Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I'd like to recognize a former Member of Congress who represented the 2nd Congressional District of Texas which I represent. While the 2nd Congressional District has changed in shape over the years, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a unique Texan who served his constituents and country well during his 24 years in the House of Representatives.

Charlie Wilson served 12 terms (1973-1997) in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was well known for his personality as big as Texas and is perhaps best known for his work to covertly direct billions of U.S. dollars in arms to Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviets through his position on the House Appropriations Committee.

One of my favorite stories about Charlie Wilson is the story when as a young boy of 13 and living in Trinity, Texas, his dog Teddy got into the neighbor's yard. The neighbor, city official Charles Hazard, retaliated by mixing crushed glass into the dog's food. The dog died from internal bleeding. In response, Charlie decided to run for office against him in the next election. Charlie won by driving 96 voters from poor neighborhoods to the polls. Before they left the car, Charlie told them what Mr. Hazard had done to his dog Teddy. Charlie Wilson won that race by a margin of only 16 votes. This election started his political career.

Perhaps this event explains why he always fought for the underdog later in life. His efforts of aiding Afghans rebels with appropriate weaponry and machinery and in advocating for humanitarian aid were successful in helping to defeat the Soviet Union and in bringing the Cold War to a close. He was also a tireless advocate for Texas in Washington, DC and helped bring business and industry to his district and State.

Charlie Wilson passed on February 10, 2010 in Lufkin, Texas, from a cardiopulmonary arrest. We are grateful for his service in the second congressional district of Texas and for his tireless efforts to advance freedom in Afghanistan and throughout the world. His death is a loss to Texas, and to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, America is the most generous country on the face of the earth. Americans have given more in blood and treasure worldwide to help others than any nation in the history of the world.

But the Navy Times is reporting that the United States does not fly our flag at its main installation at Port-au-Prince in Haiti. The administration says flying the flag may give people in Haiti the wrong idea. Well, what is that supposed to mean? Is our government ashamed of Old Glory?

News reports say that every other nation involved in relief efforts is proudly flying their flag in Haiti. Americans in Haiti are a testament to the good intentions of our country. Why should the administration force the military to hide our flag as if it's ashamed of the red, white, and blue?

The flag represents everything that's good and right about America. American troops should be able to fly the Stars and Stripes wherever they are in this world serving our Nation. After all, isn't that what the flag is about?

But now it sounds like the administration is once again apologizing for Americans being American.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night starts what we call March Madness, college basketball playoffs for the national championship, and 65 college teams throughout the country will start competing tomorrow night. But there is one team that won't be there. And probably those 65 teams are glad this team is not there. It is not a college team. It is a high school team, and they are from Jack Yates Senior High School in Houston, Texas. They are now ranked the number one high school basketball team in the United States by USA Today and Rivals.com.

The Jack Yates Lions have won 58 consecutive basketball games in a row, going since last year, and two Texas State championships in 4A basketball. They have defeated their opponents by an awesome amount of points. They have won games by 88 points, 90 points, 98 points, 99 points, 115 points, and 135 points against the opposition. And that is just the margin of victory in those games.

In one game this year, on January 5, 2010, they scored 170 points in a high school basketball game, breaking the national record. That is an 18-year record set of scoring. And yes, they scored 170 points in one game. No wonder they weren't invited to the big March Madness starting tomorrow night in college basketball games.

They not only set the national record for consecutive games won over 100 points, they finished the season averaging 116 points per game, taking that title away that was 40 years old from a Hobbs, New Mexico high school team. They scored 100 points in 26 basketball games this year. They are a foe to be reckoned with. They have no competition in high school basketball anywhere in the United States.

They employ a strategy that is called ``38 minutes of hell.'' It is a run and gun offense where the coach, Coach Greg Wise of Houston, Texas, plays all 15 players. Five at a time he puts them in. They run and gun up and down the basketball court, he pulls them out, puts another five in, throughout the game. And by the end of the game of course the other team is dragging, they are out of breath, out of energy, and they are out of points. And of course the Jack Yates High School basketball team wins the game.

