Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here on the floor to hear my friend from New Jersey's comments, very well thought through. And I feel sure we can find some commonality in our concerns and…
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here on the floor to hear my friend from New Jersey's comments, very well thought through. And I feel sure we can find some commonality in our concerns and appreciate the man's heart and mind. Thank you.
One of the things under the debt ceiling act that was passed early August was a requirement for a vote on a balanced budget amendment. There are different versions of a balanced budget amendment. One has most of the things we hold dear, not only a requirement of balancing the budget, but also
a cap to spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, and also an increased supermajority in order to pass any tax bills raising taxes.
My concern has been that we had a wave election last November. We got over 80 new conservative freshmen, and we haven't cut spending like we should. I am more and more compelled that we need a cap on spending. All of our Members support that. But the question will be: What version of a balanced budget amendment will come to the floor for a vote?
I really do appreciate the comments of my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). There's been a lot going on in the Middle East. And it's not looking very good for those who love freedom, the right to make their own choices, because you find in some of the documentation of those who have pushed, supported rebellion, the so-called Arab Spring, their definition of freedom is the freedom to live under shari'a law and be completely governed by shari'a law. That's the freedom that their Arab Spring brings.
And it's been interesting, there's an article here from the Washington Examiner by Gregory Kane. The title says, ``Obama Becomes `Silent Cal' on Libya, Shari'a.'' I'd just like to read this for the Record. And I'm inserting ``President'' into the mention of President Obama:
With each passing day, we're learning more and more about
the people President Obama tossed us into bed with in Libya.
Here's a headline from the London Daily Mail, a British
newspaper:
``Now the rebels impose Shariah law as Islamic rules become
`basic source' of Libyan legislation.''
In the story below the headline, readers learn from the
chairman of Libya's National Transition Council that the
country's new parliament will have ``an Islamist tint,'' that
``any existing laws contradicting the teachings of Islam
would be nullified'' and that men would be allowed to have as
many as four wives.
Again, the question must be put to Barack Hussein
``American Values'' Obama, president of the United States:
exactly how do Shariah law and polygamy reflect American
values?
Remember, when President Obama justified American and NATO
airstrikes in Libya to support the rebel forces that toppled
the regime of Moammar Qadhafi he claimed that preventing
bloodshed was an ``American value.''
But there was bloodshed aplenty, as least on the side of
Qadhafi forces. Qadhafi himself was a victim of the
bloodshed, and the circumstances of his death that have come
to light shed more light on what a sham Obama's claim of
acting to preserve American values really is.
In a separate London Daily Mail story about Qadhafi's
death, the paper printed the photo of an unidentified rebel
who claimed he was the one who killed Qadhafi.
``We grabbed [Qadhafi],'' the young man said. ``I hit him
in the face. Some fighters wanted to take him away and that's
when I shot him, twice, in the face and in the chest.''
Later, it was revealed that more was done to Qadhafi than
this young rebel merely shooting him in the face and chest.
Some reports say that, before he died, Qadhafi was
sodomized with either a knife, bayonet or some other sharp
object.
So let's recap:
President Obama commits American forces--as part of NATO.
I'll parenthetically add, when he did not have the sense to come before Congress and make the case here, as many of us on both sides of the aisle have been advocating. No matter who the President is, Republican, Democrat, if you can't come to Congress and make the case as to why American lives and American treasure should be put at risk, is it really something we ought to be doing as a country?
Now, resuming with the article:
1. President Obama commits American forces--as part of
NATO--to supporting a rebel faction in Libya whose goal is to
overthrow Qadhafi. Obama does this while having absolutely no
clue about what kind of people make up this rebel faction.
2. The rebel forces prevail, primarily through NATO
airstrikes. It was a NATO airstrike that took out a Qadhafi
convoy fleeing Sirte that allowed rebel forces to capture the
deposed Libyan leader.
