[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 70 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4048-H4053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FASCIST INTOLERANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read the background of an 
incredible woman. We have different religious views because I am a 
Christian and she is apparently an atheist at this time, but what an 
extraordinary woman: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a visiting fellow with the 
American Enterprise Institute:

       Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken defender of women's rights in 
     Islamic societies, was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She 
     escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the 
     Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch 
     parliament from 2003 to 2006. In parliament, she worked on 
     furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into 
     Dutch society and defending the rights of women in Dutch 
     Muslim society. In 2004, together with director Theo van 
     Gogh, she made ``Submission,'' a film about the oppression of 
     women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the 
     film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of Mr. 
     Van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. At AEI, Ms. Hirsi Ali 
     researches the relationship between the West and Islam, 
     women's rights in Islam, violence against women propagated by 
     religious and cultural arguments, and Islam in Europe.

  Her background, as mentioned, she was a member of the parliament in 
the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, the Netherlands, 2003 to 
2006. She was a researcher at the Wiardi Beckman Foundation in 
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2001 to 2002. And she had been an 
interpreter and adviser in the Office of Intercultural Communication, 
Leiden, the Netherlands, 1995 to

[[Page H4049]]

2001. She has her master's from Leiden University, the Netherlands.
  So this extraordinary woman should be paid tribute. It was wonderful 
to see recently that Brandeis University was paying tribute to her.
  But we have had an interesting development in the United States of 
America from the time I was in college. I attended what was at the time 
a conservative university, Texas A&M University, and a majority there 
had very conservative views, but we loved to have liberal speakers come 
speak in my college, not because it was liberal but because we welcomed 
the exchange. There were always people coming to my university that 
students disagreed with.