In the State championship this year going into the fourth quarter they were behind by 24 points. They had a little conversation with their coach before the fourth quarter started, and they won the game by 23 points.

I want to commend this wonderful group of young men who live in Houston, Texas, for their zeal, for their energy, and for representing really what is good about high school sports not only in the State of Texas, but throughout the United States, and congratulate them on being the number one high school basketball team in the United States. Way to go, Lions.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, freedom is rarely free. When you don't have it, you're under someone else's yolk, someone else's power. And for you to get it, you have to take that power from the oppressor. And while history has recorded some peaceful transitions, the transfer of power most often comes with the shedding of blood. So freedom has to be desired, yearned for, knowing that the struggle for it could cost you your life but is worth it--if not for you to enjoy, then for your children and grandchildren.

The totalitarian regime in Tehran has tortured, imprisoned, and executed thousands simply because they wanted to be free. On January 28, it continued its brutal oppression with the first known executions of opposition activists since unrest broke out following June's disputed presidential elections. Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were men that courageously made the choice to stand up to their oppressor. Faced with the choice between suffering under the indefinite rule of an oppressive regime and giving their lives so that others might be free, they selflessly chose the latter. We honor their sacrifice by continuing their fight so that all Iranians may one day be free.

Mr. Speaker, when I traveled to the old Soviet Union in the 1980s, nobody walked around smiling or joking or laughing. It was all gloom, doom, and despair.

Living under government tyranny destroys the human spirit, the mind, the soul, and the body. The monopoly of government kills off the notion of individuality. Bureaucracies have an insensitive cookie-cutter solution for everything. It's the same with government-run health care.

Thomas Jefferson was a visionary. He talked about government-run health care. He said, ``If the government decides what foods people eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.''

Government-run health care pushes us down the road to ``we the subjects'' instead of ``we the people.'' Instead of us controlling government, government controls us. That's what tyranny is.

The monopoly of government-run health care will have the efficiency of the post office, the competency of FEMA, and the compassion of the good old IRS.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H. Res. 1141 honors the accomplishments of the Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor, the first women to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

Justice O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1930 and grew up on a cattle ranch called the ``Lazy-B'' near Duncan, Arizona. The ranch was isolated and she did not have a sibling to play with until she turned eight. To compensate, young Sandra demonstrated the initiative and drive that would later propel her to the Court.

She befriended cowboys who worked on the ranch, learned to drive a car and shoot a gun, and became an expert equestrian. She also kept many pets during her childhood, including a bobcat, which probably taught her how to deal with lawyers.

Her parents decided she needed an education, so O'Connor went to live with her maternal grandmother, Mamie Scott Wilkey, in El Paso. Although homesick, O'Connor became an outstanding student and graduated from the Radford School for Girls at age 16. O'Connor always credited Mrs. Wilkey for instilling confidence in her.

She later studied economics at Stanford with an eye toward running the Lazy-B or another ranch. However, a legal dispute over the Lazy-B sparked her interest in the law. O'Connor enrolled in Stanford's law school and graduated in only 2 years, third in her class that included valedictorian and future Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist. One of her other classmates, John Jay O'Connor, became her husband.

This was the early 1950s and, despite her stellar law school record, O'Connor could not find work as a lawyer. The legal profession was not an easy place for women at that time.

But O'Connor was determined. She started out as a legal secretary before finding employment as the deputy county attorney for San Mateo, California. When her husband was drafted into the Judge Advocate General's Corps, she joined him in Frankfurt, Germany, where she served as a civilian attorney in the Quartermaster's Corps.

Returning to the United States in 1957, the couple settled in Phoenix and started a family--three children arrived in the next six years. O'Connor eventually hung out a shingle with one partner and began a general law practice. But with the birth of her second child, she devoted herself to homemaker duties, charitable work, and local Republican politics.

