A picture of Representative Louie Gohmert
Louie G.
Republican TX 1

About Rep. Louie
  • Terrorists and Gun Laws

    by Representative Louie Gohmert

    Posted on 2015-12-11

    submit to reddit

    GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal this week about what is proposed as a commonsense fix to our Second Amendment, and that is, okay, surely you can agree that anyone on the no-fly list should not be able to walk in and buy a gun.



    We have had friends across the aisle that pointed out, like the Times Square bomber, he could have gone in and bought a gun. I am told now that that is not actually the case, that he specifically could not have. The guy made a bomb. He was going to blow up New York Times Square. He didn't need a gun. He was going to blow people up.

    A lot of us, when we first hear, ``well, shouldn't that be a no- brainer?'' if you are on the no-fly list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Then when you find out that the no-fly list is composed of names--and we can't even get a number, even a ballpark number. Is it 47,000? Is it 470,000? Is it 700,000? Is it over a million? When you find out you can't actually find any specific criteria for getting on the no-fly list, then you realize the no-fly list is basically anybody this administration says needs to be harassed or looked at further.

    As I was leaving London a year ago after speaking to some groups in London, a man that was head of that little area of whatever their TSA is there in the London airport came up and said: Congressman, I know who you are and I am really, really sorry, but apparently your Department of Homeland Security indicates you need to be thoroughly searched personally and your bags. Really sorry.

    Anyway, for those people that say no administration would ever be into political revenge, you can look at some of the groups that the IRS went after. In fact, a huge majority of rank-and-file Federal workers in Homeland Security and in the IRS, they would never dream of doing the kind of things that Lois Lerner and her hacks did. They used the power of government to go after political enemies.

    Nobody will ever be able to say specifically how much it helped President Obama in 2012 to prevent conservative groups from getting their tax status cleared through the IRS. They did prevent a lot of groups from being able to form. If you don't have the clearance from the IRS, then you can't bring contributions in together to organize and do like many of the unions do that get Federal money. These groups were not going to get Federal money. They were going to get contributions.

    The more we see the abuses within this administration, the clearer it is. Whether it was a Democrat or Republican administration, the last thing you would ever want to do is tell a President and administration that you just list anybody on a list; there is no requirement as to the specifics as why. You just put anybody on a list that you have concerns about, and they will never be able to buy a gun. You could keep them from flying if you want to. You just list them on the list. You don't have to tell Congress. You don't have to tell anybody else. Just put people you are not happy with on a list and say you have concerns about them, and they will never be able to buy a gun.

    Before we go ripping away people's constitutional Second Amendment right or any other right, which should be a right to get on a plane and fly unless you are a threat, we do not need to have an obscure process where nobody can identify the specifics that gets you on the no-fly list or, in this case, as people are proposing, the no-gun list. Just let an administration list them. We have got to do a lot more soul- searching in America.

    As we have seen, there are so many groups and individuals that were listed as unindicted, but coconspirators in the biggest terror financing trial in American history, the Holy Land Foundation trial. We found out that a group that called itself charitable and got clearance from the IRS and they don't really say where their money comes from, when the FBI drilled down and found out, saw where it was going, they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the five principals in the Holy Land Foundation trial were guilty of financing terrorism. There were many people, many groups listed as coconspirators.

    Some, like this Islamic Society of North America of which Imam Magid is past president, ISNA was trying--one of those groups, CAIR, they wanted their names off the unindicted list. If there were no evidence of any ties to the Holy Land Foundation's terrorist funding, then they should have gotten a judge. The judge would have signed the order.

    Both the district judge and the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals looked at the evidence and said there is plenty of evidence here to show that these groups, like the Islamic Society of North America, principals in these groups, they are affiliated with--there is evidence to show they are coconspirators with these terrorist financing people. So they would not allow their names to be removed from the pleadings. They remained in the pleadings.

    Unfortunately, for those of us who want justice in America, for those who would destroy our government, Eric Holder became Attorney General immediately after the conviction by the Bush administration in very late 2008. Under his guidance, they never pursued those people that the Federal district court and the Court of Appeals said there is plenty of evidence to support that these people are part of the terror financing network. They never pursued them.

