[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 168 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7385-H7390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

  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. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here on the floor 
to hear my friend from New Jersey's comments, very well thought 
through. And I feel sure we can find some commonality in our concerns 
and appreciate the man's heart and mind. Thank you.
  One of the things under the debt ceiling act that was passed early 
August was a requirement for a vote on a balanced budget amendment. 
There are different versions of a balanced budget amendment. One has 
most of the things we hold dear, not only a requirement of balancing 
the budget, but also

[[Page H7386]]

a cap to spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, and also 
an increased supermajority in order to pass any tax bills raising 
taxes.
  My concern has been that we had a wave election last November. We got 
over 80 new conservative freshmen, and we haven't cut spending like we 
should. I am more and more compelled that we need a cap on spending. 
All of our Members support that. But the question will be: What version 
of a balanced budget amendment will come to the floor for a vote?
  I really do appreciate the comments of my friend from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews). There's been a lot going on in the Middle East. And it's not 
looking very good for those who love freedom, the right to make their 
own choices, because you find in some of the documentation of those who 
have pushed, supported rebellion, the so-called Arab Spring, their 
definition of freedom is the freedom to live under shari'a law and be 
completely governed by shari'a law. That's the freedom that their Arab 
Spring brings.
  And it's been interesting, there's an article here from the 
Washington Examiner by Gregory Kane. The title says, ``Obama Becomes 
`Silent Cal' on Libya, Shari'a.'' I'd just like to read this for the 
Record. And I'm inserting ``President'' into the mention of President 
Obama:

       With each passing day, we're learning more and more about 
     the people President Obama tossed us into bed with in Libya.
       Here's a headline from the London Daily Mail, a British 
     newspaper:
       ``Now the rebels impose Shariah law as Islamic rules become 
     `basic source' of Libyan legislation.''
       In the story below the headline, readers learn from the 
     chairman of Libya's National Transition Council that the 
     country's new parliament will have ``an Islamist tint,'' that 
     ``any existing laws contradicting the teachings of Islam 
     would be nullified'' and that men would be allowed to have as 
     many as four wives.
       Again, the question must be put to Barack Hussein 
     ``American Values'' Obama, president of the United States: 
     exactly how do Shariah law and polygamy reflect American 
     values?
       Remember, when President Obama justified American and NATO 
     airstrikes in Libya to support the rebel forces that toppled 
     the regime of Moammar Qadhafi he claimed that preventing 
     bloodshed was an ``American value.''
       But there was bloodshed aplenty, as least on the side of 
     Qadhafi forces. Qadhafi himself was a victim of the 
     bloodshed, and the circumstances of his death that have come 
     to light shed more light on what a sham Obama's claim of 
     acting to preserve American values really is.
       In a separate London Daily Mail story about Qadhafi's 
     death, the paper printed the photo of an unidentified rebel 
     who claimed he was the one who killed Qadhafi.
       ``We grabbed [Qadhafi],'' the young man said. ``I hit him 
     in the face. Some fighters wanted to take him away and that's 
     when I shot him, twice, in the face and in the chest.''
       Later, it was revealed that more was done to Qadhafi than 
     this young rebel merely shooting him in the face and chest.
       Some reports say that, before he died, Qadhafi was 
     sodomized with either a knife, bayonet or some other sharp 
     object.
       So let's recap:
       President Obama commits American forces--as part of NATO.

                              {time}  1450

  I'll parenthetically add, when he did not have the sense to come 
before Congress and make the case here, as many of us on both sides of 
the aisle have been advocating. No matter who the President is, 
Republican, Democrat, if you can't come to Congress and make the case 
as to why American lives and American treasure should be put at risk, 
is it really something we ought to be doing as a country?
  Now, resuming with the article:

       1. President Obama commits American forces--as part of 
     NATO--to supporting a rebel faction in Libya whose goal is to 
     overthrow Qadhafi. Obama does this while having absolutely no 
     clue about what kind of people make up this rebel faction.
       2. The rebel forces prevail, primarily through NATO 
     airstrikes. It was a NATO airstrike that took out a Qadhafi 
     convoy fleeing Sirte that allowed rebel forces to capture the 
     deposed Libyan leader.
       3. Qadhafi ends up in the hands of what can only be 
     considered a mob. He is beaten, tortured, possibly sodomized, 
     and fatally shot in what has been oxymoronically described as 
     ``mob justice.'' His body is then put on public display in a 
     meat store.
       4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flies into Libya and 
     announces, with the smug arrogance we might expect from an 
     official from Obama's administration, ``We came, we saw, he 
     [Qadhafi] died.''
       5. Leaders of Libya's National Transition Council announce 
     that Shariah law will prevail in Libya.
       6. President Obama is mum on No. 5.
       He--President Obama--hasn't said one word about the 
     blatantly false account of Qadhafi's death that interim 
     Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril initially gave 
     reporters.
       He hasn't condemned the ``mob justice'' that led to 
     Qadhafi's death, the beating, the torture, the alleged 
     sodomizing. He hasn't mumbled so much as a syllable about 
     Qadhafi's body being put on display in a meat store.
       Obama hasn't said one word about Shariah being the law of 
     the land in the new Libya. The man who was unavoidable for 
     comment when it came to justifying American intervention in 
     Libya has now pulled a complete Harpo Marx Act.
       On this issue, Obama--President Obama--has made ``Silent'' 
     Cal Coolidge look like a motor mouth.

  That's an article from Gregory Kane in the Washington Examiner.
  Then, interestingly, from the American Thinker, an article by Andrew 
Bostom, ``Liberated Libya: Al Qaeda Flag Aloft Benghazi's Courthouse.''

       The courthouse in Benghazi, is the iconic seat of the 
     revolt which toppled Qadhafi--Libya's ``(im) moral 
     equivalent'' to Egypt's Tahrir Square. During the tumultuous 
     months of Libya's brutal civil war, it was here that rebel 
     forces established a provisional government, and 
     propagandistic media center, crowing to foreign journalists 
     about their ``heroic'' struggle ``for freedom.''
       [Picture of al Qaeda flag]
       One can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of 
     al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi's courthouse.

  I've got a blowup of that right here.
  Just so those who felt so compelled to assist members of al Qaeda, we 
knew they were members of al Qaeda. We didn't know how many were part 
of the Libyan rebel forces, but we knew there were members of al Qaeda. 
We knew that there were people who were rebelling against Qadhafi, that 
as much as they wanted to kill Qadhafi want to kill Americans. And now 
we also know NATO forces, as the President kept saying, Oh, no, we're 
going to leave that to NATO forces. The United States military makes up 
65 percent of NATO's military. It's American.
  So let's look and recap the good that we've done in supporting those 
members of al Qaeda who took out Qadhafi, with whom this administration 
had lawful dealings before they decided to support taking him out and, 
hiding under NATO's name, took action to see that he was thrown out 
and, now, killed, brutalized.
  So here we are, the al Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in 
Benghazi. That's the daylight photo. Over here on this third we have 
the nighttime photo; and, once again, there is the al Qaeda flag waving 
proudly over that historic courthouse in Benghazi.
  Going back to the article from the American Thinker:

       According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving 
     brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the 
     city's streets at night shouting, ``Islamiya, Islamiya! No 
     East, nor West,'' a reference to previous worries that the 
     country would be bifurcated between Qadhafi opponents in the 
     east and the pro Qadhafi elements in the west.
       Elhelwa adds these salient details:
       Earlier this week, I went to the Benghazi courthouse and 
     confirmed the rumors: an al Qaeda flag was clearly visible; 
     its Arabic script declaring that ``there is no God but 
     Allah'' and a full moon underneath. When I tried to take 
     pictures, a Salafi-looking guard, wearing a green camouflage 
     outfit, rushed towards me and demanded to know what I was 
     doing. My response was straightforward: I was taking a 
     picture of the flag. He gave me an intimidating look and 
     hissed, ``Whomever speaks ill of this flag, we will cut off 
     his tongue''

  How about that for an American value?

       ``I recommend that you don't publish these. You will bring 
     trouble to yourself.''