Following five years as a full-time mother, O'Connor returned to work as an Arizona assistant attorney general. Later, the governor appointed her to fill a vacant state senate seat, a position she successfully defended twice in successive elections. By 1974, O'Connor had become the first woman to serve as the majority leader in a state legislature. This achievement propelled her to the bench--first as a Maricopa County Superior Court judge and then, in 1978, as a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court.

Justice O'Connor distinguished herself as a smart, fair, even- tempered judge. She had overcome de facto discrimination through persistence, hard work, and a devotion to institutions and causes bigger than herself.

This compelling story intrigued President Ronald Reagan, who was searching for a successor to replace retiring Justice Potter Stewart at the United States Supreme Court. In Sandra Day O'Connor, he found his nominee.

Senate confirmations are not for the faint-hearted, but O'Connor came through like an experienced pro. She was confirmed by a vote of 99-0 and was sworn as the 102nd member of the Court on September 21, 1981. Of obvious importance then and now, she became the first women to serve as an Associate Justice.

Justice O'Connor served on the Court for nearly a quarter of a century before retiring in 2006. Early in her tenure, she was known as a conservative jurist who preferred analyzing cases with a narrow, fact-specific approach. Later, she acquired the reputation as a ``swing vote.'' Law Professor Steven Green once paid her perhaps the ultimate compliment when he observed that she ``seemed to look at each case with an open mind.''

Since retiring from the Court, Justice O'Connor really hasn't retired. She selflessly devoted herself to caring for her husband, John, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease in 1990 and passed away last November.

In addition to travel and spending time with other family members, Justice O'Connor has worked on an ABA project to educate Americans about the role of judges, served as a the Chancellor of The College of William & Mary, and performed trustee duties for the National Constitution Center.

In recognition of her life's work, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom--the highest civilian honor of the United States--on August 12, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is a pioneer for women and an inspiration to all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1141, which honors her many accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, the God-given right of free speech to all people in all nations is no longer recognized in the Netherlands. The Dutch Government is intolerant of intolerance for terrorists. Thou shalt not criticize, says their commandment.

Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders made a documentary movie about real terrorist acts and real radical Islamic clerics encouraging violence in the name of hate. Wilders now is on trial for insulting Islam. He's charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred.

In Amsterdam, it's illegal for a Christian or a Buddhist or an atheist or anyone else to criticize Islam because radical Islamic clerics will incite their followers to murder people. So the Dutch are no longer allowed to talk about terrorism.

The Dutch Ministry of Justice says--get this--it doesn't matter if Wilders was telling the truth. The Dutch court says it's irrelevant whether Wilders might prove his observations to be correct. What's relevant is his observations are illegal.

Geert Wilders now lives under threat of a 5-year jail sentence from his own government for a violation of free speech. His trial is set to resume in July, the trial where the Dutch court said truth doesn't matter; it only matters if Wilders' words hurt somebody's feelings.

And Wilders lives in fear under the threat of death for speaking his mind about radical Islam. So-called religious leaders believe their radical religion says they can kill those who don't agree with them. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, great-grand nephew of the famous painter Vincent Van Gogh, was a big believer in freedom of speech too. He and his partner, Hirsi Ali, made a documentary movie about women and Islam called ``Submission.'' The radical clerics didn't like that one either, so they had Van Gogh murdered. Six terrorists were later arrested. One of the terrorists shot and then repeatedly stabbed Van Gogh as he rode his bicycle to work. He slit Van Gogh's throat and then stabbed him again, pinning a five-page radical rant to his body.

The rant listed all of the things they thought Hirsi Ali, his female partner in the film, had done to violate the Koran. And they threatened her with death. At the time, she was a sitting member of the Dutch Parliament.

Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia, and her family escaped when she was a child. She was raised a Muslim and subjected to the custom of female mutilation against her will. After surviving refugee camps in Africa, then a stay in Saudi Arabia, her family finally went to Canada. She was promised in marriage to a distant cousin she had never met. She refused that marriage and soon fled as a refugee to Holland. She became a warrior for women's rights, becoming an elected member of the Dutch Parliament. But after Theo Van Gogh's murder, she was run out of the country by her own government, the Dutch Government. They would not protect her. She was simply just too controversial. She resigned her seat in Parliament and she fled to the United States. She lives in this area around D.C.