    In fact, Imam Magid out at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society--ADAMS, they called themselves. The Secretary of Homeland Security was just out there last week and applauding their efforts and thanking Imam Magid as [[Page H9301]] the White House has thanked Imam Magid. He has helped the President, we know, with at least one speech. That was the one the President delivered while Netanyahu was on the way over here and wrongly said that everybody involved, including Israel, had agreed to the pre-'67 borders.

    Since that was so factually wrong when the President stated it publicly, you can't help but feel like, since Imam Magid advised him on the speech, was there in the inner sanctum of the State Department, in that extremely secure setting when the President delivered his speech-- he was even asked for an interview about the speech immediately afterwards--you know that there were people with ties to people this administration shouldn't use as their advisers that this administration is using as advisers.

    Anyway, there is a reason that America has become extremely skeptical about what they are told. When this administration and my friends across the aisle start saying, ``Hey, we can trust this administration. Just let them list anybody they want to as they currently can on the no-fly list and they will never be able to buy a gun and that will stop terrorism,'' well, it wouldn't have stopped the pipe bombs that Farook and his fiancee--wife, whatever she was, terrorist, female companion-- had built and put together.

    Also, the President keeps pushing for better background checks. There was a great article from Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., December 3. Dr. Lott has had positions with the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during '88 and '89. This guy is an expert when it comes to guns and gun laws.

    Dr. Lott had an article that made clear--it is dated December 3; there is a national review online--that there is nothing at all that President Obama or Loretta Lynch had proposed that would have stopped the 14 people being killed and 21 injured out in San Bernardino. In fact, there is nothing that this President proposed in the light of violence in Colorado that would have changed the shooting in Colorado.

    In fact, if you go back to the prior shooting in Colorado, we know that the gunman went by at least a couple of theaters that were closer to him because those were not gun-free zones and there were likely people in the theater who had guns who would have stopped the shooter before he killed and shot as many people as he did.

    When it comes to Oregon, they have very strict gun control laws. There is nothing the President or the Justice Department proposed that would have prevented the shooting at the community college in Oregon. Those are places where the gun laws are already as strict or stricter than what the President is asking be applied everywhere else.

    So it just seems disingenuous for anyone to say we need gun control laws like in California so that we can stop the violence when it didn't stop the very violence they are using as an excuse to take away people's Second Amendment rights. I would commend that great article by John Lott.

    When it comes to the Syrian refugees, most people in America have figured out this has to be stopped because we don't know who is coming in. I have mentioned it here on the floor before, Mr. Speaker, last week and previously, that we had information--I had information that ISIS had probably taken over areas where there were printing facilities so they could probably print passports that we would not be able to know were they legitimate or not.

    {time} 1345 As this administration keeps saying, we need to bomb Assad out of existence, or at least try to take him out. Well, Assad is not very favorable toward giving this administration all of his criminal records and passport records about the people of Syria. We have no idea who these people are. God bless the Director of the FBI, Comey. He comes in more than once and says: Yes, we will vet them, but you have to understand, even though we will do the best vetting we possibly can, we have nothing to go on.

    With Iraqis, as he explained, we had fingerprints. We had fingerprints from IEDs. We had all kinds of information. We had the official records of the Iraqi Government that could help tell us whether somebody coming from Iraq was the person they said they were, or whether they were not. Were they a threat? Were they a danger? Even with all of that, we find out a couple of guys get to Kentucky and have been there a couple of years. One of them was certainly a terrorist whose fingerprints were on an IED that had been exploded in Iraq, and they didn't catch his fingerprints, even though they had them. If you can't catch a terrorist that you let into Kentucky, and you had his fingerprints and compared them, and it didn't show up initially, then how much worse will it be? How many more terrorists will you let into America from within the Syrian refugees? Then it has also been disclosed this week what many of us in America knew already. It was only common sense that people who have sworn they want to destroy our country, kill as many Americans and Jews and Israelis as possible, that they would use this refugee crisis not to get into Israel--because they are very protective, thank God--but to get into Western Europe and to get into the United States. Now we know those are the facts.

    Most Americans that I have talked to--I think in my telephone townhall, there was about 90 percent of the people in east Texas, of the thousands on the call, they indicated about 90 percent were concerned that we couldn't properly vet the Syrian refugees good enough, and that we needed to pause and hold up and wait until we had more information. That is just common sense.