3. Qadhafi ends up in the hands of what can only be
considered a mob. He is beaten, tortured, possibly sodomized,
and fatally shot in what has been oxymoronically described as
``mob justice.'' His body is then put on public display in a
meat store.
4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flies into Libya and
announces, with the smug arrogance we might expect from an
official from Obama's administration, ``We came, we saw, he
[Qadhafi] died.''
5. Leaders of Libya's National Transition Council announce
that Shariah law will prevail in Libya.
6. President Obama is mum on No. 5.
He--President Obama--hasn't said one word about the
blatantly false account of Qadhafi's death that interim
Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril initially gave
reporters.
He hasn't condemned the ``mob justice'' that led to
Qadhafi's death, the beating, the torture, the alleged
sodomizing. He hasn't mumbled so much as a syllable about
Qadhafi's body being put on display in a meat store.
Obama hasn't said one word about Shariah being the law of
the land in the new Libya. The man who was unavoidable for
comment when it came to justifying American intervention in
Libya has now pulled a complete Harpo Marx Act.
On this issue, Obama--President Obama--has made ``Silent''
Cal Coolidge look like a motor mouth.
That's an article from Gregory Kane in the Washington Examiner.
Then, interestingly, from the American Thinker, an article by Andrew Bostom, ``Liberated Libya: Al Qaeda Flag Aloft Benghazi's Courthouse.''
The courthouse in Benghazi, is the iconic seat of the
revolt which toppled Qadhafi--Libya's ``(im) moral
equivalent'' to Egypt's Tahrir Square. During the tumultuous
months of Libya's brutal civil war, it was here that rebel
forces established a provisional government, and
propagandistic media center, crowing to foreign journalists
about their ``heroic'' struggle ``for freedom.''
[Picture of al Qaeda flag]
One can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of
al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi's courthouse.
I've got a blowup of that right here.
Just so those who felt so compelled to assist members of al Qaeda, we knew they were members of al Qaeda. We didn't know how many were part of the Libyan rebel forces, but we knew there were members of al Qaeda. We knew that there were people who were rebelling against Qadhafi, that as much as they wanted to kill Qadhafi want to kill Americans. And now we also know NATO forces, as the President kept saying, Oh, no, we're going to leave that to NATO forces. The United States military makes up 65 percent of NATO's military. It's American.
So let's look and recap the good that we've done in supporting those members of al Qaeda who took out Qadhafi, with whom this administration had lawful dealings before they decided to support taking him out and, hiding under NATO's name, took action to see that he was thrown out and, now, killed, brutalized.
So here we are, the al Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi. That's the daylight photo. Over here on this third we have the nighttime photo; and, once again, there is the al Qaeda flag waving proudly over that historic courthouse in Benghazi.
Going back to the article from the American Thinker:
According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving
brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the
city's streets at night shouting, ``Islamiya, Islamiya! No
East, nor West,'' a reference to previous worries that the
country would be bifurcated between Qadhafi opponents in the
east and the pro Qadhafi elements in the west.
Elhelwa adds these salient details:
Earlier this week, I went to the Benghazi courthouse and
confirmed the rumors: an al Qaeda flag was clearly visible;
its Arabic script declaring that ``there is no God but
Allah'' and a full moon underneath. When I tried to take
pictures, a Salafi-looking guard, wearing a green camouflage
outfit, rushed towards me and demanded to know what I was
doing. My response was straightforward: I was taking a
picture of the flag. He gave me an intimidating look and
hissed, ``Whomever speaks ill of this flag, we will cut off
his tongue''
How about that for an American value?
``I recommend that you don't publish these. You will bring
trouble to yourself.''
What glorious American values. Our President assured us that, without the support of Congress, without even a debate in Congress, he had to rush headlong into helping these people that turns out are, as we were concerned might be, al Qaeda. We had to help al Qaeda, with whom we had declared war, basically, by the President of the United States after 9/ 11 because they had declared war on us. And so this President, without coming and having a debate, decides he's going to go help these people before he knew who all exactly we were helping because they reflect American values.
