[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H468-H471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFLICT IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. This is an important day in the history of at one time
the greatest nation in the world, Egypt. It has come a long way since
those days thousands of years ago. But there is a lot of
misunderstanding about what has being going on in Egypt, including by
people in this administration, which also means, of course, The New
York Times, The Washington Post, the mainstream media and other liberal
bastions.
In fact, The New York Times had an editorial dated December 4, 2013,
that talks about the election that is happening today, yesterday,
today, in Egypt, 14th and 15th Egyptian time.
This editorial from The New York Times editorial board talks about
the Egyptians squandering another chance to build a broadly inclusive
democratic system with the latest constitutional revisions.
{time} 1900
Mr. Speaker, what these intellectual giants at The New York Times
don't understand is, when you're in the Middle East and you decide to
try to build a democracy, a democratic republic as we have here, and
you decide to be inclusive of people who believe in utilizing
terrorism--there are religious fanatics who believe if they kill
innocent children, women, men, then they may have just earned a place
in paradise. That is so foreign to American way of thinking, to Western
way of thinking, to Israeli way of thinking, to European way of
thinking--historically, that is.
As radical Islam, not to be confused with the moderate Muslims, such
as those who are trying to establish democracy in Egypt, radical Islam,
if included, will use terrorism, will use violence, will use anything
they can to take over, and there will be no democratic republic. There
will be no democracy of any kind. It will be top-to-bottom
totalitarian, a religious extremist country.
I know the editorial board has people that are extremely intelligent,
but it is amazing to read these kinds of things broadly inclusive. So
they are wanting the people of Egypt to do things like release a man
who is acting outside the constitution. He is charged with ordering the
murder of so many who just wanted to have liberty in Egypt. Morsi was
playing the new version of Chavez in Venezuela; get elected and then
pull all power to you.
I asked General el-Sisi if it was true what a former American
intelligence
[[Page H469]]
agent had told me that Morsi, President Morsi, was trying to hire--take
out a contract, basically--to have General el-Sisi killed. He beat
around the bush, but eventually he said in the presence of other U.S.
representatives that, yes, they had evidence that Morsi was trying to
have General el-Sisi killed.
It may be a shock to some, say, at The New York Times, Washington
Post, and others, but when you have a religious fanatic as the leader
of a country, even though he may have been--and this is arguable as
well, but he may have been elected. When he starts acting outside the
bounds of the constitution, then the people have to act. And the
constitution that the Muslim Brotherhood shoved through in Egypt after
the so-called Arab Spring was one that did not even provide a provision
of impeachment.
That seemed strange to most Americans. I am sure it doesn't to The
New York Times and The Washington Post. But to most Americans, not
having a way to remove someone who is the highest official in the land,
who is acting outside the bounds of their authority, it is a problem.
How do you remove the highest leader in a country if your
constitution, if you have one, does not provide for civil impeachment
and removal of the leader? And Egypt's constitution that the Muslim
Brotherhood shoved through did not, because the Muslim Brotherhood,
once they seized power, there was going to be no need for impeachment,
because radical Islam would be in charge. It is reported by credible
people, there are videos of the supreme religious leader dictating
terms that President Morsi would have to follow.
The Arab Spring under President Morsi did not yield the kind of
republic, democracy that had been hoped for, but this New York Times
editorial says:
The new charter defies the revolutionary promise of the
Arab Spring by reinforcing the power of institutions that
have long held Egypt in an iron grip.
Apparently, not realizing that the Muslim Brotherhood had seized
Egypt in its iron grip, and the only way around it, since there was no
impeachment provision in the Egyptian constitution, was exactly what
happened. It was not a military coup. A military coup is when the
military rises up and takes over. What happened in Egypt was one of the
most beautiful acts of true democratic efforts, and some have reported
that this was the largest gathering, largest rebellion in the world's
history, reports of 20 million people gathering in demonstration by
Egyptians, a country with 90 or so million people.
Another report of another effort, 30 million; 33 million, one report
said. Morsi only claimed to have gotten around 13 million votes when he
seized power. He said the opponent--the Muslim Brotherhood made clear
if the opponent tried to contest and say there was any fraud, they
would burn Egypt down. So they got control. They had a constitution
that wouldn't allow them to remove Morsi, not to impeach him.