    Then we also, there was an article from Mark Krikorian November 16. He pointed out, and I will quote from his article: ``The 5-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000 compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for 5 years'' if he or she is in their native region.

    So for every person we arrogantly think, gee, we should bring that person into America, as Mark Krikorian points out, actually that is a bit immoral, because if we weren't so arrogant to think we need to get them into America, we could save 12 of them in their native region.

    They say, 3 to 4 million people coming out of Syria, out of that area, gee, they need to come to the United States, and yet Saudi Arabia has accommodations for 3 million. So many people have seen a photograph of the massive tent area there for 5 days out of 365. That is during the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, kitchen facilities, bathroom facilities. It just seems like if they would help take care of the 3 million, make those available, we could work something out to take care of the people that come in for 5 days in the Hajj, that that would be a better solution than this administration forcing Syrian refugees that could not be properly vetted into this country.

    Then I was told last night that actually the female terrorist in San Bernardino was using a name that certainly would not have been given to her at birth, and that if we had people that were allowed to study radical Islam, the tenets of its belief, as this one person said, she had a name that is actually a guy's name, and for anyone who has spent their adult life studying radical Islam, like this administration for 7 years, has not allowed the FBI, the intelligence agency, State Department, Justice Department. They purged their records of anything that offended terror and unindicted coconspirator to finance terrorism. So when this unindicted co-conspirator CAIR complained about anything, it was purged from this administration's training records.

    As this individual, this friend pointed out, when you spend so many of your years of your adulthood studying this, for her to have proper screening by somebody that had studied radical Islam, you would ask the question: When did you get this name? This clearly was not given to you at birth. He said it would be like an American going into Europe and someone there saying: Now, come on, your name is not George Washington. It wasn't given to you at birth. Where did you get it? [[Page H9302]] When you start inquiring, then you find out the madrassas she had been to, the places she had been to, but you have to get to secondary screening, further questioning, which there should be red flags all over somebody's record like that. We have the information available that this administration didn't prevent it from being used to properly screen radical Islamists. But before you can properly screen radical Islamists, you have to admit that there is a thing called radical Islam.

    Carolyn Glick writes for the Jerusalem Post. She is a brilliant lady. She pointed out one of the problems with my friend, President George W. Bush's position that we are not at war with Islam, and then this administration's taking that and running with it to extremes, they fail to acknowledge that there is pluralism within Islam. Saying that ``If it is bad, it could not possibly be part of Islam,'' is ridiculous. What that does to moderate Muslims, who don't want radical Islamists governing them and cutting their hands off, horsewhipping them, whatever, stoning them to death, they would like to live in peace without worrying about a tyrannical, radical Islamist leader.

    We do them a disservice by not pointing out that radical Islam is an element of Islam, and it is a fact. Therefore, moderates are left to say nothing because if they say this is an element of Islam we have got to stand up against, then they come against the wrongheaded positions of the Obama administration.

    We actually can help moderate Muslims stand up, as some are starting to do, a few have been doing for a long time, stand up against radical Islam, and say--God blessing President al-Sisi in Egypt, as he stood and talked to a group of imams, said we have got to get control of our religious beliefs, our Islam back from the radicals. We have got to stand up against them. We help them. The al-Sisi regime administration over in Egypt, I have talked to some of them. I don't know if I am still the only Member of Congress that has met with their director of intelligence. We had a very informative meeting for a couple of hours.

    They don't understand why this administration appears to be helping radical Islam and standing against the moderates, like President al- Sisi, like the 30 million of the 90 million Egyptian people that went to the street a couple years ago. Wow, that was such a huge deal.

    There has never been a group that big, in the history of the world, go to the streets of their country and demand a peaceful regime change. But because the constitution that we helped Egypt with when Morsi was elected did not contain an impeachment provision, they had no other way to go. There was no other way to peaceably remove a president who was violating their own constitution over and over than to go to the streets, as they did.

    The Coptic Christian Pope there in Cairo has told me more than once how deeply moving it was to see moderate Muslims, Christians, Jews, secularists go to the street as a part of that 30 million, and so many coming up to the Pope and saying: We are so sorry for the way you have been treated.