  What glorious American values. Our President assured us that, without 
the support of Congress, without even a debate in Congress, he had to 
rush headlong into helping these people that turns out are, as we were 
concerned might be, al Qaeda. We had to help al Qaeda, with whom we had 
declared war, basically, by the President of the United States after 9/
11 because they had declared war on us. And so this President, without 
coming and having a debate, decides he's going to go help these people 
before he knew who all exactly we were helping because they reflect 
American values.
  Going back to the article. The author says:

       ``He followed me inside the courthouse, but luckily my 
     driver Khaled was close by, and interceded on my behalf. 
     According to Khaled, the guard had angrily threatened to

[[Page H7387]]

     harm me. When I again engaged him in conversation, he told me 
     ``this flag is the true flag of Islam'' . . .
  Well, how about those American values that our President used our 
treasure, put our military members at risk in order to effectuate? Now 
we've got the al Qaeda flag flying in Libya, in Benghazi, over the 
historic courthouse that was the headquarters during the assault on 
Qadhafi.

                              {time}  1500

  We found out on 9/11 there were people in the world who were at war 
with us, and it turns out they had been at war with us at least since 
Iran, since those days when a naive but well-intentioned President 
named Carter had declared the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace 
coming to Iran. The same President who gave away the Panama Canal that 
so many valued Americans lost their lives digging, creating, defending, 
was given away. There will be a price to pay for that at some point 
down the road by this country.
  But we're already paying the price and have been since 1979 for the 
administration at that time while I was in the Army at Fort Benning 
watching those things happen, knowing it was a crime for me as a 
military member to criticize anybody in the chain of command, which was 
President Carter. We had to bite our tongues as we watched that 
administration welcome in the Ayatollah Khomeini.
  So many lives have been lost. So many people tortured, killed. We've 
got Christians on the run all over the Middle East, Christians being 
killed around the Middle East. The last Christian church has now closed 
in Afghanistan that we sent American treasure and lives, lost so many 
American lives in order to rout the Taliban. And then we turn the 
country over to what the people there tell us is a very, very corrupt 
administration. Having met with leaders of the Northern Alliance with a 
few other Members of Congress, it's clear we have not done a good thing 
enforcing a centralized government in a country that cannot sustain it 
without mass corruption and brutality.
  We also know from the recent comments of Karzai himself he's prepared 
to make peace and be an ally of people sworn to destroy us.
  Afghanistan can be salvaged, but we have to be smart in the way that 
we do that. At the same time, we know that more of the 9/11 hijackers 
were from Saudi Arabia than from any other country. It certainly 
appears that there are people in Saudi Arabia who have made massive 
amounts of money because of our dependence on their oil who have used 
that money to fund terrorism that has been used against the United 
States to kill our precious men and women of our military.
  We need to become energy independent. We need to get rid of any 
Department that has had as its avowed goal for 32 years to get off 
dependence on foreign energy and every year has done a poorer and 
poorer job of that, although they have made some nice contributions for 
people at Solyndra and other bankrupt companies. It's time to get rid 
of the Energy Department.
  It's time to get serious about stopping the dependence on foreign 
energy. We know we've got enough natural gas. We can actually do that 
now. We have at least 100 years of use of natural gas. And I am fine 
taking a percentage of the royalties the Federal Government could get 
off of natural gas produced, oil produced on our own land, our own 
Federal land, and using it toward alternative energy. But I am not, as 
most of my friends here, are not in favor of borrowing more money to 
throw at companies like Solyndra that cannot make it on their own.
  Or like the solar company in Nevada, the friends of Leader Harry Reid 
also getting massive money, 42, 44 cents of every dollar, which we had 
to borrow to throw at their friends who had gone bankrupt.
  It's time we started using some common sense. You don't rush in to 
help in a rebellion until you know who you're helping, and this 
administration did not do that because to think that they knew who we 
were helping is really unthinkable.
  That's my hope and prayer that this administration did not understand 
who it was helping who would one day fly al Qaeda flags over a building 
where housed the Government in Libya.
  And we have sat idly by and watched Iran grow greater and stronger in 
strength in its move toward creating nuclear weapons, just as my 
Democratic friend from New Jersey was talking about, Iran getting 
closer and closer to having nuclear weapons. Plural. Our strong ally in 
the Middle East, who is becoming surrounded by those who want to take 
it out, Israel, is at threat for losing its very existence, an 
existence that was acknowledged and affirmed unanimously in the United 
Nations before it was taken over by people who sympathize with those 
who fly the al Qaeda flag.
  Back in those days, it was a unanimous decision: How could a country, 
a Jewish state like Israel, not be created after the worst genocide, 
Holocaust, in the history of man?
  They needed a country of their own, and what better place than in a 
place where King David ruled 1,400 years before there was a man named 
Mohammed, 1,400 years before the creation of modern-day Islam.
  Well, I'm proud to say that Joel Rosenberg is a friend of mine. I was 
visiting with him last night. He's got a brand-new book out. Can't wait 
to read it. Joel Rosenberg has an article in the Washington Times, 
Friday, October 21, needs to be entered in the Record, and I'll do so 
by reading it.
  The headline, the title is ``Confronting the threat from Iran.''
  Joel Rosenberg writes:

