their own people, we
shouldn't be giving them money for that. Let charitable groups go in
and give aid directly to the people. They do a great job of that,
better than the government because we as a government usually have to
give it to the government, and then the government uses it to go in
their bank accounts and to do what they will with their people. It
doesn't make sense.

I was also a little surprised to find out how much we help Lebanon
because they were short on some of their weaponry, and the U.S. was of
some assistance to help them rearm last year. And I was trying to
remember, oh, yes, why was Lebanon a little short on weaponry? That's
right. They were killing Israelis--our friends and allies--back 5 years
ago. That's why they were short on weaponry. But not to worry, U.S. to
the aid; we'll provide military weapons to our enemies, to the enemies
of those who are dear, devoted friends like Israel. Yeah, we'll equip
your enemies. We'll sell jets to countries that won't recognize Israel.
Three billion dollars for a friend in kind of an oasis in the middle of
a lot of hostility is a small price to pay, but unfortunately when you
pay billions to Israel's enemies $3 billion is not enough.
So why, instead of running up the tab, why don't we as a nation quit
funding Israel's enemies, quit helping their enemies, quit helping to
put in place--as President Carter did by pulling the rug out from under
the shah--apparently not a nice man what he did to his people--but by
President Carter pulling the rug out from him, he fell. And of course
President Carter welcomed Khomeini as a man of peace, and then we
shortly found he created a terrorist state like none before in history.
Good job.
We've got to stop doing those kind of good jobs. We've got to get
back to the basics of providing for the common defense, quit condemning
those who are not xenophobes--they're not phobes of any kind--but they
see the world through a clear window, the window of history, and see
that if you help your enemies, they will destroy you. You help your
friends, they remain your friends, and they remain vital and helpful to
you in the world picture.
One other thing we did to Israel last year--I believe it was in May I
read that this administration for the first time voted with all of
Israel's enemies to require them to disclose any and all nuclear
weaponry. Because people in leadership in the appropriate places here
in America apparently have not read the Old Testament. They have not
read history. You can go back and find where Hezekiah was the king. And
I know there are some journalists who think that Jews came from Poland,
but actually there's archaeological evidence to show that they were
actually in Israel 3,000 years ago and that King David was King of
Israel around 1000 or so B.C.

{time} 1500

And of course we know Mohammed lived 600 or so A.D. So 1,600 to 1,700
years before there was a Mohammed, there was a King David ruling over
Jews in Israel. They have a history in the land. We voted with Israel's
enemies. And the lesson from Hezekiah was, as you can read from the Old
Testament, Isaiah was sent to Hezekiah. He knew what he had done.
Pardon the Texas paraphrase, but he said, in essence, What have you
done? He said, Oh, these great Babylonian leaders came over, and so I
showed them all our treasure, and I showed them our defenses.
And Isaiah, in essence, said, You fool. Because you've done this,
you'll lose the country.
You don't placate your enemies and think they're going to be your
friend if you give them things, you show them all your great defenses,
because they'll figure a way around them and you will lose your
country.
Every country meets its demise and heads to the dustbin of history at
some point. We've got to rein in the ridiculous deficit spending. We've
got to quit hurting our friends abroad and quit helping our enemies and
be about the oath that we all took in this body. And if we will do
that, if we will follow the precepts that history--and even FDR said,
Follow the teachings in the Bible. People have found it a help for
ages--if we do those things, future generations will be blessed because
of us, and not condemned.

____________________