Going back to the article. The author says:
``He followed me inside the courthouse, but luckily my
driver Khaled was close by, and interceded on my behalf.
According to Khaled, the guard had angrily threatened to
harm me. When I again engaged him in conversation, he told me
``this flag is the true flag of Islam'' . . .
Well, how about those American values that our President used our treasure, put our military members at risk in order to effectuate? Now we've got the al Qaeda flag flying in Libya, in Benghazi, over the historic courthouse that was the headquarters during the assault on Qadhafi.
We found out on 9/11 there were people in the world who were at war with us, and it turns out they had been at war with us at least since Iran, since those days when a naive but well-intentioned President named Carter had declared the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace coming to Iran. The same President who gave away the Panama Canal that so many valued Americans lost their lives digging, creating, defending, was given away. There will be a price to pay for that at some point down the road by this country.
But we're already paying the price and have been since 1979 for the administration at that time while I was in the Army at Fort Benning watching those things happen, knowing it was a crime for me as a military member to criticize anybody in the chain of command, which was President Carter. We had to bite our tongues as we watched that administration welcome in the Ayatollah Khomeini.
So many lives have been lost. So many people tortured, killed. We've got Christians on the run all over the Middle East, Christians being killed around the Middle East. The last Christian church has now closed in Afghanistan that we sent American treasure and lives, lost so many American lives in order to rout the Taliban. And then we turn the country over to what the people there tell us is a very, very corrupt administration. Having met with leaders of the Northern Alliance with a few other Members of Congress, it's clear we have not done a good thing enforcing a centralized government in a country that cannot sustain it without mass corruption and brutality.
We also know from the recent comments of Karzai himself he's prepared to make peace and be an ally of people sworn to destroy us.
Afghanistan can be salvaged, but we have to be smart in the way that we do that. At the same time, we know that more of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia than from any other country. It certainly appears that there are people in Saudi Arabia who have made massive amounts of money because of our dependence on their oil who have used that money to fund terrorism that has been used against the United States to kill our precious men and women of our military.
We need to become energy independent. We need to get rid of any Department that has had as its avowed goal for 32 years to get off dependence on foreign energy and every year has done a poorer and poorer job of that, although they have made some nice contributions for people at Solyndra and other bankrupt companies. It's time to get rid of the Energy Department.
It's time to get serious about stopping the dependence on foreign energy. We know we've got enough natural gas. We can actually do that now. We have at least 100 years of use of natural gas. And I am fine taking a percentage of the royalties the Federal Government could get off of natural gas produced, oil produced on our own land, our own Federal land, and using it toward alternative energy. But I am not, as most of my friends here, are not in favor of borrowing more money to throw at companies like Solyndra that cannot make it on their own.
Or like the solar company in Nevada, the friends of Leader Harry Reid also getting massive money, 42, 44 cents of every dollar, which we had to borrow to throw at their friends who had gone bankrupt.
It's time we started using some common sense. You don't rush in to help in a rebellion until you know who you're helping, and this administration did not do that because to think that they knew who we were helping is really unthinkable.
That's my hope and prayer that this administration did not understand who it was helping who would one day fly al Qaeda flags over a building where housed the Government in Libya.
And we have sat idly by and watched Iran grow greater and stronger in strength in its move toward creating nuclear weapons, just as my Democratic friend from New Jersey was talking about, Iran getting closer and closer to having nuclear weapons. Plural. Our strong ally in the Middle East, who is becoming surrounded by those who want to take it out, Israel, is at threat for losing its very existence, an existence that was acknowledged and affirmed unanimously in the United Nations before it was taken over by people who sympathize with those who fly the al Qaeda flag.
Back in those days, it was a unanimous decision: How could a country, a Jewish state like Israel, not be created after the worst genocide, Holocaust, in the history of man?