                              {time}  1245

  See, at that time, we thought universities were places at which you 
could have those debates and where you could have a liberal speaker 
come speak, even though you disagreed with him, but we have seen the 
rise of fascism in American universities.
  Back 30, 40 years ago, students could get involved and listen to 
liberal speakers, conservative speakers, moderate speakers, far right, 
far left speakers at universities and then make their own conclusions 
because, back then, that is kind of what we thought education was; but 
now, with this new intellectual fascism that has arisen in our 
universities, some of them--far too many of them, actually--say: if you 
disagree with our position, we don't want you here. We want you 
eliminated. We don't want you to have work. We want your family 
defiled. We just don't want you to succeed in any way whatsoever.
  In fact, we see these kinds of receptions for conservatives, for 
Judeo-Christian believers and followers, people eliminated from being 
on television because they hold the view espoused by Moses and by Jesus 
of marriage being between a man and a woman.
  It is as Moses said and as Jesus repeated, after He said a man will 
leave his mother and a woman will leave her home and the two will 
become one, what God has joined together, let no one pull apart.
  Now, we find out that there was a show yesterday that we were told 
was considered hateful because it believed what a majority of Americans 
does and what Moses believed and what Jesus believed, which is that 
marriage would be between a man and a woman.
  People like me are vilified--oh, you are hateful--but the people 
whose show was canceled made what sounded like a very Christian 
response of, look, we love homosexuals, we love all people, if you 
don't, then you are not following the teachings of Jesus, to be sure, 
but it doesn't mean that you have to support, embrace, encourage 
particular lifestyles that you believe are harmful to the individuals 
and harmful to society in general.
  So it is amazing that, in the name of liberality--in the name of 
being tolerant--this fascist intolerance has arisen. There are people 
who stand up and say: I agree with a majority of Americans--I agree 
with Moses and Jesus--that marriage is between a man and a woman.
  Now, all of a sudden, people like me are considered haters--
hatemongers--evil, which really is exactly what we have seen throughout 
our history, going back to the days of the Nazi takeover in Europe.
  What did they do?
  First, they would call people haters and evil and would build up 
disdain for those people who held those opinions or religious views or 
religious heritages. Then next came: those people are so evil and 
hateful, so let's bring every book that they have written or has to do 
with them, and let's start burning the books because we can't tolerate 
their intolerance.
  As shrinks testified before me during my days as a judge, it was 
called projecting. It is those who have a characteristic and to divert 
condemnation on themselves, they project their characteristic on 
someone with whom they disagree--so the most intolerant in America.
  Then especially people like they who were going to be on the 
television show before it was canceled--people like me--yes, we can get 
upset. We can't stand to see our Nation torn apart. We can't stand to 
see our Judeo-Christian values, on which the Nation was founded, 
demeaned, depicted as somehow evil.
  We stand up for those things, but there is no hate for individuals, 
yet those who are the most hate-filled, who do not follow the teachings 
of Jesus, seek to impose or to project upon those of us who are 
Christians--and some orthodox Jews and even atheists or secularists, 
like Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali--their own hate, their own intolerance. We 
really need to understand what is going on.
  It is not tolerance that becomes intolerant and says a woman who was 
tortured--I don't know what else you would call some of the procedures 
that were done to her most private areas in the name of religion. It 
was not voluntary.
  She was ordered into a marriage she wanted no part of. She did not 
want to have to be covered up and stay in a back room and never own 
property and never drive. She kind of thought, like most of us do in 
America, except for the intolerant fascist liberals, that: gee, women 
ought to be able to own property, we ought to be able to marry whom we 
wish, we ought to be able to espouse our own views without being called 
hatemongers.
  Brandeis University chose to honor the intolerant and turn against 
someone who went through a living hell in Somalia. Because she has 
stood up for what she believes, including in the Netherlands, and put 
together a film with Mr. van Gogh, her partner was assassinated--
murdered; yet Brandeis University, in having some cowards in the 
administration, without one fraction of the courage of Ms. Hirsi Ali, 
says: we are going to back off and not honor this woman who has 
overcome so much.
  To honor someone doesn't necessarily mean that you embrace everything 
about his life. Like I say, I stand in tribute to a woman who has 
overcome so much, who has been fighting against the true war against 
women.
  I don't believe at all in her religious views as, apparently, an 
atheist, but I can recognize this is a woman of courage, that she is a 
woman who is brilliant, who has overcome so much.
  It is really heartbreaking that universities around this country, 
which were once beacons to debate and to disagreement, have now been 
taken over by so many liberal fascist cowards that, if you disagree 
with something they think or if you disagree with something somebody 
who is more violent than you thinks, then they are going to succumb to 
the fascist violence and say: oh, we don't want to snub you, really, 
but there is this other group over here that may get violent with us if 
we stand up for your rights and acknowledge your courage.
  So we are going to be cowards, and we are not going to acknowledge 
your amazing courage. We are going to snub you because we are afraid of 
these people who may become violent.

  You have to wonder if the State Department of the United States, 
under the leadership of Secretary Hillary Clinton, may not have 
succumbed to this same type of fear: gee, we don't want to make the 
terrorists mad, so let's don't stir them up.
  There was a time, for example, when Thomas Jefferson was President 
and radical Islamists in northern Africa were attacking American ships 
and taking crews hostage and selling them back to America if we came up 
with the price required, the extortion fee.
  Jefferson finally had had enough and had sent this group of--at that 
time--men, called Marines. They went to the shores of Tripoli, and they 
fought with everything they had against the radical Islamists.
  They fought hard enough and showed that we were not weaklings who 
would lay down in the face of Islamist terrorism, but that we would 
fight. Those Marines fought hard enough that the radical Islamists 
said, okay, all right, we will leave you alone--because that is all 
radical Islamists understand.
  We have this article from The Wall Street Journal, May 8, written by 
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is the same lady I was just speaking about. She 
knows something about radical Islam. She has had people she has cared 
about and loved killed by radical Islam. She, herself, was physically 
harmed by radical Islam.
  She knows a lot about it, and she also knows about intolerance, the 
type that was seen--and the lack of courage--at Brandeis University. 
Hopefully,

[[Page H4050]]

someday, someone at Brandeis will recall the Jewish influence in the 
university that understood the threat of intolerance--like fascist 
intolerance--and, instead of succumbing to fascist intolerance, stand 
up and acknowledge courage and extraordinary human behavior.
  For those who may be tempted to say: Now, Louie, how in the world 
could you put radical Islam and fascism or the Nazis together?
  All one would have to do is look back at the history prior to and 
during World War II, and the connection was already made. The alliances 
were made. One type of intolerance, Nazi fascism, seemed to ally and 
work well and become allies of radical Islamist fascists.
  In this Wall Street Journal article, as Hirsi Ali says:

       Since the kidnapping of 276 school girls in Nigeria last 
     month, the meaning of Boko Haram--the name used by the 
     terrorist group that seized the girls--has become more widely 
     known. The translation from the Hausa language is usually 
     given in English language media as ``Western Education is 
     Forbidden,'' though ``Non-Muslim Teaching is Forbidden'' 
     might be more accurate.
       But little attention has been paid to the group's formal 
     Arabic name: Jam'at Ahl as-Sunnah lidda'wa wal-Jihad. That 
     roughly translates as ``The Fellowship of the People of the 
     Tradition for Preaching and Holy War.'' That's a lot less 
     catchy than Boko Haram, but is significantly more revealing 
     about the group and its mission. Far from being an aberration 
     among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko 
     Haram in his goals and methods is, in fact, all too 
     representative.

                              {time}  1300

       The kidnapping of the schoolgirls throws into bold relief a 
     central part of what the jihadists are about: the oppression 
     of women.
       Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off 
     enslaved than educated. The terrorists' mission is no 
     different from that of the Taliban assassin who shot and 
     nearly killed 15-year-old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai--as she 
     rode a schoolbus home in 2012--because she advocated girls' 
     education. As I know from experience, nothing is more 
     anathema to the jihadists than equal and educated women.
       How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who 
     these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism 
     as ``Islamophobes'' than to stand up for women's most basic 
     rights. Where are the Muslim college-student organizations 
     denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday 
     prayers? These girls' lives deserve more than a Twitter 
     hashtag protest--

  As we saw from former Secretary Hillary Clinton.
  Back to the article. It says:

       Organizations like Boko Haram do not arise in isolation. 
     The men who establish Islamist groups, whether in Africa 
     (Nigeria, Somalia, Mali), Southeast Asia (Afghanistan, 
     Pakistan), or even Europe (UK, Spain and the Netherlands) are 
     members of long-established Muslim communities, most of whose 
     members are happy to lead peaceful lives. To understand why 
     the jihadists are flourishing, you need to understand the 
     dynamics within those communities.

  I might insert parenthetically that the Muslims who wish to live in 
peace can be and are our friends. Though we disagree on our religious 
beliefs completely, we can be friends.
  I was with my dear friends Michele Bachmann and Congressman Dr. 
Michael Burgess, and I turned to see a very surprised look on their 
face when we made it through the midst of the Afghanistan capital. 
There were people holding rocket-propelled grenades as we turned down 
the alley to get to the Masood family compound.
  We pulled into the gate in the drive there within the inner part and 
I saw my Muslim friends coming out on the porch and down the stairs.
  So I jumped out. And I looked back and saw they looked a little 
surprise as I jumped out and these well-known Muslim Northern Alliance 
members spread their arms open wide, as I did, and we embraced strong, 
heartfelt embraces. Because I knew what they had been through in 
fighting radical Islam. I know that they do not want radical Islam 
taking back Afghanistan when we leave.
  I know that because this administration has turned its back on those 
Muslim non-extremists, we are putting their lives in danger as we leave 
them to the radical Islamist extremists poised and ready to take over 
in the vacuum that we leave. We owe our allies who fought and defeated 
the Taliban by early 2002 better than that.
  And my heart breaks as I think about the absolute horrors that will 
unfold in Afghanistan as our former allies have to defend themselves 
against radical Islam because they dare to be our friends and allies. 
That is no way to treat people who fought with you, for you, for 
themselves, because of that common desire not to be under the yoke and 
threat and hate of radical Islam.
  Back to Ms. Hirsi Ali's article. She says:

       So, imagine an angry young man in any Muslim community 
     anywhere in the world. Imagine him trying to establish an 
     association of men dedicated to the practice of Sunnah, (the 
     tradition of guidance from the Prophet Muhammad). Much of the 
     young man's preaching will address the place of women. He 
     will recommend that girls and women be kept indoors and 
     covered from head to toe if they are to venture outside. He 
     will also condemn the permissiveness of Western society.
       What kind of response will he meet? In the U.S. and in 
     Europe, some might quietly draw him to the attention of 
     authorities. Women might voice concerns about the attacks on 
     their freedom. But in other parts of the world, where law and 
     order are lacking, such young men and their extremist 
     messages thrive.
       Where governments are weak, corrupt or, nonexistent, the 
     message of Boko Haram and it counterparts is especially 
     compelling. Not implausibly, they can blame poverty on 
     official corruption and offer as an antidote the pure 
     principles of the Prophet. And in these countries, women are 
     more vulnerable and their options are fewer.
       But why does our imaginary young zealot turn to violence? 
     At first, he can count on some admiration for his fundamental 
     message within the community where he starts out. He might 
     encounter opposition from established Muslim leaders who feel 
     threatened by him. But he perseveres because perseverance in 
     the Sunnah is one of the most important keys to heaven. As he 
     plods on from door to door, he gradually acquires a 
     following. There comes a point when his following is as large 
     as that of the Muslim community's established leaders. That's 
     when the showdown happens--and the argument for ``holy war'' 
     suddenly makes sense to him.
       The history of Boko Haram has followed precisely this 
     script. The group was founded in 2002 by a young Islamist 
     called Mohammed Yusuf, who started out preaching in a Muslim 
     community in the Borno State of northern Nigeria. He set up 
     an educational complex, including a mosque and an Islamic 
     school. For 7 years, mostly poor families flocked to hear his 
     message. But in 2009, the Nigerian government investigated 
     Boko Haram and ultimately arrested several members, including 
     Yusuf himself. The crackdown sparked violence that left about 
     700 dead. Yusuf soon died in prison--the government said he 
     was killed while trying to escape--but the seeds had been 
     planted. Under one of Yusuf's lieutenants, Abubakar Shekau, 
     Boko Haram turned to jihad.
       In 2011, Boko Haram launched its first terror attack in 
     Borno. Four people were killed, and from then on violence 
     became an integral part, if not the central part, of its 
     mission. The recent kidnappings--11 more girls were abducted 
     by Boko Haram on Sunday--join a litany of outrages, including 
     multiple car bombings and the murder of 59 schoolboys in 
     February. On Monday, as if to demonstrate its growing power, 
     Boko Haram launched a 12-hour attack in the city of 
     Gamboru Ngala, firing into the market crowds, setting 
     houses aflame, and shooting down residents who ran from 
     the burning buildings. Hundreds were killed.
       I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly 
     rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the 
     radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western 
     culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors 
     the denigration of women's most basic rights.

  This is Ms. Hirsi Ali saying this.
  She says:

       Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, 
     much more, to resist those in their mist who engage in this 
     type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of 
     holy war.

  Parenthetically here, Mr. Speaker, it should not have even required a 
FBI or CIA investigation into the older Tsarnaev brother to find out 
that he had been radicalized. It should not have required the Russians 
tipping our intelligence and the FBI that they were ignorant of how 
radicalized Tsarnaev had become. It shouldn't have required the FBI to 
go out to the mosque and make inquiry about Tsarnaev and what Muslim 
teachers he was drawn to, what Muslim books he was reading.
  It shouldn't have required that, but it did.
  Unfortunately, the FBI didn't do those things. Unfortunately, the FBI 
didn't even bother to notify the Boston police, as far as we can tell, 
that Tsarnaev had been radicalized--or, at least the Russians said he 
was--because I would be willing to bet if he

[[Page H4051]]

had, the Boston police would have gotten to the bottom of it before the 
Boston marathon bombing occurred.
  Ms. Hirsi Ali says in her article:

       It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they 
     choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at 
     their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an 
     isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism 
     that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to 
     the rights of women and girls.
       If my pointing this out offends some people more than the 
     odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it.