       The brazen Iranian terrorist plot to assassinate the Saudi 
     ambassador, kill Americans and blow up the Saudi and Israeli 
     embassies in Washington was a wake-up call. The radical 
     regime in Tehran has crossed a red line. Iran has murdered 
     Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon over the years. 
     Now it appears to have ordered terrorist attacks inside our 
     nation's capital. Should this prove true, Iran has engaged in 
     an act of war.
       Now the question is: Who will neutralize the threat from 
     Iran before' the mullahs finish building nuclear warheads and 
     the ballistic missile systems to deliver them?
       ``The international community must stop Iran before it's 
     too late,'' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned 
     in his United Nations speech last month. If Iran is not 
     stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, 
     and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. . . 
     . The world around Israel is definitely becoming more 
     dangerous.''
       ``Iran has not abandoned its nuclear program. The opposite 
     is true; it continues full steam ahead,'' warned Maj. Gen. 
     Eyal Eisenberg, home-front command chief for the Israel 
     Defense Forces, in a September speech. He warned that the 
     Arab Spring could turn into a ``radical Islamic winter'' and 
     ``this raises the likelihood of an all-out, total war, with 
     the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used.''
       The Obama administration is not taking decisive action to 
     neutralize Iran. President Obama's policy of engagement with 
     the mullahs has morphed into a policy of appeasement, and it 
     has failed. Yet the White House has all but taken the use of 
     force off the table. In September 2009, then-Defense 
     Secretary Robert M. Gates said, ``The reality is, there is no 
     military option that does anything more than buy time.'' In 
     April 2010, the New York Times reported that Mr. Gates had 
     ``warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House 
     officials that the United States does not have an effective 
     long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady progress 
     toward nuclear capability.'' Little has changed in the past 
     18 months. What's more, the administration is pressuring 
     Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran 
     despite the growing threat of a second Holocaust.
       The American people, however, expect and deserve better. A 
     bipartisan poll conducted in September by Democrat Pat 
     Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin found that 77 percent 
     of Americans think the Obama administration's current polices 
     toward stopping Iran's nuclear program ``will fail.'' About 
     63 percent of Americans think Iran is the nation posing the 
     greatest threat to us, ahead of China and North Korea. 
     Remarkably, 63 percent of Americans also approve of pre-
     emptive military action against Iran if economic sanctions do 
     not stop its nuclear program.

                              {time}  1510

  And they have not.
  It is very clear that these sanctions have not slowed Iran from 
pursuing nuclear weapons. It appears very clear to those who look very 
long and who study the issue very long that Iran is counting on 
developing nuclear weapons before the sanctions totally cripple them, 
because they know, when they get nuclear weapons, they can then use 
them to extort the removal of the sanctions. They will not work in 
time. It's time to face up to that.
  Going back to Joel Rosenberg's article:

       War, of course, is not the preferred solution. There are a 
     range of options a serious

[[Page H7388]]

