[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 101 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4786-H4791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE TRUTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor and a privilege to be
here speaking on the House floor. It is interesting these days being a
part of Congress. The media is given unfettered access to so much
because we believe that people should be entitled to the truth. In
fact, many libraries around the country have the line ``the truth shall
set you free.'' Of course, most people don't know where that came from.
It was Jesus talking about him being the truth, and he was the truth. A
lot of libraries that put that up don't realize that's what it is
talking about. And I imagine there are a lot of reporters who have used
that same line, and they don't know where that came from.
But what gets troubling is when reporters have access to complete
transcripts, video, and they intentionally set out to deceive the
public. It seems to happen a great deal. I personally think it is one
of the reasons that Fox News has just taken off so strongly, because
people can see that the other cable news networks, so many of them at
least, have such a slant. They don't give you the whole truth. There is
nothing fair or balanced about some of the presentations. I know
personally, having been on a CNN show where they cut your mike off for
4\1/2\ minutes, trash-mouth you for awhile, turn your microphone on,
and then refuse to acknowledge that there is even the possibility that
what you're saying is true when you know, indeed, it is true.
But this happened just here in the last week. I was on a Fox Business
show, and we were talking about the money being spent by this White
House and also comparing that to the Bush White House, and I had the
data, absolute factual data that, for example, in the Bush White House,
there were 447 total staff, and in the Obama staff there are 454 total
White House staff.
{time} 1330
You wouldn't think seven additional people would be that big of a
deal except that nearly a fourth of the Bush White House staff--102
people, in fact--made under $40,000; whereas, in the Obama White House,
there is no paid staff member who gets less than $40,000. So you see
dramatically the difference. I was pointing out that perhaps, in the
Obama White House, because of all the greatness of this White House as
compared to prior White House staffs, that you deserve to be paid more
because you're associated with so much more greatness in this White
House.
It's interesting to see over the last 6\1/2\ years I've been in
Congress that there are an awful lot of people in the mainstream media,
especially in Washington, who do not understand sarcasm, who do not
understand facetiousness. So, at times, it's funny to say things
sarcastically, knowing that they won't get it.
But in any event, we also commented on the fact that there were all
these--I think 34--czars in the Obama White House, and they're getting
paid tremendous amounts of money. So Fox News had published an article,
and they pointed these things out. They were talking about the
interview, and they got all of the quotes accurate.
As they pointed out, it said: ``The White House released its annual
salary report to Congress, and like anything in Washington, it depends
on who you ask if they went up too much or are an adequate reflection
of the tough economic times and have moved down.''
This is the writing of Kimberly Schwandt with Fox News.
Ms. Schwandt goes on to say: ``The salaries, which can be seen here,
show that about a third of the employees make more than $100,000 per
year and the lowest earn $41,000, except for three people who are
working for no compensation, or zero annual salary; 21 employees made
the maximum of $172,000.
``The White House backs the figures, saying that salaries went down
an average of $150 per person and that total salary spending decreased,
in part, due to the total number of staffers going down as well.''
Then a quote from spokesman Eric Schultz from the White House:
``President Obama is deeply committed to continuing to reduce costs in
government. However, some critics say they are spending too much, like
Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas.''
He quoted me accurately as saying: `` `In the White House, in looking
at it, this administration's got over 450 employees. Now, under the
Bush administration, there were over 100. About a fourth of the
employees made less than $40,000.'
``Fox News fact-checked, and the Congressman's statements do pan out,
with 102 of the 447 employees on the 2008 list having salaries of less
than $40,000.''
Another quote from me. I said: `` `I guess, you know, there's so much
greatness when you associate with this White House you deserve to be
paid more. I don't know,' he said.
``Gohmert added another sarcastic jab, 'Don't forget the 34--the 34
czars that are out there dictating policy, and let's face it. When
you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.' ''
Then it points out: ``As the economy faltered, President Obama
enacted a pay freeze earlier in his administration for top wage-
earners. Wednesday, at a Twitter town hall, he referenced the freeze.''
