[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 30 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H962-H964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2010
                         FREEDOM UNDER ASSAULT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  These are the best of times and in some ways the worst of times. Our 
freedoms are under assault, and some people in places of leadership do 
not appreciate the threat to our freedoms and therefore are naively 
assisting those who would take them away.
  We know that in recent days in Afghanistan we had some soldiers who 
were given the responsibility to burn Korans which were being used by 
prisoners to write messages of an incendiary nature to other prisoners. 
Well, it's my understanding of shari'a law that to write in such a 
Koran could be considered a desecration; yet there's been no protest, 
no outrage over prisoners using the Koran to pass inflammatory messages 
to other prisoners.
  We've also seen the death of Americans as a result. Two officers, 
along with others, have been killed and injured. Our Commander in Chief 
has seen fit to apologize to those who house the killers of our two 
American officers.
  When I think about the feelings of the family members of the two 
American officers who were serving, to have a commander not do as 
Lincoln and so many Commanders in Chief have done in the past wherein 
they sent those troubling letters to grieving families to thank them 
for their service and to truly grieve with the families, no, in this 
case, the Commander in Chief sent messages instead to the home of the 
killer.
  Now, we're led to believe by some internationally that, gee, it just 
overwhelmed the killer of the two officers. But then we hear that he 
may have taken a silencer with him to work. Well, where I come from, 
courts that I've been in to prosecute, my court as a judge, my region 
as a chief justice, that would be considered evidence of premeditation, 
of first degree murder; and yet we apologize to those who think like 
the murderer.
  I haven't heard a demand for an apology from Afghanistan and from the 
leaders of Afghanistan, who would not be in office but for the lives 
and sacrifice of American soldiers. They wouldn't be there but for 
American soldiers, yet no apology from Afghanistan. So I think we have 
to look a little deeper at what is really going on here.

[[Page H963]]

  We know that in the United States it's been deemed to be just fine to 
stick a cross that symbolizes the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ 
in a beaker of urine. Now, some of us believe that anybody that would 
do such a thing without repenting before they leave this life will have 
a special price to pay by the Judge of all judges, by that same Creator 
which gave us our inalienable rights. But not only was that done; it 
was funded by the United States Government NEA funds.
  We've been told repeatedly that there is nothing unconstitutional 
about burning an American flag, that flag for which so many millions of 
Americans have given the last full measure of devotion. We're told that 
it doesn't violate our Constitution to burn American Bibles, that 
that's just fine under our Constitution. Yet we even have great 
Americans who have risked their life for this country, who see the 
death and loss of lives, say you know what, maybe we ought to have a 
law that says you can't burn a Koran or you can't shoot at a Koran.
  Some may recall that on May 22, 2008, there was a U.S. soldier that 
shot at a Koran. That sparked unrest, and there were two civilians and 
a Lithuanian that were killed as a result of that. Some people may 
remember last year when a pastor in Florida burned a Koran; it sparked 
rioting and 11 were killed, including seven U.N. workers.
  What's really going on here? Well, I think it's important to look 
back to the Organization of Islamic--what used to be Islamic 
Conference--now it's been changed to Islamic Cooperation--and we can 
find some things. I've got a chart here to show.
  This is from the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit. 
It outlines the 10-year Program of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing 
the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century. This is the Islamic Summit 
Conference results. It's important to note that the term 
``Islamophobia'' was invented for just such occasions to try to 
demonize Americans--or so-called ``Westerners''--who might try to say 
there's such a thing as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, who 
would seek to subjugate our First Amendment rights to the Islamic 
Conference, their rules and shari'a law.
  The plan, the 10-year plan from December 2005, the plan is, here at 
number two:

       Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia through the 
     establishment of an observatory at the OIC General 
     Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an 
     annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the 
     relevant governmental and non-governmental organizations, 
     NGOs, in order to counter Islamophobia.
       Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international 
     resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States 
     to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.

  That's right. This is in compliance with the 10-year plan from 2005 
to subjugate Americans' First Amendment rights under our Constitution 
to shari'a law.

                              {time}  2020

  It's not a terribly complicated effort, but it is brutal. It has cost 
so many lives, all in an effort to not only show disdain for actions of 
Westerners regarding the Koran, but also to push to get the U.N. and 
all states such as the United States to adopt laws to punish what 
shari'a would consider any inappropriate use or abuse of a Koran.
  I happen to think as a Christian it's terribly inappropriate to abuse 
a Koran. I would encourage people not to do so. I would likewise say 
that it is a terrible thing to abuse a Bible and to abuse a flag. It 
shouldn't be done. As a servicemember, prosecutor, judge, chief 
justice, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States, and that means all rights under our Constitution.
  Just so people don't forget, I think it is appropriate to remember 
what is in the First Amendment:

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
     abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of 
     the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
     government for a redress of grievances.