They needed a country of their own, and what better place than in a place where King David ruled 1,400 years before there was a man named Mohammed, 1,400 years before the creation of modern-day Islam.
Well, I'm proud to say that Joel Rosenberg is a friend of mine. I was visiting with him last night. He's got a brand-new book out. Can't wait to read it. Joel Rosenberg has an article in the Washington Times, Friday, October 21, needs to be entered in the Record, and I'll do so by reading it.
The headline, the title is ``Confronting the threat from Iran.''
Joel Rosenberg writes:
The brazen Iranian terrorist plot to assassinate the Saudi
ambassador, kill Americans and blow up the Saudi and Israeli
embassies in Washington was a wake-up call. The radical
regime in Tehran has crossed a red line. Iran has murdered
Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon over the years.
Now it appears to have ordered terrorist attacks inside our
nation's capital. Should this prove true, Iran has engaged in
an act of war.
Now the question is: Who will neutralize the threat from
Iran before' the mullahs finish building nuclear warheads and
the ballistic missile systems to deliver them?
``The international community must stop Iran before it's
too late,'' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned
in his United Nations speech last month. If Iran is not
stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism,
and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. . .
. The world around Israel is definitely becoming more
dangerous.''
``Iran has not abandoned its nuclear program. The opposite
is true; it continues full steam ahead,'' warned Maj. Gen.
Eyal Eisenberg, home-front command chief for the Israel
Defense Forces, in a September speech. He warned that the
Arab Spring could turn into a ``radical Islamic winter'' and
``this raises the likelihood of an all-out, total war, with
the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used.''
The Obama administration is not taking decisive action to
neutralize Iran. President Obama's policy of engagement with
the mullahs has morphed into a policy of appeasement, and it
has failed. Yet the White House has all but taken the use of
force off the table. In September 2009, then-Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates said, ``The reality is, there is no
military option that does anything more than buy time.'' In
April 2010, the New York Times reported that Mr. Gates had
``warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House
officials that the United States does not have an effective
long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady progress
toward nuclear capability.'' Little has changed in the past
18 months. What's more, the administration is pressuring
Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran
despite the growing threat of a second Holocaust.
The American people, however, expect and deserve better. A
bipartisan poll conducted in September by Democrat Pat
Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin found that 77 percent
of Americans think the Obama administration's current polices
toward stopping Iran's nuclear program ``will fail.'' About
63 percent of Americans think Iran is the nation posing the
greatest threat to us, ahead of China and North Korea.
Remarkably, 63 percent of Americans also approve of pre-
emptive military action against Iran if economic sanctions do
not stop its nuclear program.
And they have not.
It is very clear that these sanctions have not slowed Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. It appears very clear to those who look very long and who study the issue very long that Iran is counting on developing nuclear weapons before the sanctions totally cripple them, because they know, when they get nuclear weapons, they can then use them to extort the removal of the sanctions. They will not work in time. It's time to face up to that.
Going back to Joel Rosenberg's article:
War, of course, is not the preferred solution. There are a
range of options a serious
American president could take to neutralize the Iranian
threat. But none of them is likely to work unless the
president is willing to publicly put the military option on
the table and order the Pentagon to accelerate planning for
massive airstrikes and special operations.
Will any of the Republican candidates for president step
up? Articulating pro-growth economic policies is vital to the
2012 campaign, to be sure, but the GOP candidates must not
drink the Kool-Aid that the economy is all that matters to
the American people. To the contrary, anyone who is asking
for the Republican nomination must articulate a clear,
compelling and detailed strategy for neutralizing the threat
posed by the apocalyptic, genocidal death cult in Tehran.
At the next debate, each of the Republican candidates for
president should be pressed to directly answer the following
questions:
1. As president of the United States, what specific actions
would you take to stop Iran from obtaining and deploying
nuclear weapons and using terrorism to advance its Islamic
Revolution?