Of course, as we've learned from this White House and as we know from
the House rules, the President never lies or misrepresents, but
certainly there are many facts that are just wrong. For example, when
the President ordered our troops to bomb Libya and be involved in what
he called a ``kinetic attack'' in Libya, which was clearly military
action, he said we would be there for days, not weeks or months. It has
turned out it's months and maybe years unless Congress gets the Senate
to go along with one of the things we passed here in the House, to cut
off the spending in a country where this President is fighting for and
with a group that may turn out to be worse than the bloodthirsty, mean-
spirited Qadhafi has been.
In any event, there was an article written in The Hill newspaper.
Again, this was fact-checked by Fox News, but it's just interesting.
You hear about it all the time, the slant of the mainstream media. It's
interesting because The Hill has reporters like Molly Hooper. I've
never had her be anything but completely honest and truthful. She has
always, that I'm aware of, been fair to me and fair in her reporting
that I've seen; but this one is a person named Judy Kurtz, who just, I
have to say, was dishonest. This is the story that Judy Kurtz wrote
this week, July 6, in The Hill.
[[Page H4787]]
She quoted me as saying: `` `I guess there's just so much greatness
when you're associated with this White House that you deserve to be
paid more,' Representative Louie Gohmert said. `Let's face it. When
you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.' ''
That gave the impression to people who read the article and who had
picked up on it that I was saying President Obama was a dictator. In
this setting, that is not what I said. The interesting point is just
how clearly deceptive and dishonest Judy Kurtz was. She took two
quotes. She had access to the whole video, to the whole transcript, and
chose to put them together and give the wrong impression. When you do
look at the full quote in context, we were talking about the czars,
that there is so much greatness when you're associated with this White
House that you deserve to be paid more, but then ``don't forget the
34--the 34 czars that are out there dictating policy, and let's face
it. When you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.''
So it is important to note there are some reporters you can trust
even within the same newspaper, and there are some who can be
dishonest.
During my days as a trial judge of major civil litigation and
felonies, including through death penalty cases, the rule of evidence
was always--and is--that credibility is always an issue. It's always an
issue. Everyone should understand that, especially reporters, who are
so important to this country's being different from any other country
in the world.
So it's hoped that more and more reporters will get back to deserving
their protected status that they have under the Constitution and have a
little more responsibility than Judy Kurtz did. I did appreciate Ms.
Kurtz' noting that I was being sarcastic to be sure that people like
her didn't miss it. I didn't just leave it to chance. I pointed out
verbally that I was being sarcastic, so I'm glad she got that part of
the quote anyway.
{time} 1340
But nonetheless, I've heard from people that were shocked that I
called President Obama a dictator. Now they know the context.
But there are some important things going on; and with the massive
overspending we're getting, it's important to understand who is
spending money where they shouldn't. We have just voted out the Defense
appropriation bill today. There were a number of amendments that were
voted on that would defund the action this President has committed us
to in Libya. This President has repeatedly said that he doesn't believe
he violated the War Powers Act and doesn't believe he needed to comply.
But he certainly didn't comply with the War Powers Act. He certainly
didn't get approval of Congress before he took such action.
Most Presidents, knowing that Congress constitutionally has the power
of the purse, have come to Congress, and the President has made his
case to Congress as to why we should be involved in a theater of
operation that the President wanted to commit us to. Not this
President, of course. This President heard from the Arab League; he
heard from apparently some in NATO and the U.N., and decided that they
were more important than a consensus from Congress, not even from the
Senate. The Senate is Democrat controlled. The President didn't bother
to get a vote or even approval tacitly from the Senate and here in the
House, where this body, especially as a Republican majority, has
steadfastly stood with the President of any party when that President
committed troops to harm's way.
In this case, there are still some in the Republican Party who have
said I don't think we ought to be in Libya; but I'm afraid if I vote to
cut off funding to the action in Libya, then it may be perceived as not
being supportive of the troops. Some of us who have been in the
military and still talk constantly to people in the military know the
common response we get from the military goes something like this: Sir,
we take orders. We salute and we follow our orders. That's what we took
an oath to do. And if we're ordered to go to Libya or anywhere else, we
will salute and go. But we hope, we pray that somebody in Washington
will use some good sense so that when we lay down our lives in the call
of duty from Washington that it will not be in vain. Please take action
to make sure that when we lay down our lives, it's not wasted.