  We're supposed to have the right to freedom of speech. The Supreme 
Court has said that means you can burn a flag, you can burn a Bible, 
you can burn a Koran. But there is a movement in all 57 states--that's 
right, 57 states of the OIC--to get the U.N. and all countries to 
subjugate their freedoms to shari'a law. Sure it's okay to burn a 
Bible, burn a flag, but not a Koran. It's wrong to do so, but it's not 
illegal.
  We're told as of today that the Taliban says the airport blast in 
Afghanistan was revenge for Koran burnings. This article today points 
out that 40 people have been killed in protests and related attacks 
since the incident became known this past Tuesday, including four U.S. 
soldiers. NATO, France, Britain, and the U.S. have pulled their 
advisers from Afghan ministries out of concern that the anti-foreigner 
anger might erupt again. After all we've done, it's not over. These 
people feel they still must subjugate our First Amendment rights to 
shari'a law.
  The First Amendment should be pretty clear. It should be noted that 
until the 1950s when Lyndon Johnson basically got tired of churches 
yapping at him over what they deemed as moral issues, he shut them up 
by adding an additional provision added to the tax laws that basically 
forbade any church or such organization from getting involved in 
politics. My children were surprised, based on what they had been 
taught in public school, that for most of this country's history, 
churches were the bedrock, churches were involved in every great 
movement that occurred, both in the Revolution, in the civil rights 
movement that resulted in the abolition of slavery, in the civil rights 
movement of the 1950s and '60s. Lest we forget, Martin Luther King, 
Jr., was an ordained Christian minister. He knew and espoused the true 
way, truth and light.
  The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam was established in 
1990. When we hear about the cause for human rights under shari'a law, 
it is important to understand what that means. This is from the Cairo 
Declaration on Human Rights in Islam from August of 1990. Article 24 
says:

       All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration 
     are subject to the Islamic shari'a.

  Article 25:

       Islamic shari'a is the only source of reference for the 
     explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this 
     Declaration.

  That's what we're talking about. When the term ``human rights'' is 
utilized, it's important for people to understand that under this 
declaration of human rights that is still being forwarded today and 
thrust at us, it's important to note that those are considered human 
rights only under the definition of shari'a.
  When we're told about the OIC believing and pushing human rights, 
that means no one has the right to desecrate a Koran in any way, 
although they can burn Bibles and American flags all day long. It means 
no one has the freedom of speech to draw a cartoon about Mohammed 
because if they do, they have the human right to be executed.
  If someone is a Muslim and they pronounce that Jesus Christ has 
become their Lord, then they have the human right to be executed. If 
someone is a woman testifying under the laws of shari'a, she has the 
right to have her testimony only count as half that of a man. Under 
these terms, if a woman inherits from a male, she has the human right 
to receive just one-half of the inheritance that a man would. Under 
shari'a, as to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill 
conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and, 
last, beat them. If a husband is displeased with his wife, the woman 
has the human right to be beaten.
  This goes on and on. I'm surprised that the women's rights movement 
has not been more assertive in pointing out the inequalities that occur 
in countries that espouse shari'a and the threat that it imposes to 
women's rights all over the world and in America.
  Under shari'a, to bring a claim of rape, a Muslim woman must present 
four male Muslim witnesses in good standing. Islam places the burden of 
avoiding illicit sexual encounters entirely on the woman. In fact, 
under shari'a, women who bring a claim of rape without being able to 
produce four male Muslim witnesses, admitting to having had illicit 
sex, if she or the man is married, this amounts to an admission of 
adultery and she should be punished. Some believe she should be stoned 
to death and at a minimum

[[Page H964]]

flogged if she is raped and can't produce four men of Muslim good 
standing on her behalf.