2. If you had intelligence that Iran was on the verge of
building operational nuclear weapons, would your
administration support an Israeli preemptive military strike
on Iran's nuclear facilities?
3. Would you as president seriously consider ordering a
pre-emptive strike by U.S. military forces to neutralize the
Iranian nuclear threat?
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently delivered a
foreign-policy address in South Carolina in which he raised
the Iranian threat. ``Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear
weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the
world's oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of
Hormuz?'' Mr. Romney asked. ``In the hands of the ayatollahs,
a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to
Israel. Iran's suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.''
Mr. Romney noted that he would ``begin discussions with
Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and
coordination'' and would ``reiterate that Iran obtaining a
nuclear weapon is unacceptable.'' However, he did not
specifically discuss how he would stop Iran from getting the
bomb and sponsoring terrorist attacks.
Businessman Herman Cain has soared into the top tier of
presidential candidates with a bold pro-growth tax-
simplification plan, but he has spoken little of foreign
policy. He has identified Iran as one of America's most
serious national security threats and has been clear about
his strong support for Israel. Drawing on his experience as a
civilian contractor for the U.S. Navy working on ballistic-
missile projects, Mr. Cain rightly has called for enhanced
missile defenses to blunt an Iranian nuclear threat ``I would
make it a priority to upgrade all of our Aegis surface-to-air
ballistic-missile defense capabilities of all of our
warships, all the way around the world,'' Mr. Cain told the
Values Voter Summit in Washington earlier this month. ``Make
that a priority, and then say to [Iranian President Mahmoud]
Ahmadinejad, `Make my Day.' '' His instincts are right, but
missile defenses are insufficient to neutralize the Iranian
threat.
Few of the GOP candidates better understand the Iranian
threat--and the dangerous end-times theology of the current
Iranian leadership, which is preparing for the coming of the
Shia messiah known as the ``Twelfth Imam''--than former Sen.
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Thus far, however, he has not
made Iran a major element of his campaign. Former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas Gov.
Rick Perry have barely mentioned the issue, though certainly
they understand the dangers.
Only Rep. Ron Paul among the Republican contenders doesn't
grasp the seriousness of the twin Iranian threats of
terrorism and nuclear weapons. ``One can understand why [the
mullahs] might want to become nuclear-capable, if only to
defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully,'' Mr.
Paul has written. The congressman opposes economic sanctions
on Iran. He opposes pre-emptive strikes on Iran. Indeed, Mr.
Paul has indicated he does not have a problem with Iran
acquiring nuclear weapons because he doesn't think the
mullahs in Tehran would actually use such weapons against
their enemies. What's more, he has stated that he would not
come to Israel's defense if Iran fired nuclear weapons at the
Jewish state.
This article by Joel Rosenberg is an excellent article, and it used to be taken seriously.
Knowing Herman Cain personally, Governor Rick Perry personally, Michele Bachmann personally, Rick Santorum personally, Newt Gingrich personally, I know they're all concerned about it, but because of the way the debates have been structured, this has not been an issue that has been pushed. I know all of those individuals well enough to know their hearts and to know they do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that they will do what's necessary to prevent it. The trouble is none of those individuals will become President or even have the chance to become President for 18 months.
It's time that the American people convinced the American President of this, who helped create the situation where al Qaeda--our enemies, our sworn enemies who want to destroy it--can fly their flags over the Libyan courthouse. It was more than the Libyan courthouse. It was the brief capital, the headquarters, for the people that this President chose to help.
A dangerous time.
Now, I have filed House Resolution 271. It has got a slew of cosponsors. They're all Republican, but I would hope that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would join in with us on this.
Madam Speaker, I would hope that people would encourage their Members of Congress to sign on if they support what's here.
Basically, most of this resolution--it's not terribly long; it's just six pages--and most of that are whereas clauses stating facts.
