[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1645-1647]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 1646]]

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 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

[[Page 1647]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________