And for this administration and some in Congress, certainly not a
majority, to think it's a good idea to go into Libya and to get our
services involved in an action which Secretary of Defense Gates said we
have no national security interest in that action--it's not a good
idea--and when we find out factually that there are al Qaeda, a group
with whom we are at war, and when there are Muslim Brotherhood, who
believe in violence, involved in the rebel action against an evil
Qadhafi, then wisdom would indicate you should find out if the person
that is going to be replaced by your bombs and your military or kinetic
action--you have an obligation to find out--is going to be worse than
the person you're replacing.
And we don't know that. In fact, the indications are whoever replaces
Qadhafi in this current rebel group will likely be a tremendous enemy
of Israel, a significant enemy of the United States. It may be a
situation in which the people that replace an intolerant leader like
Qadhafi may be worse than Qadhafi, just as we saw happen in Iran back
when Jimmy Carter was President.
As I recall, I believe Jimmy Carter welcomed the Ayatollah Khomeini
back as a man of peace. Well, Khomeini's idea of peace was a whole lot
different than most of ours and certainty the party's in Congress
that's in the majority, because Khomeini's idea of peace was a world in
which there is a world-wide caliphate and one great Muslim leader
dictates what peace means. He dictates shari'a law for everyone. There
is no freedom of worship for Christians, for Buddhists--certainly not
for Jewish people of orthodox faith, absolutely not. In fact, they're
obviously infidels from the things that were written and the things
that can only be written and spoken in the Middle East.
In Egypt, Mubarak was a problem, but Mubarak had seen the handwriting
on the wall. And he was moving toward some local elections and could
see he needed to move toward the idea of democracy, but didn't want to
give up power. Mubarak, for all his flaws, at least was not an active
belligerent against Israel. Qadhafi we knew had blood on his hands, but
we also saw from Ronald Reagan dropping bombs down his smokestack back,
I believe in '86--and then again when the United States moved into Iraq
we saw it again--Qadhafi was afraid of us. And perhaps it's better to
have a leader who is afraid of you in power than people who are
religious fanatics who have sworn that their goal in life is to bring
your country down.
One of the important things--and to me, I think it's the most
important job, Mr. Speaker, here in Congress--is to provide for the
common defense. We heard the President down at the border not along ago
say he has committed more Federal troops to our border than any
President ever--more people down there to protect our border anyway.
Actually, he probably didn't have enough history training to know that
in 1916 President Woodrow Wilson--I'm not a big fan of President
Wilson's, but nonetheless, after a man named Pancho Villa was
responsible for coming across into the United States and killing some
Americans, Wilson committed General Pershing to go--my recollection is
it was around 14,000 troops that went into Mexico. Because Pancho Villa
had come across our sovereign border and killed people, then it was
deemed to be appropriate to chase him down wherever he might go because
that individual, with his cronies, had declared war on us and taken
war-like action.
And there was also a group, a new group basically, the National
Guard, that was called up. One account I read said over 100,000
National Guard soldiers were called to our southern border to ensure
that no one came across and killed Americans again.
Now, I know that President Bush committed National Guard troops. I
was very disappointed that the troops were not put on the border. They
were put miles back, and they were given rules of engagement that said,
in essence, if you see some armed group coming from across the border,
then you are to report it and then flee the
[[Page H4788]]
area. Well, that's not what should have been done, and I can assure
what's being done today is not what should be done, where we take more
action to go against the States that are trying to defend themselves
than we do to try to defend the States themselves.
{time} 1350
But we are at a crucial time in this country's history. Admiral
Mullen said the national debt is the biggest threat to our security.
But take your pick. Whether it's a nation like Iran that is led by a
religious zealot who may be crazy--but he's not stupid--they've got
people working toward, around the clock, moving toward having nuclear
weaponry. They already have at least one bomb. And even though our
friends down in the majority in the Senate, even though in this White
House so many say, ``Oh, no. We just need to step up sanctions and all
will be well. We'll bring them into line,'' Iran knows that once
they've got enough in the way of nuclear weaponry that they'll be able
to extort countries into removing any type of sanctions.