The text is as follows:
H. Res. 271
Whereas archeological evidence exists confirming Israel's
existence as a nation over 3,000 years ago in the area in
which it currently exists, despite assertions of its
opponents;
Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national
liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago,
the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in
the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion;
Whereas in 1922, the League of Nations mandated that the
Jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the Land of
Israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded;
Whereas in the aftermath of the Nazi-led Holocaust from
1933 to 1945, in which the Germans and their collaborators
murdered 6,000,000 Jewish people in a premeditated act of
genocide, the international community recognized that the
Jewish state, built by Jewish pioneers must gain its
independence from Great Britain;
Whereas the United States was the first nation to recognize
Israel's independence in 1948, and the State of Israel has
since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the United
States in the Middle East;
Whereas the United States and Israel have a special
friendship based on shared values, and together share the
common goal of peace and security in the Middle East;
Whereas, on October 20, 2009, President Barack Obama
rightly noted that the United States-Israel relationship is a
``bond that is much more than a strategic alliance.'';
Whereas the national security of the United States, Israel,
and allies in the Middle East face a clear and present danger
from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seeking
nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to
deliver them;
Whereas Israel would face an existential threat from a
nuclear weapons-armed Iran;
Whereas President Barack Obama has been firm and clear in
declaring United States opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran,
stating on November 7, 2008, ``Let me state--repeat what I
stated during the course of the campaign. Iran's development
of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable.'';
Whereas, on October 26, 2005, at a conference in Tehran
called ``World Without Zionism'', Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad stated, ``God willing, with the force of God
behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the
United States and Zionism'';
Whereas the New York Times reported that during his October
26, 2005, speech, President Ahmadinejad called for ``this
occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map'';
Whereas, on April 14, 2006, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
said, ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime [Israel] is
heading toward annihilation'';
Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
said, ``I must announce that the Zionist regime [Israel],
with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and
betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the
geographical scene'';
Whereas, on June 2, 2008, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
said, ``Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of
the United States has come, and the countdown to the
annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has
started'';
Whereas, on May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested a
surface-to-surface long range missile with an approximate
range of 1,200 miles;
Whereas Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons;
Whereas Iran has been caught building three secret nuclear
facilities since 2002;
Whereas Iran continues its support of international
terrorism, has ordered its proxy Hizbullah to carry out
catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the
bombing of the Jewish AMIA Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
in 1994, and could give
a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future;
Whereas Iran has refused to provide the International
Atomic Energy Agency with full transparency and access to its
nuclear program;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803
states that according to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, ``Iran has not established full and sustained
suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing
activities and heavy-water-related projects as set out in
resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) nor
resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional
Protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA
Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of
Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747
(2007) . . .'';
Whereas at July 2009's G-8 Summit in Italy, Iran was given
a September 2009 deadline to start negotiations over its
nuclear programs and Iran offered a five-page document
lamenting the ``ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global
relations'' and included various subjects, but left out any
mention of Iran's own nuclear program which was the true
issue in question;
Whereas the United States has been fully committed to
finding a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat,
and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and
to determine if such a resolution is even possible;
Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with
Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to
prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; and
Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said in January
2011 that a change of course in Iran will not be possible
``without a credible military option that is put before them
by the international community led by the United States'':
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
for its threats of ``annihilating'' the United States and the
State of Israel, for its continued support of international
terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli
people;
(2) supports using all means of persuading the Government
of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons;
(3) reaffirms the United States bond with Israel and
pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and
the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation
continues to receive critical economic and military
assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to
address the threat of Iran; and
(4) expresses support for Israel's right to use all means
necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by
Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and
safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military
force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a
reasonable time.
That's House Resolution 271. And I certainly hope that more Members of Congress will join us in supporting that position because time is running out.
It is also my hope and prayer that the rumors that have gone around about what this administration has told Israel behind closed doors do not have support. In fact, that's my hope and prayer. Because if this administration were to be telling Israel behind closed doors that if they move to protect themselves against a nuclear attack by Iran without the United States' permission--which would not be given--then Israel, since they do not have all of our stealth capability, do not have the most sophisticated bombs we have, will likely lose many planes and will be in need of replacement planes and parts.