     American president could take to neutralize the Iranian 
     threat. But none of them is likely to work unless the 
     president is willing to publicly put the military option on 
     the table and order the Pentagon to accelerate planning for 
     massive airstrikes and special operations.
       Will any of the Republican candidates for president step 
     up? Articulating pro-growth economic policies is vital to the 
     2012 campaign, to be sure, but the GOP candidates must not 
     drink the Kool-Aid that the economy is all that matters to 
     the American people. To the contrary, anyone who is asking 
     for the Republican nomination must articulate a clear, 
     compelling and detailed strategy for neutralizing the threat 
     posed by the apocalyptic, genocidal death cult in Tehran.
       At the next debate, each of the Republican candidates for 
     president should be pressed to directly answer the following 
     questions:
       1. As president of the United States, what specific actions 
     would you take to stop Iran from obtaining and deploying 
     nuclear weapons and using terrorism to advance its Islamic 
     Revolution?
       2. If you had intelligence that Iran was on the verge of 
     building operational nuclear weapons, would your 
     administration support an Israeli preemptive military strike 
     on Iran's nuclear facilities?
       3. Would you as president seriously consider ordering a 
     pre-emptive strike by U.S. military forces to neutralize the 
     Iranian nuclear threat?
       Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently delivered a 
     foreign-policy address in South Carolina in which he raised 
     the Iranian threat. ``Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear 
     weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the 
     world's oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of 
     Hormuz?'' Mr. Romney asked. ``In the hands of the ayatollahs, 
     a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to 
     Israel. Iran's suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.'' 
     Mr. Romney noted that he would ``begin discussions with 
     Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and 
     coordination'' and would ``reiterate that Iran obtaining a 
     nuclear weapon is unacceptable.'' However, he did not 
     specifically discuss how he would stop Iran from getting the 
     bomb and sponsoring terrorist attacks.
       Businessman Herman Cain has soared into the top tier of 
     presidential candidates with a bold pro-growth tax-
     simplification plan, but he has spoken little of foreign 
     policy. He has identified Iran as one of America's most 
     serious national security threats and has been clear about 
     his strong support for Israel. Drawing on his experience as a 
     civilian contractor for the U.S. Navy working on ballistic-
     missile projects, Mr. Cain rightly has called for enhanced 
     missile defenses to blunt an Iranian nuclear threat ``I would 
     make it a priority to upgrade all of our Aegis surface-to-air 
     ballistic-missile defense capabilities of all of our 
     warships, all the way around the world,'' Mr. Cain told the 
     Values Voter Summit in Washington earlier this month. ``Make 
     that a priority, and then say to [Iranian President Mahmoud] 
     Ahmadinejad, `Make my Day.' '' His instincts are right, but 
     missile defenses are insufficient to neutralize the Iranian 
     threat.
       Few of the GOP candidates better understand the Iranian 
     threat--and the dangerous end-times theology of the current 
     Iranian leadership, which is preparing for the coming of the 
     Shia messiah known as the ``Twelfth Imam''--than former Sen. 
     Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Thus far, however, he has not 
     made Iran a major element of his campaign. Former House 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas Gov. 
     Rick Perry have barely mentioned the issue, though certainly 
     they understand the dangers.
       Only Rep. Ron Paul among the Republican contenders doesn't 
     grasp the seriousness of the twin Iranian threats of 
     terrorism and nuclear weapons. ``One can understand why [the 
     mullahs] might want to become nuclear-capable, if only to 
     defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully,'' Mr. 
     Paul has written. The congressman opposes economic sanctions 
     on Iran. He opposes pre-emptive strikes on Iran. Indeed, Mr. 
     Paul has indicated he does not have a problem with Iran 
     acquiring nuclear weapons because he doesn't think the 
     mullahs in Tehran would actually use such weapons against 
     their enemies. What's more, he has stated that he would not 
     come to Israel's defense if Iran fired nuclear weapons at the 
     Jewish state.