People in Israel are well aware, most of them--certainly Prime
Minister Netanyahu is--that when Iran has adequate nuclear weaponry,
they'll be a threat to Israel. They'll be a threat to freedom. They'll
be a threat to liberty around the world because they will be able to
take blackmail or extorted action to get countries to either do as they
say or a nuclear weapon will be going off in that country.
They're working on the missiles. They'll be able to carry those
nuclear weapons to places like the United States. Even now, it wouldn't
take a missile to put a nuclear weapon on a boat, a yacht, to bring it
into one of our harbors. And let's face it. We saw our vulnerability on
9/11, many of us, even though I was a judge at the time. We said we can
never let ourselves be that vulnerable again. And here we are, nearly
10 full years later, and we're allowing a madman, a religious zealot in
Iran, to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions haven't worked. They're not
working. The centrifuges are still turning. They're still developing
nuclear weaponry.
We've got these type of threats in the world, and instead of standing
firm as Ronald Reagan did, which led to bringing down the Iron Curtain,
this administration has chosen to placate our enemies and turn against
many of our allies.
That was further brought home to me when I traveled with Dana
Rohrabacher and a couple of other Members of Congress. There were
warlords from the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan that wanted to meet
with us because we were told that the administration didn't want to
meet with them. And after we met with them, it was clear why the
administration wouldn't want to.
Now, I was not aware--and it was during the Bush administration of
course, our initial actions in Afghanistan--we sent in intelligence. We
sent in special forces. We sent in weaponry. We equipped the Northern
Alliance tribes who had a special personal interest in defeating the
Taliban. Afghanistan, as a whole, had seen how evil the Taliban was,
how much damage they could do to society as they burned paintings and
books and films and totally suppressed freedom in Afghanistan. Well,
they knew. These people are evil, but they were afraid of them. But
with the United States weaponry, with our guidance, intelligence,
training, these people defeated the Taliban.
What I was not aware of until we met with these folks--and it turns
out I could have been aware. I just was not. But you do the research.
You'll find out. The Bush administration convinced the Northern
Alliance, Okay. Now that you've whipped the Taliban, you need to
totally disarm, because we're the United States, and we're here, and
we'll make sure nothing happens to you again.
Well, the Northern Alliance messed up because they trusted us, and
they turned in their weapons. I asked one, You turned in all your
weapons? Well, apparently, they have some small arms but nothing that
would allow them to take on the Taliban again. Naturally, these people
were concerned, because they know because they fought for and with the
United States against the Taliban that, if the Taliban is allowed to
overtly exist in Afghanistan, then these people that fought for us and
with us will all be killed as will all their family members.
They were and are our allies. They fought for us. They defeated the
Taliban, and now we're on the verge of leaving these people disarmed,
vulnerable, and to be killed by the very people we went into
Afghanistan after. It doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to
be this way at all.
I mean, we can learn from the past. Rearm the Northern Alliance. We
perceive the arrogance, the condescension not only from Prime Minister
Maliki in Iraq but certainly from the leader in Afghanistan, Karzai,
certainly from his brother. There's just too much arrogance there. All
kinds of stories about corruption. But whether or not you believe that,
it's clear that the Taliban is being allowed to do things now in
Afghanistan that we were supposed to have eliminated by our coming in.
It may well be, as one Afghan told me, that once we begin, if we
would, to rearm the Northern Alliance, Karzai might be a lot more
cooperative than he has been.
But nonetheless, a year ago, we were being told, Your administration
in Washington, the Obama administration, is indirectly talking,
negotiating with the Taliban to just let the United States out without
any big incidents, and then they can have whatever they take. And
that's when they pointed out, You can't let this happen. You can't do
this to your allies.
Well, we've already seen it with Israel. We voted with Israel's
enemies in May of last year, I believe it was, to demand that Israel
disclose all of their weaponry, their nuclear weaponry. It's the first
time the United States had joined forces with Israel's enemies, and it
was one of the reasons that shortly after that that we saw the flotilla
come from Turkey down to challenge the Israeli blockade. That was a
blockade for one thing: weapons. Prevent weapons from going into the
Gaza Strip. The rockets were coming every day. Israelis had been
killed. There was no reason to allow those weapons to come into the
Gaza Strip. It was a legitimate blockade. It came after we showed
distance between our great ally Israel and this country.