I hope and pray that the rumor that they're telling them, we will not support them with replacement planes, replacement parts if they defend themselves, is not true. But this President, though he's been so vocal about why we needed to go support Libya, why it was in our American values, interest, has not talked a lot about what he's telling Israel behind the scenes.
Israel is in grave danger. We have been a friend because we believe in the same value of human life, the same value of freedom, of liberty. We owe it to them, our friends, our allies.
If we're not going to have the nerve to take action against a country that is sworn to be at war with us and to destroy us and take us out at all costs, then we should at least not stand in the way of a friend who wants to do so.
I have a few more things I want to cover here. There's an article from National Review online from The Corner by Andrew McCarthy, another brilliant man and, I'm proud to say, a dear friend. The headline: ``Did Obama appointee access confidential database in effort to smear Perry as `Islamophobe'?''
At PJM, terrorism researcher Patrick Poole reports that
Mohamed Elibiary, an appointee on President Obama's Homeland
Security Advisory Council, is in hot water with the Texas
Department of Public Safety (TDPS). The issue is whether
Elibiary used his privileged access to a state law-
enforcement database to acquire intelligence reports and then
tried to shop them to the media, urging that they showed
rampant ``Islamophobia'' at TDPS under Governor Rick Perry.
Poole says no story was published because, according to one
press source, there was ``nothing remotely resembling
Islamophobia'' in the leaked reports. The source told Poole,
``I think [Elibiary] was hoping we would bite and not give it
too much of a look in light of other media outfits jumping on
the Islamophobia bandwagon.''
The Islamophobia bandwagon was the subject of my column
last weekend. Seems there are plenty of Islamists and
Leftists climbing aboard.
Elibiary, you'll no doubt be stunned to learn, was also on
the Obama DHS's working group on ``countering violent
extremism.'' That's the brain-trust that helped devise the
new Obama counterterrorism strategy I outlined (here and
here) a few weeks back--the one that envisions having law-
enforcement pare back their intelligence-gathering activities
and take their marching orders from ``community partners.'' I
call the new strategy ``factophobia.''
As noted by Poole and the Investigative Project on
Terrorism, Elibiary's history includes an appearance at a
conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini; condemning the
Justice Department's successful prosecution of a Hamas-
financing conspiracy designed by the Muslim Brotherhood (the
Holy Land Foundation case); praise for Brotherhood theorist
Sayyid Qutb; and an aggressive email exchange with Rod Dreher
in 2006 (when Dreher, at the Dallas Morning News, countered
Elibiary's praise for Qutb), in which Elibiary reportedly
called Dreher ``a Klansman without a hood'' [ACM: I think
that means ``Islamophobe'' and warned him: ``Treat people as
inferiors and you can expect someone to put a banana in your
exhaust pipe or something.''
Who better could President Obama possibly choose to help
formulate counterterrorism strategy? Actually, once you read
the strategy, I think you'll agree that he made a perfect
choice.
Then we have another article from National Review Online, again from Andrew McCarthy. Headline, ``Napolitano: On Elibiary, I know Nothing. I Know Nothing * * * ''
He said that Secretary Napolitano ``professes not to know anything about the matter''--he's talking about Elibiary--``or about how I got a guy who appears at a conference honoring Ayatollah Khomeini, who praises Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb, and who condemns the Justice Department's successful prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood's Hamas financing network (the Holy Land Foundation case), somehow winds up on the Department of Homeland Security advisory council that helped devise the Obama administration's counterterrorism policy.''
Actually, it turns out, as Secretary Napolitano testified, that actually she, as the Secretary of Homeland Security, gave this gentleman the secret security clearance which ultimately allowed him to access sensitive documents, at least three of which he downloaded and then tried to market to major media sources.