This was a real revolution. Barely peaceful as revolutions go, until
the Muslim Brotherhood began to carry out what they had promised
previously, that if people who wanted true democracy in Egypt tried to
contest Morsi being the supreme leader there, then they would burn the
country down. Well, they began burning down churches.
Now, some people when they hear the word ``church'' think in terms,
well, maybe it was like a rural southern church. Maybe they had a
trailer or something. This is in an area where there have been
Christian churches for nearly 2,000 years. These are incredibly
historic places, some of them, and the Muslim Brotherhood could have
cared less.
Now, we have plenty of Muslim brothers here in the United States, and
so far they say we have been--in essence, their position is we have not
really needed violence in the United States because we are getting so
much control without violence. But certainly violence is an appropriate
tool in places like Egypt where they got ousted so they couldn't follow
through with pursuing a new Ottoman Empire, a new world caliphate as
the Twelfth, the Twelvers, the Twelfth Imam believers wanted to take
over and begin right there where the Ottoman Empire used to exist as it
began its way around the Mediterranean.
But for those who believe the Twelfth Imam is going to emerge out of
chaos, even if it is self-inflicted nuclear chaos, those who believe he
will emerge and begin ruling and take over a world caliphate, they know
they can't afford to lose Egypt as an important linchpin. You have 90
million people there in Egypt. That is critical if they are going to
take over and have a world caliphate. You have got to have Egypt.
So last July, I took to this floor and this podium and talked about
the incredible uprising, how deeply touching it was to hear personal
accounts, to see the photographs, to hear and see the videos of what
was going on when moderate Muslims, Christians, Jews, seculars were
coming together figuratively and literally, hand in hand, to protest
against radical Islam being in control of Egypt.
As some have indicated, if the Egyptian people had waited another
year to try to oust Morsi, he would have gathered so much power, they
would probably not have been successful. It was critical that the
people of Egypt rise up, as they did. And we owe them a debt of
gratitude for rising up and saying, We are not going to have radical
Islam in charge. Moderate Muslims did not want radical Islamists in
charge. That is true throughout the Middle East. It is true in
Afghanistan, where our allies who fought and defeated the Taliban, by
2002 with less than 500 Americans in country embedded, weapons we
provided, aerial support we provided, under the lead of General Dostum
who summoned this administration, now called a war criminal, they
defeated the Taliban. These are moderate Muslim friends, allies,
because their enemy is our enemy, the Taliban, and they do not want
radical Islam taking back over Afghanistan.
What does this administration do? It empowers the group that will end
up allowing the Taliban to take right back over, when we ought to be
empowering our friends in Afghanistan, not with 100,000 precious
American men and women's lives, but empower the enemy of our enemy and
let them protect their own country. They can do it, but not when you
call the enemy of our enemy war criminals and do everything you can to
marginalize them.
The New York Times editorial says:
The constitution, approved by a 50-member citizen committee
on Sunday, replaces one imposed last year by the government
of President Mohamed Morsi, who was deposed in July, and his
Muslim Brotherhood allies. It is expected to be ratified by a
popular vote in a referendum within the next 30 days.
This was written December 4, published December 4.
The editorial goes on toward the end to say:
This new constitution is equally flawed because it was
drafted with minimal input from Islamists and could further
crush the Brotherhood by banning political parties based on
religion.
All one needs to do is just a little bit of investigation, open-
minded investigation. If you are taking your lead from Al Jazeera, from
the Muslim Brotherhood, from Imam Magid, who is the head of the Islamic
Society of North America--the Federal courts have said it is just a
Muslim Brotherhood front organization--or from leaders of CAIR, which
Federal courts in this country have called a Muslim Brotherhood front
organization to which is given great honor and credibility by this
administration, but if you are listening to them, then, oh, yeah, this
is a terrible constitution, because they are not going to allow a
radical Islamist political party to take back over.
Now, again, if you do a little bit of research, you find out this is
something that Ataturk fought against and was able to overcome in
Turkey so many decades ago. And because he was able to overcome and
overwhelm radical Islam in Turkey, Turkey has surged to the forefront
over the past decades in all kinds of areas.