  This article by Joel Rosenberg is an excellent article, and it used 
to be taken seriously.
  Knowing Herman Cain personally, Governor Rick Perry personally, 
Michele Bachmann personally, Rick Santorum personally, Newt Gingrich 
personally, I know they're all concerned about it, but because of the 
way the debates have been structured, this has not been an issue that 
has been pushed. I know all of those individuals well enough to know 
their hearts and to know they do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons 
and that they will do what's necessary to prevent it. The trouble is 
none of those individuals will become President or even have the chance 
to become President for 18 months.
  It's time that the American people convinced the American President 
of this, who helped create the situation where al Qaeda--our enemies, 
our sworn enemies who want to destroy it--can fly their flags over the 
Libyan courthouse. It was more than the Libyan courthouse. It was the 
brief capital, the headquarters, for the people that this President 
chose to help.
  A dangerous time.
  Now, I have filed House Resolution 271. It has got a slew of 
cosponsors. They're all Republican, but I would hope that some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle would join in with us on this.
  Madam Speaker, I would hope that people would encourage their Members 
of Congress to sign on if they support what's here.
  Basically, most of this resolution--it's not terribly long; it's just 
six pages--and most of that are whereas clauses stating facts.

                              {time}  1520

  The text is as follows:

                              H. Res. 271

       Whereas archeological evidence exists confirming Israel's 
     existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in 
     which it currently exists, despite assertions of its 
     opponents;
       Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national 
     liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago, 
     the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in 
     the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion;
       Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the 
     Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of 
     Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded;
       Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from 
     1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators 
     murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of 
     genocide, the international community recognized that the 
     Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its 
     independence from Great Britain;
       Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize 
     Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has 
     since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United 
     States in the Middle East;
       Whereas the United States and Israel have a special 
     friendship based on shared values, and together share the 
     common goal of peace and security in the Middle East;
       Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama 
     rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a 
     ``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance.'';
       Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel, 
     and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger 
     from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking 
     nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to 
     deliver them;
       Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a 
     nuclear weapons-armed Iran;
       Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in 
     declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, 
     stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I 
     stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development 
     of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable.'';
       Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran 
     called ``World Without Zionism'', Iranian President Mahmoud 
     Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God 
     behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the 
     United States and Zionism'';
       Whereas the New York Times reported that during his October 
     26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this 
     occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map'';
       Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is 
     heading toward annihilation'';
       Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel], 
     with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and 
     betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the 
     geographical scene'';
       Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
     said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of 
     the United States has come, and the countdown to the 
     annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has 
     started'';
       Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a 
     surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate 
     range of 1,200 miles;
       Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons;
       Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear 
     facilities since 2002;
       Whereas Iran continues its support of international 
     terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hizbullah to carry out 
     catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the 
     bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 
     in 1994, and could give

[[Page H7389]]

     a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future;
       Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its 
     nuclear program;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 
     states that according to the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained 
     suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing 
     activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in 
     resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor 
     resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional 
     Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA 
     Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of 
     Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 
     (2007) . . .'';
       Whereas at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given 
     a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its 
     nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document 
     lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global 
     relations'' and included various subjects, but left out any 
     mention of Iran's own nuclear program which was the true 
     issue in question;
       Whereas the United States has been fully committed to 
     finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, 
     and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and 
     to determine if such a resolution is even possible;
       Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with 
     Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to 
     prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and
       Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in January 
     2011 that a change of course in Iran will not be possible 
     ``without a credible military option that is put before them 
     by the international community led by the United States'': 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran 
     for its threats of ``annihilating'' the United States and the 
     State of Israel, for its continued support of international 
     terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli 
     people;
       (2) supports using all means of persuading the Government 
     of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons;
       (3) reaffirms the United States bond with Israel and 
     pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and 
     the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation 
     continues to receive critical economic and military 
     assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to 
     address the threat of Iran; and
       (4) expresses support for Israel's right to use all means 
     necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by 
     Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and 
     safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military 
     force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a 
     reasonable time.

  That's House Resolution 271. And I certainly hope that more Members 
of Congress will join us in supporting that position because time is 
running out.
  It is also my hope and prayer that the rumors that have gone around 
about what this administration has told Israel behind closed doors do 
not have support. In fact, that's my hope and prayer. Because if this 
administration were to be telling Israel behind closed doors that if 
they move to protect themselves against a nuclear attack by Iran 
without the United States' permission--which would not be given--then 
Israel, since they do not have all of our stealth capability, do not 
have the most sophisticated bombs we have, will likely lose many planes 
and will be in need of replacement planes and parts.
  I hope and pray that the rumor that they're telling them, we will not 
support them with replacement planes, replacement parts if they defend 
themselves, is not true. But this President, though he's been so vocal 
about why we needed to go support Libya, why it was in our American 
values, interest, has not talked a lot about what he's telling Israel 
behind the scenes.
  Israel is in grave danger. We have been a friend because we believe 
in the same value of human life, the same value of freedom, of liberty. 
We owe it to them, our friends, our allies.