Kurt Westergaard is one of the 12 artists who drew cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Radical clerics then incited their followers to murder people in the streets. They rioted and they burned down embassies. Most of them, by their own admission, had never even seen these cartoons, and Westergaard had to flee for his life. He too lives in the United States under armed guard.

Threatening people and killing people for speaking their mind is just another form of terrorism. Van Gogh, Ali, Westergaard, and now Geert Wilders, have never used or advocated violence. They simply exercised their God-given right of free speech. So now in Amsterdam, truthful insult speech is a crime. What kind of free society says truthful speech can be illegal? The most controversial speech is political, religious, and even truthful speech. That is why it's protected. Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle, a God-given human right to all people in all nations. It has been said, I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. But not in the Netherlands.

Geert Wilders should be able to speak his mind without becoming an enemy of his own country. The enemy of free speech is the court of the Netherlands and radical Islamic clerics who preach violence in the name of hate.

And, Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I will never be able to express the gratitude I have for all of the brave men and women who have so proudly worn the military uniform. So today, I am humbled to honor the United Services Organizations for their 67 years of unrelenting service and dedication to our troops.

The United Service Organization was congressionally chartered before World War II on February 4, 1941, by former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The organization is a non-profit, private establishment set up to create a way for the American public to volunteer and provide a wide variety of support services for military members and their families.

What started as an idea has transformed into a conviction. Today, the U.S.O. has more than 130 centers all over the world and provides its programs to over 1.4 million active duty service members and 1.2 million National Guard and Reserves.

These soldiers give their heart and soul for our country and the U.S.O. understands how vital our servicemen and women are to this great nation. The U.S.O. provides unmatched morale, welfare, social and entertainment needs. They show respect for our troops, their families, and our community by conveying that the American people are forever indebted to their commitment and sacrifice in the continual fight for freedom.

The Second Congressional District of Texas commends the United Services Organization for bringing a piece of home to wherever our troops may be. The individuals who willingly participate in this remarkable group emulate integrity and pride that this nation deserves. Their efforts will never go unappreciated and their actions will always be cherished.

Madam Speaker, we're having the vote of the century on the Senate health care bill, but there's a sneaky snake oil gimmick afoot to pass the bill without voting on it. First, we're passing bills without reading them, and now they want us to pass bills without actually voting on the bill. The trick is to deem the Senate bill passed without ever having a straight up-or-down vote. And it's a trick.

When we vote on the rules for debate, they want to make that count as the vote on the health care bill instead of actually voting on the health care bill. Let's have an up-or-down vote on this bill and not hide behind some procedural mumbo jumbo. The Constitution says: ``But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays.'' It doesn't say anything about ``deeming'' in the Constitution.

To obtain votes for government-run health care, backroom secret deals are being made in the caverns of this building, and it's shameful. This is passing the government health care bill by any sneaking means necessary, including slaughtering the House rules.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, we are told that we must immediately pass this government takeover of health care or there will be health care panic in the streets. Now, we know the real reason this bill is being rushed to passage, even though no one has had time to read it. According to the Speaker, as quoted, ``We have to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it.'' Let me repeat what the Speaker said: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.''

After all, it's 2,700 pages long, and it's just too long to find out what's in it before we vote on it. So now we know, it has to be voted on so it can be read. I guess if Members read the whole bill before they voted, they might actually vote it down.

But there's one thing that we do know that's in this bill, and it is that it steals the right of privacy for all Americans. It will invade people's legal right to medical privacy. The government gets control over everybody's health care information, and it's another reason why we should oppose the bill. The government has no business sticking its nose into people's medical records. It's none of the government's business. The bill creates a health care integrity data bank where the Feds have access to everybody's medical records. Health care information is supposed to be between the patient and the doctor, not the patient and some yet unnamed, anonymous, unaccountable Federal bureaucrat hiding somewhere in this building.