Now, we see the scary creeping of radical Islam back into control in
Turkey. But the way they advanced as rapidly as they did in Turkey
after this great leader Ataturk forced out radical Islamist leaders was
they prevented those types of people from taking over, and it is the
same thing. These are smart people, Emir Musa, the chairman of this
constitutional committee, convention, whatever you want to call
[[Page H470]]
it, of 50 very diverse people. But no, it did not include the Muslim
Brotherhood. They don't want a radical Islamist group taking over
Egypt.
{time} 1915
I know it is hard for some in this country to believe who read too
much of their own press, but banning a political party based on
religion in the Constitution and recognizing other religions in their
Constitution and recognizing the absolute right of belief religiously
in this new Constitution should be hailed as a good thing.
I was shocked--I believe it is article 235, perhaps, in the new
Constitution, these moderate Muslims and secularists are so bent, so
dedicated to try to have a democracy that they can build on and grow
and advance. They even put this article in there that says, in essence:
the country is going to rebuild the churches that the Muslim
Brotherhood destroyed during their radical violent temper tantrum after
a president acting outside the bounds of the Constitution and charged
with ordering the death of so many civilians there, after he went so
far astray. They don't want that kind of people back in charge.
Now, something that The New York Times says at the end:
In the final analysis, the real test of any constitution is
how it is carried out in practice.
That is true. That is so true.
I once heard Justice Scalia telling a group, one of which had asked:
Is the reason we are the greatest country with more freedoms than any
country in history because we have the best Bill of Rights ever in
history? Justice Scalia can be so blunt and so brilliant. He indicated:
Oh, gosh, no. The Soviet Union had a better Bill of Rights than we do.
That is why that last statement in The New York Times editorial is so
true. It is more how the constitution is carried out. I am glad they
recognized that by the end of the editorial.
One thing is clear: if a constitution is pushed through by the Muslim
Brotherhood, it is going to be radically religiously based on radical
Islam, and the first elected leader could very well end up being the
last until he is gone. Of course, in Iran, where we have radical Islam
in charge, you have a supreme leader and then you have the token
president that is elected that serves as long as the supreme leader is
okay with it.
The Washington Post, in an editorial published January 13, on down in
it says a criticism of the current Egyptian government. They have a
judge who is the interim President. Talking with him, meeting with him
a couple of times, I think he is really trying to do right by the
people in Egypt, but The Washington Post says:
Opposition media have been shut down, and three Cairo-based
journalists from Al Jazeera have been imprisoned without
charge.
One of the things that is so hard for some pseudo-intellectuals here
in the U.S. to realize is something that Franklin Roosevelt grasped,
even with his unconstitutional actions of interring American citizens,
something that he appropriately understood is, if you have media that
is helping the cause of anarchy or the overthrow of a constitutional
democracy, Democratic Republic as we have here, then they are enemies
of the state and they are guilty of treason and they can be stopped.
Some in this country think freedom of speech means--whether it is
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed down in Guantanamo or some other religious
fanatic that wants to destroy our freedom here--they think: oh, well,
you have to give them freedom of speech. Whereas, for most of this
country's history, people understood if you are advocating for the
overthrow of the constitutional government we have, it is treasonous.
If you are advocating by peaceful means using the government, as some
are trying to do: Let's move toward progressivism, let's move to what
is really socialism, where the government gets to dictate everything,
they know everything you are doing.
As I said earlier today to a group, it appears that the main thing
George Orwell missed was the date. He said 1984 when it turns out it
was closer to 2014 where you have the government spying on their
people, taking whatever actions they want, saying if Congress doesn't
do it, we will just do it without Congress, which is a violation of the
Constitution in most cases.
This editorial from The Washington Post comments that the
``military's repressive methods cannot stabilize Egypt, much less
address its severe economic and social problems.'' That is true. That
is a wise comment because Egypt is suffering severe economic and social
problems.
We need to be concerned, because what Egypt had become is a social
welfare state; what we are trying to become here in America, a social
welfare state where most of the country is dependent upon the
government for at least part of its means of living, that cannot long
endure. It is always doomed to fail.
The only reason socialized medicine doesn't completely fail is
because socialized medicine ultimately ends up putting people on lists
to get the treatment they need, they die while they are waiting on the
list, and enough people die so it doesn't go broke.
A country that is under a socialistic authority, as the Soviet Union
was, it eventually will fail because the model can never work in this
world.