That also came on the heels of the President snubbing Prime Minister
Netanyahu. And of course Prime Minister Netanyahu has not spoken of
this that I've ever heard or read, but certainly others noted how badly
he was snubbed by the President just blowing him off where normally you
would have a meal, saying, Good luck on your own, and when you get
ready to accept what I told you to do, then send me a note and I'll
come back and see you. But anyway, we have not been allies as we should
be to Israel.
But it was after that when I started pushing to try to get Prime
Minister Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, to be invited in this room.
Speaker Pelosi, when I broached the subject with her, thought it was a
good idea, but she didn't feel there was adequate time. And I brought
it up in June, between then and the end of the year, to work him in.
{time} 1400
Obviously, we did have to name a lot of courthouses and had athletic
teams to congratulate, so we weren't able to get to that. But Speaker
Boehner, to his credit, did extend the invitation. Prime Minister
Netanyahu did an incredible job. With the ideas he put forth, he did an
incredible job, from the second level here, of addressing this body and
addressing the world from here in Congress.
What I had hoped for came to pass. The world got an incredible visual
image of the fact that this body, both sides of the aisle, that can't
hardly agree on much of anything, over and over--I am told 26 times--
stood to applaud the leader of Israel, showing the world that we are
united in our support of our friend Israel from Congress, regardless of
what the house down Pennsylvania Avenue does the rest of the time.
Congress controls the purse strings, and Congress is a friend of Israel
and vice versa.
So it is important, in order to provide for the common defense of
this country, that we make sure that our allies know, if you're our
friend, then we stand by you. If you're our enemy, then we will do as
President Kennedy pointed out, as President Bush pointed
[[Page H4789]]
out: We will seek you wherever you are, and we will eliminate you as an
enemy. By doing that, you can have peace in the world.
There is a sign that emerges from time to time. People carry it
around. I've seen it up here. I've seen it in New York: ``War never
brought about peace.'' It says a great deal about the history teachers
that an individual that would carry that kind of sign must have had
because the only time you have peace for an extended period is when a
big-hearted country does take on evil that has grown too big and
becomes a threat to people's liberty and freedom and defeats that evil.
Then you have a period of peace.
And the only way it becomes an extended peace is when a country is
strong enough, or countries are strong enough, that the world knows if
you become a threat to our liberty, our freedom, then we will eliminate
you as a threat to freedom.
Now, again, there are those who believe shari'a law talks of freedom
and peace, but that's a freedom and peace as dictated by the ultimate
leader of the group. That also brings me back to the issue of the
Muslim Brotherhood. This administration has given the indication that
they think it is a group of peace. You can go on Wikipedia, and the
proponents of the Muslim Brotherhood have done an excellent job of
cleaning up the history that shows them to be supporters of terrorism
and the numerous ties linking them to terrorism in the world.
They've also done a good job of making this administration believe
that they're peaceful and loving to the point that, as Denis McDonough,
the number two person in our national security agency or
administration, thanked President Magid, Imam Magid, the president of
the Islamic Society of North America, for the wonderful prayer he gave
inside the White House in the celebration of Iftar last year, the end
of Ramadan, that President Obama had.
The Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, is a named co-
conspirator--was--in the Holy Land Foundation trials in which the first
five defendants were found guilty of 108 counts of supporting
terrorism. And when some tried to have their names stricken because
they were not indicted in that first action, the judge, in essence,
ruled there has been a prima facie case here showing that they are
linked and supportive of terrorism; we're not eliminating their names.
So it was shocking to some of us when the Holder Justice Department
dropped the cases against the named coconspirators and refused to go
forward with them. This notebook has some of the materials, and there
are plenty of them, as anybody can see. This is a thimbleful compared
to what is there. You want checks from the Islamic Centers' co-op
funds? You want deposit slips? You want ledgers? The FBI's gathered all
this stuff. There are great cases against these groups that the Holder
Justice Department decided not to pursue.
And when we had Attorney General Holder in front of our Judiciary
Committee and he was asked about dropping it, he acted like and
basically stated he had nothing to do with it, that that was somebody
down in Texas, an attorney down there, and he could get us a copy of
the Dallas Morning News article where the U.S. Attorney--actually, it
was acting U.S. Attorney--had made that statement that politics played
no role.