When the government has everybody's medical records, they are at risk for misuse. Giving government bureaucrats' access to people's most private and intimate health information means their health records become public property. People's most intimate private health care information, warts and all, becomes the property of the U.S. Government. The Federal Government grab of health care will eliminate any masquerade of medical privacy.

The 111 new Federal agencies in this bill, that we have yet to read, will be snooping through your records. Talk to your doctor, and the government will know what you said. You've got some type of illness or disease, well, the government's going to know about it. Feeling a bit depressed after a family death and need some medication? Well, the government will even know your mental health issues. Now, is this the kind of information that should be in the hands of Federal bureaucrats, a bunch of busybody bureaucrats bestowed with the task to go forth and do good to the people?

The famous author C.S. Lewis once said, ``Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons' cruelty may sometimes sleep, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end.''

See, don't worry, the bureaucrats will boast. It's for your own good that we know this information. It won't hurt too much.

Once medical records are available to the Feds, every government agency will want to get their hands on those private medical records. That's just the way those bureaucrats work. And every American will be required to be a part of the Big Brother health care database.

People won't talk to their doctor anymore about their problems. They'll know somewhere in the deep, dark, dank dungeons of Washington, D.C., a Federal bureaucrat will be reading and perusing their medical records.

This is an invasion of privacy, and it violates the U.S. Constitution. The whole scheme denies individual liberty when the government takes over health care.

Thomas Jefferson even talked about universal health care once. He said: If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

When government takes over health care, it will equalize poor health for everybody. The government takeover of health care is not about health and it's sure not about care. It's about government control of our personal lives. And this legislation violates our U.S. Constitution because it steals the right of privacy right from underneath us, all in the name of taking care of us.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, Petty Officer 2nd Class Anthony Thompson is a true hero. Like all of our nation's heroes, we will always be grateful for the sacrifices they have made in order to ensure our continued freedom.

Having served two deployments in Iraq, the sacrifices made by both Petty Officer 2nd Class Thompson and his family on behalf of our nation are innumerable. On April 2004, Anthony's life changed forever near Fallujah, when a suicide bomber detonated an explosive under an overpass where he and his fellow Marines had taken up post.

Although he is fortunate to have survived, he is now not only ensured a life of reduced ability and pain, but in need of a new means to support his family of five. He suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury, an incomplete spinal cord injury and a punctured right lung. The process of rebuilding his life is also blessed by the Homes for our Troops organization, which helps wounded veterans transition successfully into their communities by providing them with homes.

The Homes for our Troops Organization works with combat wounded veterans to build specially adapted homes; allowing the veteran to be as independent as possible. The organization raises monetary donations, building materials, professional labor and coordinates the process of building a home. They insure that each home provides maximum freedom of movement and the ability to live more independently for each veteran recipient.

By providing returning service members with needed resources, they are better able to succeed in their local communities. Organization's like Homes for our Troops allow us, as Americans, to give back to veterans who have selflessly given so much for the sake of our freedom, and for that we are forever grateful.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Adrian Rogers of Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee, gave some sage advice over 20 years ago about the role of government. It is as relevant today it was when he first said

it. He said, ``You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, then the other half gets the idea it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for. And that is the beginning of the end of any Nation.''

Madam Speaker, we are in a time when the government does too much for us and too much to us in the name of taking care of all of us.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the new health care bill is an invasion of people's privacy. It's another reason why we should vote it down. The government shouldn't be sticking its nose into people's medical records. It's none of the government's business. There's a ``health care integrity data bank'' in the bill that gives the Feds access to everyone's medical records. Once the government has everybody's medical records, none of that information is secure. Health care information should be between the patient and the doctor--and that's all. Not the patient and some yet unnamed, anonymous, unaccountable Federal bureaucrat.