                              {time}  1530

  If we're not going to have the nerve to take action against a country 
that is sworn to be at war with us and to destroy us and take us out at 
all costs, then we should at least not stand in the way of a friend who 
wants to do so.
  I have a few more things I want to cover here. There's an article 
from National Review online from The Corner by Andrew McCarthy, another 
brilliant man and, I'm proud to say, a dear friend. The headline: ``Did 
Obama appointee access confidential database in effort to smear Perry 
as `Islamophobe'?''

       At PJM, terrorism researcher Patrick Poole reports that 
     Mohamed Elibiary, an appointee on President Obama's Homeland 
     Security Advisory Council, is in hot water with the Texas 
     Department of Public Safety (TDPS). The issue is whether 
     Elibiary used his privileged access to a state law-
     enforcement database to acquire intelligence reports and then 
     tried to shop them to the media, urging that they showed 
     rampant ``Islamophobia'' at TDPS under Governor Rick Perry.
       Poole says no story was published because, according to one 
     press source, there was ``nothing remotely resembling 
     Islamophobia'' in the leaked reports. The source told Poole, 
     ``I think [Elibiary] was hoping we would bite and not give it 
     too much of a look in light of other media outfits jumping on 
     the Islamophobia bandwagon.''
       The Islamophobia bandwagon was the subject of my column 
     last weekend. Seems there are plenty of Islamists and 
     Leftists climbing aboard.
       Elibiary, you'll no doubt be stunned to learn, was also on 
     the Obama DHS's working group on ``countering violent 
     extremism.'' That's the brain-trust that helped devise the 
     new Obama counterterrorism strategy I outlined (here and 
     here) a few weeks back--the one that envisions having law-
     enforcement pare back their intelligence-gathering activities 
     and take their marching orders from ``community partners.'' I 
     call the new strategy ``factophobia.''
       As noted by Poole and the Investigative Project on 
     Terrorism, Elibiary's history includes an appearance at a 
     conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini; condemning the 
     Justice Department's successful prosecution of a Hamas-
     financing conspiracy designed by the Muslim Brotherhood (the 
     Holy Land Foundation case); praise for Brotherhood theorist 
     Sayyid Qutb; and an aggressive email exchange with Rod Dreher 
     in 2006 (when Dreher, at the Dallas Morning News, countered 
     Elibiary's praise for Qutb), in which Elibiary reportedly 
     called Dreher ``a Klansman without a hood'' [ACM: I think 
     that means ``Islamophobe'' and warned him: ``Treat people as 
     inferiors and you can expect someone to put a banana in your 
     exhaust pipe or something.''
       Who better could President Obama possibly choose to help 
     formulate counterterrorism strategy? Actually, once you read 
     the strategy, I think you'll agree that he made a perfect 
     choice.

  Then we have another article from National Review Online, again from 
Andrew McCarthy. Headline, ``Napolitano: On Elibiary, I know Nothing. I 
Know Nothing * * * ''
  He said that Secretary Napolitano ``professes not to know anything 
about the matter''--he's talking about Elibiary--``or about how I got a 
guy who appears at a conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini, who 
praises Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb, and who condemns the 
Justice Department's successful prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood's 
Hamas financing network (the Holy Land Foundation case), somehow winds 
up on the Department of Homeland Security advisory council that helped 
devise the Obama administration's counterterrorism policy.''
  Actually, it turns out, as Secretary Napolitano testified, that 
actually she, as the Secretary of Homeland Security, gave this 
gentleman the secret security clearance which ultimately allowed him to 
access sensitive documents, at least three of which he downloaded and 
then tried to market to major media sources.
  It is important to note that in the pleading that Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed filed--and he is a very smart man. He may be crazy, but he is 
a very smart man. He did his own interpretation in English, so some of 
the articles are not quite appropriate, but he sets out a legal 
document and justifies all of the actions he took in working on 9/11's 
murder of 3,000 Americans. He takes verses from the Koran and uses them 
to justify his actions.
  At one point in his pleading, which we have access to through our Web 
site--and this was declassified by the judge in the 9/11 cases 
involving five planners of 9/11. It was ordered released on the 9th day 
of March, 2009, and there are also transcripts of his colloquy with the 
judge in which he confessed to many other acts of terrorism, quite 
voluntarily, it was obvious.
  But in his pleading, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, on behalf of himself and 
the four other defendants who were ready to plead guilty, announced 
they were pleading guilty before this administration; and the Attorney 
General-to-be, Eric Holder, announced they were going to give these 
guys a show trial in New York. So they withdraw their guilty pleas so 
they could get a show trial in New York. Now that's not going to 
happen, and now it looks like, 4 years after these people agreed to