  It should be also pointed out Ms. Hirsi Ali is a fellow of the Belfer 
Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She is the founder of 
the AHA foundation.
  So I commend Harvard for having the courage to have someone to 
espouse the views that Ms. Hirsi Ali does. She has been there. She has 
courage.
  I hope and pray that universities across the United States, even 
though many of them are offered major Middle Eastern money if they will 
do this, and have a seminar on Islamaphobia and help eradicate anyone 
or any thought that radical Islam is a threat, and let's just suppress 
anything like that. I applaud universities that have the courage to do 
that. But too many don't. And they don't stand up as they should.
  And what is amazing is, we have people in this country and in this 
city and in the media who take the gutless position that they will try 
to portray Republicans or conservatives as hating women. Why? Because 
they know we are not going to kill them. We will disagree with them, we 
will debate them, we will say they are wrong, but we are not going to 
kill them because of what they believe.
  In Western society, in every State and Federal law it has always been 
true, except those that are allowing sharia law to creep in, but it has 
always been true that provoking words are never an offense to a 
physical assault. That is kind of 101 criminal law in most any law 
school, except, of course, if it is teaching sharia law.
  Under sharia law, provoking words, no matter how minor, can be the 
basis for capital punishment. You offend a radical Islamist, that is 
the basis for killing them.
  We have never believed that in Western society. As Judeo-Christian 
ideals have spread even among atheists, secularists, and other 
religious believers, that has been a good, sound doctrine. Provoking 
words--or a cartoon--may evoke anger and may provoke anger, but it 
should not provoke physical violence.

                              {time}  1315

  It is time liberals rose up with enough courage to say: You know 
what? Wow, there is a war against women, and it is killing women.
  There are laws in some places of radical Islam that say: if you are a 
woman who is raped, if you don't have four men who are respected 
Muslims who can stand up and be eyewitnesses that you were raped, then 
we may need to stone you to death for allowing such to occur.
  That is not an American ideal. That is a war on women. I have 
prosecuted, and I have sentenced enough rapists that it is something 
that is very difficult for me to sit and listen to, and to think that 
so many of the cases for which I sentenced rapists to prison could 
never have been brought and the woman would have to live in fear and 
horror if we were living under the kind of law where there really is a 
cultural war on women and, sometimes, a physical war on women.
  In the United States, I know families where the parents are 
Christians and the children chose not to believe in Jesus as Lord, and 
it breaks the hearts of the parents; but the thought would never, ever 
cross their mind to engage in violence.
  I have been told about someone we are trying to help, whose family 
was Islamist, radical, in another part of the world. When he became a 
Christian, that made him worthy of the death penalty. It made his child 
worthy of the death penalty, in their opinion. He has been killed.
  Other family members that have tried to help, who were moderate 
Muslims and didn't believe someone who became a Christian should be 
murdered, have paid the price with their lives.
  These things are happening around the world, and it is time liberals 
fought a more courageous fight and stood--and instead of screaming 
about Islamophobia, stood and said, you know, there are Muslim friends 
and allies, but there is a radical Islamist part in this world, a sect 
in this world that wants to kill, destroy anything, including what we 
consider to be innocent children, women, men.
  Until we confront that fact, this country is going to continue to be 
subjected to threats against American lives here and abroad. It is 
easier to attack Americans abroad.
  Americans, including this body--I mean, we were outraged at what 
happened to those Nigerian children, boys killed, the girls threatened 
with being sold into what basically would be a slave-type marriage. It 
is outrageous.
  So you wonder why in the world the State Department would not have 
the courage to take a stand. There was an excellent article by Andrew 
McCarthy, and he incorporates much of a fantastic article from Josh 
Rogin, from the Daily Beast, and it is dated May 8.
  It says:

       ``We must stand up to terrorism,'' bleated Hillary Clinton 
     a few days ago in a tweet expressing outrage against Boko 
     Haram, the jihadist organization that has abducted hundreds 
     of young girls in Nigeria. Yet, when she was actually in a 
     position to stand up to Boko Haram's terrorism as Secretary 
     of State, Ms. Clinton instead protected the group.
       Josh Rogin reports at the Daily Beast:
       The State Department under Hillary Clinton, fought hard 
     against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram 
     on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for 2 
     years; and now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are 
     saying that the decision may have hampered the American 
     government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that 
     shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
       While Ms. Clinton now issues indignant tweets, Rogin 
     elaborates on her failure to mention that her own State 
     Department refused to place Boko Haram on its list of foreign 
     terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the 
     U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the 
     urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over 
     a dozen Senators and Congressmen.
       ``The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had 
     at her disposal, she didn't use, and nobody can say she 
     wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy,'' said a former 
     senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. ``The 
     FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko 
     Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would 
     provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to 
     elected officials.''
       In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco 
     (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to 
     urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist 
     organization. The following month, General Carter Ham, the 
     chief of the U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram 
     provided a ``safe haven'' for al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb 
     and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group; 
     and yet, Hillary Clinton's State Department still declined to 
     place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.
       As Mr. Rogin further details, placing an organization on 
     the terrorist list enables the government to use various 
     investigative tools for law enforcement and intelligence-
     gathering purposes. It also squeezes the organization by 
     criminalizing the provision of material support to it and the 
     conduct of business with it.
       After numerous Boko Haram atrocities, Republicans attempted 
     to force Secretary Clinton to designate the group or explain 
     why she refused to do so. The State Department heavily 
     lobbied against the legislation. Only after John Kerry 
     replaced Clinton and after a series of jihadist bombings 
     against churches and other targets did the State Department 
     finally relent and add Boko Haram to the terrorist list last 
     November.
       The excuses now being offered in explanation for Clinton's 
     dereliction are specious. As Rogin explains, Clinton's State 
     Department claimed that Boko Haram was merely a local group 
     with parochial grievances that was not a threat to the United 
     States.
       Have a look, though, at the State Department's list here. 
     Several of the listed groups are waging local terrorist 
     campaigns that do not threaten our country, the Basque ETA, 
     the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Real Irish 
     Republican Army, et cetera. A significant reason for 
     having the list is to promote international cooperation 
     against terrorism and discourage its use against anyone, 
     anywhere. The fact that a terrorist organization may have 
     only local grievances and may not directly imperil the 
     U.S. has never been thought a reason to exclude it from 
     the list.
       Fox News has further reported about another rationale of 
     Clinton apologists: Hillary did not want to raise Boko 
     Haram's profile and assist its recruiting which, they reason, 
     would be the effect of designation by the Great Satan. That 
     is ridiculous. The main point of having the list and the 
     sanctions that accompany a terrorist designation is to

[[Page H4052]]

     weaken the organization by depriving of it assets and 
     material support. The logic of what Clinton supporters are 
     claiming is that U.S. counterterrorism law--much of which was 
     put in place by the administration of Bill Clinton--does more 
     harm than good. Does anyone think they really believe that?
       What happened here is obvious, although the commentariat is 
     loath to connect the dots. Boko Haram is an Islamic-
     supremacist organization. Ms. Clinton, like the Obama 
     administration more broadly, believes that appeasing 
     Islamists--avoiding actions that might give them offense, 
     slamming Americans who provoke them--promotes peace and 
     stability. See Egypt for a good example of how well this 
     approach is working.
       Furthermore, if you are claiming to have ``decimated'' al 
     Qaeda, as the Obama administration was claiming to have done 
     in the runup to the 2012 election, the last thing you want to 
     do is add jihadists to the terror list--or beef up security 
     at diplomatic posts in jihadist hot spots or acknowledge that 
     jihadists rioting in Cairo or jihadist attacks in Benghazi 
     are something other than ``protests'' inspired by ``an 
     Internet video.''
       It is very simple. Most of us on the national-security 
     right recognize that Islamic supremacism is an ideology 
     rooted in Muslim scripture--a strict, literal, ancient 
     interpretation of Muslim scripture, that is. Essentially, it 
     advocates the adoption of shari'a, Islam's legal code and 
     societal framework. It is not the only way of construing 
     Muslim scripture.