Well, certainly politics played a role, and that became very obvious.
And the more we find, the more it appears the Attorney General is not
honest about perhaps the reason that these were not pursued. But until
we find out the actual reasons for these being dropped, we will not
know how honest or dishonest the situation with this Attorney General
is.
I know that Chairman Issa is pursuing the Fast and Furious
investigation. But on this one, we could put this whole matter to bed
very quickly if the Attorney General will just produce the memorandum
that Chairman Pete King and Chairman Lamar Smith have requested from
the Justice Department. If he will just come forward, produce that
memo, not black it out, then we can find for sure the documentation of
whether or not what the Attorney General had said in testifying before
Congress was true or not.
Now, it was interesting to find that the FBI had a special
relationship, a special partnership, with CAIR, another of the named
coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And it was rather
shocking to me that it was not until 2009 that the FBI decided to end
their special relationship with this named co-conspirator in the Holy
Land Foundation case. Apparently, the FBI had had a special
relationship with CAIR for years, even though the FBI began to gather
these materials back as early as 1993 and had solid proof for a number
of years that they were involved in supporting Hamas with terrorism.
And yet nothing was done until 2009, when a letter was sent, saying,
because of the evidence that was introduced some months back regarding
CAIR and their relationships with terrorism, we think it's appropriate
to suspend our relationship for now.
Now, I realize that there are people in the media, as we saw this one
reporter from The Hill that will not give adequate coverage, who will
take quotes out of context in order to misrepresent or give people a
false impression. But if this is adequately looked at, people will find
the truth: that we have people who have been associated with the
support of terrorism coming to the White House--one who was president
of a group, who certainly from the documentation appears to have
supported terrorism, leading the White House in prayer.
{time} 1410
And then we find out that when the President was giving a speech at
the State Department, in the State Department--security was very, very
tight; it was difficult to get in without going through all the
checking, the bag checking, the metal detectors and all the different
things you had to go through to make sure security was tight--
apparently the White House invited Imam Majid, the president of the
Islamic Society of North America, a named coconspirator for supporting
terrorism. It invited him into the inner sanctum of the State
Department to listen to the President's speech and give comments about
what he thought about the speech.
At some point, this administration is going to have to get around to
the point where providing for the common defense means you get tough
with people who associate with groups that support terrorism. You don't
do, as Senator Obama said, just go talk to terrorists because you're
so, apparently, warm and friendly. Really, the President, having met
with him, he is a charming man. He comes across as bright, engaging.
You want to like him. Apparently that's worked so well, he must think
that he can convince religious extremists that we're good folks, so you
can just get along with them. The problem is, when you're dealing with
people who want to destroy your way of life, there's only one way to
deal with them.
We've seen this from the attacks in the early days of our country's
existence from Islamic zealots in North Africa who captured our ships,
took prisoners--the men on those ships--held them for ransom, used some
as slaves, were willing to kill or enslave others, and I read at one
point, and it's hard to believe that this is true--hopefully it's not--
but that at one point we may have paid as much as 18 percent of the
country's budget back in the late 1790s for getting our sailors back
from the Barbary pirates, these Islamic extremists.
Thomas Jefferson, who had been sent at one point as one of the
diplomats to negotiate with the Muslim extremists, was taken aback when
he asked, Why would you attack American ships? We're no threat to you.
We don't have a powerful Navy. We've never attacked you--and reportedly
was told that we in our religion believe we go to paradise if we were
to die while attacking infidels like you. Jefferson was shocked. He was
an extremely well-read person. He found it hard to believe there was a
religion anywhere that any believer of that religion perceived that you
could go to a paradise by killing innocent people. So he got his own
English translation of the Koran, that can still be found in the
Library of Congress, so he could read for himself. Some of the passages
are subject to interpretation and certainly have been interpreted by
some as meaning the only way to proceed is to attempt to
[[Page H4790]]
take out infidels like those of us who are Christians, those who are
Jewish, because we are certainly considered infidels in their eyes.
Thank goodness not all Muslims believe that that has to be what occurs,
but that is certainly what some believe.
I might read a passage from the judge's decision from July 1, 2009,
in response to the effort by the named coconspirators, some of them to
have names stricken who were not actually indicted in the first trial.