Ask Joe the Plumber about government bureaucrats keeping personal information private. Joe was standing around in his front yard one day when the Presidential candidate walked right up to him for a little chat. It could have literally happened to any of us. Joe asked the candidate a question about ``spreading the wealth around.'' Well, some government bureaucrat didn't like his question. She saw it on the news. She took it upon herself to illegally dig up his tax records and leak all that information to the media.

Giving government bureaucrats access to people's most private health insurance gives them opportunity to misuse that information, private and intimate information. The right of privacy is almost sacred, and this Federal Government grab of health care will eliminate medical privacy. Why do you think there are 111 new Federal agencies in this 2,700-page bill? It's to administer and snoop around in the medical records of Americans.

If the government health care bill passes, privacy is history. Talk to your doctor? The government will know about it. You have some type of illness or disease? The government will know. Feeling a bit depressed after a family death and need some medication for that depression? Well, the government will even know about your mental health issues.

Is this the kind of information that should be in the hands of Federal bureaucrats? When you fill out that background information for your private doctor and they ask you all about the diseases and illnesses and medical problems you have ever had, now that formerly confidential information will be in the hands of Federal Government bureaucrats to use however they want to. That should make us all sleep very well tonight. Once medical records are available to the Feds, every government agency will be fighting for the right to get their hands on that information. That's the way bureaucrats work, especially when every individual's health in America becomes a Federal budget item.

Every American will be required to be a part of the Big Brother health care database because everybody will be required to have government-approved health insurance plans. It's not just the medical records that are no longer private. Under the government takeover of health care, they will have a plan for the government to have access to your banking records as well. The law now is that government has no access to your finances without a court order, but under the new plan, the government will have access to your bank accounts to make sure you're paying for that government-mandated health care or paying the fine on that failure to have insurance.

This 2,700-page bill gives the Feds the authority to automatically debit your bank account. Private medical records and bank records are none of the government's business. People won't talk to their doctor about problems anymore. They'll know somewhere in the deep, dark, dank dungeons of Washington, D.C., a Federal bureaucrat will be reading their medical records and their bank statements.

This is all an invasion of privacy and a violation of our Constitution, and those who say we can trust the government to keep this confidential live in an ``Alice in Wonderland'' existence. This whole scheme is a denial of individual liberty and an attempt to make America another European-style nanny state where the people are mere subjects to an oppressive, inefficient Federal bureaucracy. This health care takeover by the Feds is a violation of the right of privacy for all Americans.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, yesterday an armed Mexican military helicopter was spotted and photographed over a residential area a mile inside the territorial boundary of the United States.

Texas Sheriff Sigi Gonzalez of Zapata County said the Mexican Navy helicopter was not the first incursion by the Mexican military onto the U.S. side of the Rio Grande River.

There is a violent border war raging in this area between the Los Zetas and Gulf drug cartels for territory. Eight Mexican journalists have been kidnapped, numerous individuals killed in old west style shoot-outs, and the violence and corruption has even spilled over to the U.S. side. The cartels have even infiltrated U.S. law enforcement agencies on the border, resulting in 400 corruption cases being filed.

The border has become a corrupt, violent area, and now the Mexican military crosses our border with unknown intentions. The United States cannot allow the border to be a war zone for murder, mayhem, violence, drugs, and corruption.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech continues to be shouted down by the politically correct police. In the Netherlands, it is against the law to say something that offends someone else's religion.

That is why Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders is on trial for hurting people's feelings. He made a movie about terrorists and radical Islamic clerics encouraging violence in the name of hate. Now he is on trial for insulting Islam. He is charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred. Because Dutch law is intolerant of intolerance.

The Dutch courts say even truthful insult speech is a crime. Sounds like the law has become the enemy of free speech and a protector of radicals.

Geert Wilders boldly brings to the world's attention the dangers of religious radicals who believe in hateful violence, and he gets in trouble for it. He ought to be commended rather than condemned and charged with a crime. Freedom of speech is a universal human right, granted by God, especially if that speech is political, religious, or truthful. A free people won't tolerate intolerance for freedom for very long.

And that's just the way it is.