[[Page H7390]]

plead guilty, which will be December of next year, they will still not 
have been tried because of the actions of this administration.
  But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says: We do not possess your military 
might, not your nuclear weapons; nevertheless, we fight you with the 
almighty God. So, if our act of jihad and our fighting with you caused 
fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him that has 
thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted from your infidelity, 
paganism, and your statement that God had a son and your Trinity 
beliefs.
  Then he goes on and he says: God stated in his book, verse 151, Al-
Umran, Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, 
for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no 
authority; their place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the 
wrongdoers. That is just one part.
  He also says: We ask to be near God. We fight you, destroy you, 
terrorize. You'll be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 
America will fall politically, militarily, economically. Your end is 
very near, and your fall will be like the fall of the towers on the 
blessed 9/11 day.
  But this gentleman references that one of the reasons that it's okay 
to kill Americans is because many Americans believe there is a Holy 
trinity, a Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They believe that God had a son 
that Christians call the Messiah.
  My time is running out, so let me direct you to the Treaty of Paris, 
1783, such a historic document. The most powerful country in the world 
at that time, 1783, was Great Britain. They had the most powerful Navy, 
the most powerful military; and yet a ragtag bunch of people who 
believed so firmly in the ideas of freedom and being able to practice 
most of them--in fact, a third of the signers of the Declaration, they 
weren't just Christians; they, as Martin Luther King, Jr., were 
ordained Christian ministers, and they believed in freedom and that God 
was giving us a chance to govern ourselves.
  So after this ragtag bunch defeated the strongest country in the 
world, Great Britain, and they sat down in 1783 in Paris, and we had 
there on our behalf John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, three 
of our brightest minds, they had to set about figuring out: What can we 
put on paper to have Great Britain sign that will be so important that 
they would not want to risk violating an oath? What kind of oath could 
we put on this treaty that Great Britain would be scared to violate?

                              {time}  1540

  This treaty will want them to recognize the United States of America. 
What can we do to make it serious enough that they would not turn 
around the next month and say we had no right to be independent despite 
what they signed? There is an original copy of the Treaty of Paris in 
the State Department. Tours can be taken, I've taken tons of tours 
around Washington, D.C. Until my pastor and his wife, David and Cindy 
Dykes, were in town years back, I had not seen that. But I was taken 
aback, and I've got a copy of--this is a duplicate--of the Treaty of 
Paris, two pages, well, it's the first and last page here. There are 10 
articles, so we've got the first and last pages here.
  So how would you start a treaty in such a way that it would scare the 
strongest country in the world from violating their oath? Well, they 
figured it out, and they put it on the document. The biggest letters 
anywhere in the treaty are those in the first two lines, and they began 
``In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity.'' Starting the 
Treaty of Paris with ``In the Name of the most Holy and undivided 
Trinity,'' they knew would be strong enough to scare Great Britain into 
not violating the oath that they signed on that document.
  Then you tie it in with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's pleading, the very 
fact that they would sign such a document recognizing the Holy Trinity, 
according to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his interpretation of the 
Koran, that's justification for killing and terrorizing people that 
believe in the Holy undivided Trinity.
  There's a war going on, and in Libya, apparently we fought for people 
who want to destroy us. The al Qaeda flag now flies proudly over this 
federal building in Benghazi, Libya. Congratulations to this 
administration for making that happen.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________