It is important to note that in the pleading that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed filed--and he is a very smart man. He may be crazy, but he is a very smart man. He did his own interpretation in English, so some of the articles are not quite appropriate, but he sets out a legal document and justifies all of the actions he took in working on 9/11's murder of 3,000 Americans. He takes verses from the Koran and uses them to justify his actions.
At one point in his pleading, which we have access to through our Web site--and this was declassified by the judge in the 9/11 cases involving five planners of 9/11. It was ordered released on the 9th day of March, 2009, and there are also transcripts of his colloquy with the judge in which he confessed to many other acts of terrorism, quite voluntarily, it was obvious.
But in his pleading, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, on behalf of himself and the four other defendants who were ready to plead guilty, announced they were pleading guilty before this administration; and the Attorney General-to-be, Eric Holder, announced they were going to give these guys a show trial in New York. So they withdraw their guilty pleas so they could get a show trial in New York. Now that's not going to happen, and now it looks like, 4 years after these people agreed to
plead guilty, which will be December of next year, they will still not have been tried because of the actions of this administration.
But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says: We do not possess your military might, not your nuclear weapons; nevertheless, we fight you with the almighty God. So, if our act of jihad and our fighting with you caused fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted from your infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son and your Trinity beliefs.
Then he goes on and he says: God stated in his book, verse 151, Al- Umran, Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority; their place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers. That is just one part.
He also says: We ask to be near God. We fight you, destroy you, terrorize. You'll be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and America will fall politically, militarily, economically. Your end is very near, and your fall will be like the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day.
But this gentleman references that one of the reasons that it's okay to kill Americans is because many Americans believe there is a Holy trinity, a Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They believe that God had a son that Christians call the Messiah.
My time is running out, so let me direct you to the Treaty of Paris, 1783, such a historic document. The most powerful country in the world at that time, 1783, was Great Britain. They had the most powerful Navy, the most powerful military; and yet a ragtag bunch of people who believed so firmly in the ideas of freedom and being able to practice most of them--in fact, a third of the signers of the Declaration, they weren't just Christians; they, as Martin Luther King, Jr., were ordained Christian ministers, and they believed in freedom and that God was giving us a chance to govern ourselves.
So after this ragtag bunch defeated the strongest country in the world, Great Britain, and they sat down in 1783 in Paris, and we had there on our behalf John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, three of our brightest minds, they had to set about figuring out: What can we put on paper to have Great Britain sign that will be so important that they would not want to risk violating an oath? What kind of oath could we put on this treaty that Great Britain would be scared to violate?
This treaty will want them to recognize the United States of America. What can we do to make it serious enough that they would not turn around the next month and say we had no right to be independent despite what they signed? There is an original copy of the Treaty of Paris in the State Department. Tours can be taken, I've taken tons of tours around Washington, D.C. Until my pastor and his wife, David and Cindy Dykes, were in town years back, I had not seen that. But I was taken aback, and I've got a copy of--this is a duplicate--of the Treaty of Paris, two pages, well, it's the first and last page here. There are 10 articles, so we've got the first and last pages here.
So how would you start a treaty in such a way that it would scare the strongest country in the world from violating their oath? Well, they figured it out, and they put it on the document. The biggest letters anywhere in the treaty are those in the first two lines, and they began ``In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity.'' Starting the Treaty of Paris with ``In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity,'' they knew would be strong enough to scare Great Britain into not violating the oath that they signed on that document.
Then you tie it in with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's pleading, the very fact that they would sign such a document recognizing the Holy Trinity, according to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his interpretation of the Koran, that's justification for killing and terrorizing people that believe in the Holy undivided Trinity.
There's a war going on, and in Libya, apparently we fought for people who want to destroy us. The al Qaeda flag now flies proudly over this federal building in Benghazi, Libya. Congratulations to this administration for making that happen.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