The judge, having reviewed acting U.S. Attorney Jacks's memos, said
this:
``The government has produced ample evidence to establish the
associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with the Holy Land Foundation, HLF,
the Islamic Association for Palestine and with Hamas. While the court
recognizes that the evidence produced by the government largely
predates the Holy Land Foundation designation date, the evidence is
nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with
HLF, IAP, and Hamas.''
The judge said:
``Thus maintaining the names of the entities on the list is
appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the government.''
It is important to note that CAIR, with whom our Justice Department
had a special relationship until on into 2009, and ISNA, that the
evidence has certainly been produced by the government shows, as the
judge says, ample evidence to establish the associations with these
groups with the Holy Land Foundation, the group that was convicted, as
well as Hamas, and yet this administration continues, I guess, to think
that their winning personalities, charming as they are, will bring
people around, and so they trust them to come into the inner sanctum of
the White House, the State Department, the Justice Department. All that
means is, we're in big trouble.
There are those over the years that have believed that our answers
would come from prayer. Virtually every President, I guess every
President, has indicated such that this Nation is best protected when
it prays. That is why you would have such an amazing minister as Peter
Marshall, as Chaplain in the United States Senate back in the 1940s,
and this book that I have referenced previously is really profound, and
I would, Mr. Speaker, like to finish up reading a couple of prayers
that have been prayed in the United States Senate in the 1940s by U.S.
Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall.
One prayer says:
``Forgive us, Lord Jesus, for doing the things that make us
uncomfortable and guilty when we pray.
``We say that we believe in God, and yet we doubt God's promises.
``We say that in God we trust,'' which can be found right up above
the Speaker's head, ``yet we worry and try to manage our own affairs.
``We say that we love Thee, O Lord, and yet do not obey Thee.
``We believe that Thou hast the answers to all our problems, and yet
we do not consult Thee.
``Forgive us, Lord, for our lack of faith and the willful pride that
ignores the way, the truth, and the life.
``Wilt Thou reach down and change the gears within us that we may go
forward with Thee. Amen.''
That was one of Peter Marshall's prayers as Chaplain of the Senate in
the 1940s.
{time} 1420
I conclude with this prayer by Peter Marshall in the 1940s: ``O Lord
our God, even at this moment as we come blundering into Thy presence
and prayer, we are haunted by memories of duties unperformed,
promptings disobeyed, and beckonings ignored.
``Opportunities to be kind knocked on the door of our hearts and went
weeping away.
``We are ashamed, O Lord, and tired of failure.
``If Thou art growing close to us now, come nearer still, till
selfishness is burned out within us and our wills lose their weakness
in union with Thine own.
``Amen.''
It is important to note: Prayers for the individuals to adhere to, as
George Washington said, have a humble imitation of the designer of our
blessed religion. As Washington said, those are for individuals.
We get questions on, Well, how can you be a Christian and not want to
give away all the government money to the poor and the needy? How can
you be a Christian and not want to give away the government money to do
all these other things and to end a Defense Department? have no
soldiers? just be people of peace?
And I know that in this great country we have got virtually every
religion being practiced that's known to man; but in the Christian
religion, for those that believe the New Testament means what it says,
Romans 13 is very clear. The government exists as God's minister so
that they encourage good. Romans 13:4 says, but if you do evil be
afraid. God does not give the government the sword in vain. It does say
``sword,'' and that is the purpose of government.
We took an oath to follow the Constitution. We are supposed to
provide for the common defense. We are supposed to have an Army, a
military, that protects this Nation so that people can practice the
religion of their choice. Whether it's Islam peaceably, Christianity,
Judaism, Buddhism, the human secularism that seems to have often
overtaken Washington, you have the freedom to do that.
But the government's role is to protect the country, protect the
people, keep people from coming in through our borders that want to
harm us so that individuals can give from the blessings of their heart
to help the needy, to help the poor, to help others.
You cannot find one reference in the New Testament that says
government is to go about using and abusing its taxing authority,
legalize stealing from people who have earned the money so that we can
give it away to Congress' favorite charity or a government's favorite
charity. The government is to provide protection, protect against evil,
encourage good, and create an environment where good people can do
good.