  And I add, fortunately.
  He said:

       And we certainly hope that more benign constructions become 
     dominant, but Islamic supremacism is far more mainstream than 
     the West likes to admit, particularly in the Middle East and 
     growing swaths of Africa. It is an ideology that endorses 
     violent jihad, the treatment of women as chattel, sex 
     slavery, child marriages, and the horrible stuff that outfits 
     like Boko Haram are into. Even though these organizations--
     quite naturally--terrorize locally, their aspirations are 
     global, and they are a threat to us because their ideology 
     unites them and regards the West as the enemy.
       The left, by contrast, seems to believe that 
     ``Islamists''--which are adherents of Islamic supremacism--
     are motivated not by an ideology derived from scriptural 
     commands, but by American policies that promote national 
     defense, pursue U.S. interests, and regard Israel as a key 
     ally. Indeed, progressives like Ms. Clinton are anti-
     antiterrorists in the sense that they portray the national 
     security right as a greater threat than Islamic supremacism.
       Ms. Clinton and her cohort do not deny that they are 
     terrorists motivated by Islam, but they see terrorists and 
     Islamists as separate categories, not united by single 
     ideology.

                              {time}  1330

  Anyway, the article goes on and makes very clear that there are too 
many in America who think they will just beat up on conservatives, beat 
up on Republicans, beat up on conservatives who have the same ideas 
about marriage that Barack Obama did during the campaign of 2008, that 
John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, people that were considered liberal 
did in prior years, to beat up on Americans who hold those same beliefs 
in the Bible. It is easier to beat up on conservatives because we are 
not going to kill you. We will argue with you. We will get frustrated 
with you.
  But real courage is found in people like Ms. Hirsi Ali who know that 
her life and their lives are at risk every day, every minute of every 
day because, to this supremacist ideology, provoking words are not only 
a defense, but they are a reason to kill people, to brutalize them 
unmercifully.
  And then we have this article from May 7 by Patrick Goodenough from 
CNSNews.

  A man displays copies of several local newspapers during a 
demonstration calling on the government to rescue the kidnapped 
schoolgirls outside defense headquarters in Abuja on Tuesday, May 6, 
2014.
  Secretary of State John Kerry, on Wednesday, underlined the issue of 
the poverty as a recruitment tool for extremist groups like Boko Haram, 
although analysts and Nigerian officials have for months been reporting 
that the organization is forcibly conscripting civilians, including 
children, into its ranks.
  During his recent Africa trip, leaders had told him that much of the 
challenge in confronting violent extremist groups like Boko Haram lies 
in fighting poverty, Kerry said at a Council of the Americas conference 
in Washington. ``They all talked about poverty and the need to 
alleviate poverty, and that much of this challenge comes out of this 
poverty where young people are grabbed at an early stage, proffered a 
little bit of money,'' he said. ``Their minds are bended, and then the 
money doesn't matter anymore. They've got the minds, and they begin to 
direct them into these very extreme endeavors.''
  The Islamist terrorist group has waged a violent campaign against 
Nigerian Christians and government targets since 2009, but shot to 
global prominence in recent weeks with its kidnapping of more than 200 
schoolgirls in the country's northeastern Borno State. Its leader has 
described them as ``slaves'' and is threatening to sell them or 
``marry'' them off.
  In a new attack this week, as many as 300 people were reportedly 
killed.
  But it is interesting. This follows the Obama administration's 
ideology campaign rhetoric: Gee, we are not at war with radical Islam. 
The real problem here is poverty. If we can eliminate poverty, then we 
can eliminate radical Islam. And that flies in the face of the facts.
  People that have looked under the surface at all are aware Osama bin 
Laden was wealthy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is credited with 
planning the 9/11, not tragedy, as might be said here, but murders of 
thousands of Americans and is proud of it, and he has said in his own 
pleadings that he, himself, prepared and that have been declassified: 
If our efforts on 9/11 caused you terror, then praise be to Allah. And 
he points out in his pleadings that it is Allah who has commanded them 
to be at war and kill people, such as Christians and Jews--Jews because 
they are vermin and, as Muslim Brothers have said, are descended from 
apes and pigs.
  But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his pleading, points out that also it 
is fine to kill Christians because they believe in a Holy Trinity. They 
believe and say that God had a Son, Jesus. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 
in his pleading, points out the verse in the Koran that there is no 
authorization to combine anyone or anything with Allah; and, therefore, 
if you do that, as Christians do, believing in the Holy Trinity, 
believing that Jesus is the Son of God, then that justifies capital 
punishment, killing you, torturing, whatever they care to do, because, 
under their way of thinking, you are worthy of death.
  Well, because of the approach of Secretary Clinton's State Department 
and of this administration, when the Egyptian people went to the 
streets by the millions--the estimates, 33 million. Even 20 million 
would have been larger than any protest in the history of the world. 
Morsi only claimed to have gotten around 13 million votes to be 
President. There were many who believed with all their hearts and had 
evidence, they say, that he got the vote by fraud. But threats were 
made behind the scenes: If you contest this election, people will die, 
and we will burn this country down.
  Well, when the Egyptian people--the moderate Muslims, the Christians, 
the Jews, the secularists--had had enough of radical Islam, they rose 
up and demanded Morsi's removal, as he continued to usurp more and more 
power not given to him under the constitution. And since the 
constitution didn't allow for impeachment, the only thing the people 
could do was rise up before he got the kind of power Chavez had in 
Venezuela. Because when a dictator begins pulling power into himself, 
you have got to stop him early, or it will cost so many more lives.
  And that is why this was one of the banners that Egyptian protesters 
held up. On one half, an American flag with a green checkmark; on the 
other half, they had our great President's face with a red x. What they 
were saying and what they made clear in other banners and statements 
was that this administration is supporting the radical Islamists, and 
that we moderate Muslims, we Christians, Jews, secularists, we don't 
want the Muslim Brotherhood, these radicals that have been properly 
classified as a terrorist organization.
  And this administration has kowtowed repeatedly, just as Brandeis 
University did, to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, who 
were cited by a U.S. district judge and upheld by the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals as being a front organization. They had plenty of 
evidence to support that they were a front organization for the Muslim 
Brotherhood and were related and working with the Holy Land Foundation, 
as it supported terrorism.