Egypt tried to do that. You had a tyrannical leader, as charged by
many different leaders, but in order to buy loyalty, more and more
welfare was provided, and they have severe economic and social
problems.
It is my hope and prayer, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Egypt will
continue to show the courage they did when they rose up last summer and
said: We are not going to allow radical Islam to rule this country, we
want religions to live in peace, and they will not live in peace when
radical Islam is in charge.
That is why you don't find a synagogue in Afghanistan. For heavens
sake, all the blood and treasure of Americans that has been lost and
spent in Afghanistan for freedom's sake, and because we were okay with
them having a constitution under sharia law with supreme power
basically in a very tight federal government, then it becomes corrupt,
it becomes easy to take over, as the Taliban will if this
administration doesn't change its policies.
Christians are persecuted in Afghanistan. For heavens sake, there
ought to be religious freedom anywhere America sacrifices that much of
American lives and treasure. Iraq, where Christians are persecuted, and
we provided so much American blood and treasure there.
The Washington Post says:
If President Obama believes the United States should
sanction a new autocracy in Egypt, he should make the case
for doing so. Otherwise his administration should side with
those Egyptians who continue to fight for a genuine
democracy--starting with those who have been imprisoned.
They have imprisoned radical Islamists who have killed Christians and
burned churches, and here we have a newspaper advocating: let those
people go that terrorize Christians and Jews and people who are
secularists that don't want to follow any religion, let them out, let
them back in charge of the country.
The people of Egypt have spoken in greater numbers than percentage-
wise we have had in this country in so many years when they went to the
streets: we are not having radical Islam in Egypt. They are to be
congratulated for that.
They are a long way from being out of the woods. People here need to
understand that this is a big deal.
I got a letter today from the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation
Organization, delegation that is here in Washington. They expressed
concern with my comments on the House floor January 10. They claim that
``U.S. academic sphere demanding an end to decades of discrimination
against Palestinians are based on the principle of equality, not hatred
of Jews.''
Unfortunately, they are either lying or they haven't reviewed the
material that children are being taught in Israel in the Palestinian
schools. They are teaching hatred with money we are providing. They are
naming holidays, they are naming buildings and areas after terrorists
who have killed innocent women and children.
I have got a tremendous amount of material that I could use, but time
does not permit here today. But I am going to take some time to talk
about the hatred that is being taught among the Palestinians.
[[Page H471]]
Here is a Palestinian summer camp named after Wafa Idris, the first
woman suicide bomber who murdered one and injured 150 in Jerusalem
January 27, 2002. It is a girl's camp naming it after a woman who went
out and killed an innocent person and injured 150 innocent people.
A Palestinian soccer tournament is named after a suicide bomber. This
is a camp for 14-year-old Palestinian boys and it is named: ``The Tul
Karem Shahids Memorial Soccer Championship Tournament.'' He was a
suicide terrorist who killed 31 on Passover, and the children are
participating in this tournament named for this horrendous human being
who thought it so grand to kill 31 innocent people on a religious
holiday of Passover.
People from the PLO want to try to tell me that they are not using
hatred. For heaven's sake, start spending some of that money to teach
love and affection, and we will have peace in the Middle East. As
Netanyahu said right here at this podium: If the Palestinians lay down
their arms, there will be peace in Israel and among the Palestinians,
and if the Israelis lay down their weapons, there will not be an Israel
in which there are Jews.
Now, I get it. The PLO and others say: Oh, yeah, we recognize
Israel's right to exist. The Prime Minister of the Palestinians told me
that years ago: Oh, yeah, we recognize their right to exist.
As a Jewish state, that is why they were created after the Holocaust
killed 6 million Jews in Europe. That hatred of Jews is arising again
in Europe among academics in the United States. Shame on you. You are
allowing that hatred to grow, and it is fermenting more hatred. It has
to be stopped--talking about a boycott of anything Israel. So you want
the Jews out there without a country so they can be killed in another
Holocaust, or you want Iran to have a nuclear weapon so they can with
one weapon have another Holocaust? This is where it is going.
If people's voices are not heard as the Iranian gas chambers are
being constructed now despite this ridiculous deal that is allowing
them to keep the centrifuges going and developing, then the blood will
be on our hands, and Mr. Speaker, we should not--cannot--allow that.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________