[From Fox News, July 7, 2011]
Only in Washington: White House Salaries Have Gone Both Up and Down
(By Kimberly Schwandt)
The White House released its annual salary report to
Congress and like anything in Washington, it depends on who
you ask if they went up too much, or are an adequate
reflection of the tough economic times and have moved down.
The salaries, which can be seen here show that about a
third of the employees make more than $100,000 per year and
the lowest earn $41,000, except for three people who are
working for no compensation, or $0 annual salary. Twenty-one
employees made the maximum $172,000.
The White House backs the figures, saying that salaries
went down an average of $150 per person and that total salary
spending decreased in part due to the total number of
staffers going down as well.
``President Obama is deeply committed to continuing to
reduce costs in government,'' said White House Spokesman Eric
Schultz.
However, some critics say they are spending too much, like
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.
``[I]n the White House, in looking at it, this
administration's got over 450 employees. Now, under the Bush
administration, there were over 100, about a fourth of the
employees, made less than $40,000,'' he told Fox Business on
Tuesday.
Fox News fact-checked, and the congressman's statements do
pan out, with 102 of the 447 employees on the 2008 list
having salaries of less than $40,000.
``I guess, you know, there's so much greatness when you
associate with this White House you deserve to be paid more,
I don't know,'' he said.
Gohmert added another sarcastic jab, ``Don't forget the
34--the 34 czars that are out there dictating policy and
let's face it . . . when you're a dictator you need to be
paid more.''
As the economy faltered, President Obama enacted a pay
freeze earlier in his administration for top wage-earners.
Wednesday at a Twitter town hall, he referenced the freeze.
``So they haven't had a raise in two and a half years, and
that's appropriate, because a lot of ordinary folks out there
haven't, either. In fact, they've seen their pay cut in some
cases,'' Obama said.
An analysis by the gossip website Gawker, that was widely
circulated and posted on the Internet, compared the salary
increases to those of what staffers got last year. The site
found that 75 percent of staffers who stayed on got raises
from 2009 to 2010.
And this year, the figure isn't quite as big--but of 270
staffers who have been at the White House for more than a
year, more than 50 percent got raises with an average
increase of 8 percent.
Fox double-checked Gawker's claim on how many got raises
and found 267 staffers on both lists, indicating they had
worked for more than one year. Of those staffers, 144 had
received a raise in 2011 (54%).
[[Page H4791]]
It's worth noting that some of those raises were for
promotions, not just for the regular yearly increases.
``To be clear, in the past year, the average salary of a
White House employee went down, the total number of White
House staffers went down, and the total amount spent on White
House salaries went down. If pay increases were issued, they
were given for a variety of reasons, ranging from promotions
to additional work responsibilities,'' Schultz said.
Most employee survey data, like these by The Conference
Project, projected about 3 percent raises on average for
employees nationwide this year.
The White House is of course a different entity than the
private sector so it's hard to exactly do an apples to apples
comparison.
____
[From the Hill, July 6, 2011]
Republican Mocks White House Salaries
(By Judy Kurtz)
A Republican congressman on Wednesday criticized the White
House for paying staffers too much in salary.
``I guess there's just so much greatness when you're
associated with this White House that you deserve to be paid
more,'' Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said. ``Let's face it,
when you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.''
Gohmert made clear his remark was meant to be sarcastic.
However, he criticized the White House for paying 141 aides
more than $100,000 per year. A report from the White House
released Friday listed the salaries of 454 employees and
showed that no staffer is paid less than $40,000.
``It sounds like the only thing that's truly shovel-ready
is all the bull that they've been feeding to us over the last
two and a half years,'' Gohmert said on the Fox News Business
channel. ``That needs to be shoveled out in a hurry.''
Gohmert also slammed a White House stimulus report released
last Friday that asserted the stimulus created as many as 3.6
million jobs in the first quarter of 2011.
``Who would ever dream that paying people $175,000 in the
White House would be a bargain compared to how much they're
paying to create private sector jobs,'' Gohmert said.
``[President Obama] has squandered so much money that you've
heard the sucking sound coming from the private sector.''
Republicans claim the stimulus paid out $278,000 for every
job it created. The White House called that a ``false
analysis.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________