                              {time}  2030

  She has the human right to be flogged or in some eyes to be stoned to 
death.
  There are those who are saying we should get out of Afghanistan now. 
Actually, we could have done that a long time ago if a different course 
had been pursued. It is not inappropriate to note that in so many 
circumstances the enemy of our enemy should be considered our friend.
  Along with Dana Rohrabacher and Steve King, we met twice with 
Northern Alliance leaders, and although these brave leaders and their 
soldiers, their horse soldiers, did what some intelligence and special 
ops individuals have indicated, performed acts of heroism and gallantry 
such as they'd never seen before on their behalf and on behalf of 
America.
  The Taliban was initially defeated, people forget, when we had 
initially less than 200, at no point more than 1,500, American special 
ops and intelligence just embedded with the Northern Alliance, 
assisting them as the enemy of the Taliban.
  Our friends, the Northern Alliance, they're Muslim. They're our 
Muslim friends. But they did not want the intolerance of the Taliban 
and were willing to pay any price, just as the Founders were, to 
prevent having the Taliban take them over and, as they had done before, 
burn films, burn books, burn art, dictate to the women, prevent their 
freedoms. The Northern Alliance helped us by basically being the people 
who defeated the Taliban. We provided them the arms to do it, we 
provided them the aerial support, and they did it.
  We disarmed them, told them they had nothing to worry about. We added 
over 100,000 troops and became occupiers. We tried to nation build. We 
gave them a constitution that provides for shari'a law.
  Where is the apology to Afghan Christians for us getting them a 
constitution that does not permit public churches? The last Christian 
church in Afghanistan has closed. At last account, I'd seen there was 
one acknowledged Jewish person living in Afghanistan.
  Now there's intolerance. We have a $12.5 billion government in 
Afghanistan. That's their budget, and they provide about $1.5 billion 
of their own. You know what happens to that government when we pull 
out? That's why the Taliban is telling people, even on Afghan 
television, We're going to be in charge as soon as the U.S. pulls out.
  There are ways to deal with this issue. If you just look at the map, 
you get a good idea what we're talking about.
  During a recent trip to Afghanistan and meeting with Baluch people--
let's first look at the map itself.
  Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India. Now, before 1948, this area in 
here was Baluchistan. In 1948, the arbitrary lines that were drawn put 
Baluchistan in with Pakistan. This used to be a Baluch area. As a 
recent Pakistan Daily News editorial pointed out, most of Pakistan's 
natural resources come from this area. As people have advised us in 
Afghanistan when I was over there recently, the Taliban are being 
supported by supplies, arms. They're getting their support from 
southern Pakistan into southern Afghanistan. They're coming through the 
Baluch area.
  The Baluch don't want that. They're Muslim. They're our friends. They 
want to be our friends. They would be wonderful friends. They have been 
terrorized by the Pakistani Government for decades, and we've stood by 
and didn't seem to care, the world has.
  Well, perhaps it is time to recognize an independent Baluchistan, 
where we'd have a friend who would not keep supplying the enemy of 
America, those people that helped train and prepare for 9/11 to kill as 
many thousands of Americans as they could.
  We don't want to leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban and 
all of the American life and treasure be for nothing. But there is an 
easy answer. We leave, but we empower the enemy of our enemy, the 
Northern Alliance and the Baluch people. Let them take care of their 
own area. Let them prevent the Taliban from taking over. Let them 
prevent Pakistan from becoming such a focused enemy as they have 
unabated. Let them worry.
  India wants to be our friend.
  If we look at the area of Pakistan, well, this shows the different 
major ethnic groups. Pink here is the Baluch people; green is the 
Pashtun. And, of course, only a tiny percentage of the Pashtun people 
make up the Taliban, but virtually all of the Taliban is made up of 
Pashtun. They do come over here into Pakistan. Then we have brown as 
the Punjabi and the yellow as the Sindi.
  Northern Alliance is up here. You've got a number of different groups 
up there, including Uzbeks. But these are people who do not want the 
Taliban to ever take over. They're the enemy of our enemy, and that's 
where we can do some real good. It's time to stop the support of those 
who would take away our First Amendment rights.
  There's an article, this is from CNN, May 20, 2009:

       Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, 
     confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common 
     Afghan languages amid concerns that they would be used to try 
     to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said 
     Tuesday.
       The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United 
     States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base 
     in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any 
     religion from proselytizing while deployed there.
       Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and 
     civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation.

  Why would it endanger civilians if they have the rights that 
Americans say we're fighting for? Why? We're burning Bibles, the 
American military did, back in 2009?
  I was given this Bible by my aunt, told that it was provided during 
World War II to my uncle, says, ``May the Lord be with you.'' It's a 
New Testament, and inside the front cover it says:

       As Commander in Chief, I take pleasure in commending the 
     reading of the Bible to all who serve in the Armed Forces of 
     the United States. Throughout the centuries, men of many 
     faiths and diverse origins have found in the sacred book 
     words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration. It is a fountain 
     of strength, and now, as always, an aid in attaining the 
     highest aspirations of the human soul.

  Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
  That wasn't signed by President Obama. It was signed by Franklin 
Roosevelt, and it was given to our soldiers.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me just say, if the President takes 
more action to demean the American rights and to eliminate our own 
rights, then it's time for the President to apologize, not to 
Afghanistan but to the American people.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________