[[Page H4053]]

  It is time Americans woke up. The Egyptians certainly woke up as they 
raised their hands and said: We don't want radical Islam.
  Now, I don't agree with this, but this is what the Egyptians were 
marching around Egypt with. And why would they say Obama supports 
terrorism? It is because the United States, under this administration, 
supported Morsi, supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Egyptian 
people had had enough, and they decried anyone in the United States 
that was supporting these terrorists.
  And as some of us travel around the Middle East, moderate Muslim 
leaders say: Why are you not helping us in the war against terrorism 
anymore? You are helping the bad guys. You helped the al Qaeda-backed 
rebels in Libya.
  And as I speak, there are training camps in Libya, like there were in 
Afghanistan before we went in with less than 500 Americans. But we 
helped the Northern Alliance Muslims take out the radical Islamic 
Taliban.
  My friend is coming to the floor. He and I have traveled around those 
parts, and he had been engaged with many moderate Muslims in fighting 
the Russians, even, back before my predecessor Charlie Wilson was in 
Congress.
  I am very proud to consider him a friend. I am proud of the efforts 
we have made to reach out to our allies. It was my friend from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who introduced me to Massoud and General 
Dostum and so many of the moderate Muslims that just want out from 
under the oppression that radical Islam brings.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this week, I want to encourage those 
in Egypt who are standing up to radical Islam. I want to encourage 
universities to stand up against radical Islam and have the courage to 
recognize moderate Muslims who will stand up and have the courage to 
speak up against the real war on women in this world. And it is not by 
conservatives. It is by radical Islam.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOHMERT. My time is about expired, but I will certainly yield to 
the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to note for the gentleman--and I am 
sure we will have your support--that the gentlewoman from California, 
Loretta Sanchez, and myself today are starting a Support Egypt Caucus, 
which will be aimed at supporting General el-Sisi in his fight to make 
sure radical Islam does not take over Egypt and thus threaten the 
entire stability of the world.
  Mr. GOHMERT. And I greatly appreciated being with you and Ms. Sanchez 
in Egypt. And my dear friend from California knows good and well, I am 
totally on board. Count me in.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________