    Has this administration given any accolades whatsoever to the Egyptian people for passing a constitution with over 90 percent vote that in that constitution, a majority of the ones approving were Muslim, it says in the constitution that when the Muslim Brotherhood, radical Islam, they put Muslim Brotherhood on their terrorist watch list. This administration gets their advice. That administration in Egypt puts them on the terrorist watch list.

    They say when the Muslim Brotherhood or any other like-minded radical Islamist group burns down a church, we will rebuild it with government funds. It is incredible. The people of Egypt deserve at least an ``atta boy.'' What was this administration's response? We are going to hold up sending you any helicopters. We sent jets and helicopters and tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood when they were in control under Morsi, but now that the Muslim Brotherhood, this terrorist organization is not in control, we are not going to send you things.

    As President al-Sisi once asked me, does your President not understand? We use the Apache helicopters to keep the Suez Canal open. So it was quite a slap in the face to our friends in Egypt that are against radical Islam, our Muslim friends there, when this President didn't go, as I think 47 other leaders or so went. He didn't send the Vice President, didn't send the Ambassador, didn't send anybody from Washington to say: Congratulations, Egypt.

    Since moderate Muslims have been in control in Egypt, they have done something earthshaking: They dug another lane, a second lane to the Suez Canal. Countries all over the world went, wow, Egypt, that is enormous.

    It was embarrassing to me last year in Egypt as people were asking: Was your country really excited when we got this second lane dug to the Suez Canal? The mainstream media hardly reported anything about it. It was a big deal. It was a free people standing up and doing something monumental. Since it wasn't done by radical Islamists, this administration chose not to give it any credibility.

    Then we get the report now. Just hours ago, there was an article from Victoria Taft: ``After the latest Paris terror attack, French President Hollande swore he'd go after radical Muslims who pulled off the mass slayings.

    ``Now we're learning what he meant by that.

    ``As HotAir reports: `The French have kicked in the doors on 2,235 homes and taken 232 people into custody or placed them on house arrest.' In the sleepy French town of Lagny-sur-Marne just 18 miles from Paris . . . French police went to the local mosque where they found: The Salafist mosque . . . about 30 kilometers east of the French capital was closed down by police on the 2nd of December. In subsequent raids, the prefect for the Seine-and-Marne department said `7.62 millimeter ammunition for a Kalashnikov rifle and propaganda videos' had been seized, AFP reported. The locations of the raids were not given.

    Both ISIS and al Qaeda adhere to the radical Sunni Salafist Muslim teachings. Radicals used some mosques and other home-based un-permitted mosques to stockpile weapons.'' {time} 1400 It was reported that, just in the last 15 days, the French have uncovered about a third of the illegal weapons they normally recover in an entire year just from these mosque areas and the homes that they have raided.

    Now, I have serious concerns when I see homes being raided in these numbers. The French do not have our protections under our Bill of Rights. They don't have nearly the protections we do. I don't want this many homes busted into. I don't want mosques raided unless there is probable cause to believe there is a problem or that they have committed a crime. You get warrants for those things. The same with the home, the same with somebody's Internet, and the same with their bank records.

    Yet this administration is using the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to do what nobody in American history--any administration--has done before, and that is to get people's bank records, whether or not you want them to or not. They claim: We want to be able to watch so if somebody gets messed around by a bank, we can go after them.

    Well, when I was a judge, if you wanted to get bank records, you had to have probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause that the person whose records you wanted had committed it; otherwise, I didn't sign a warrant because the Constitution didn't allow it. If I did sign a warrant, it had to be specific to place and time and what was being seized.

    But this administration gets your bank records--all they want-- through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They get all your medical records through ObamaCare requirements. They get all kinds of information about individuals. They get your phone logs, as they have been doing. Now, there is some question whether they still are or not.

    I have this article from Michele McPhee and Brian Ross. ABC News reports: ``ISIS May Have Passport Printing Machine, Blank Passports.'' I am glad they finally caught up with the news on that.

    I want to revisit an issue.

    [[Page H9303]] Senator Grassley sent a letter to Secretary Jeh Johnson, February 3, 2014, so it will be going on 2 years in February. He included an email. Senator Grassley included a redacted copy of the email exchange. I have seen the unredacted email exchange. And even from the redacted email exchange, it is indicated that Secretary Napolitano had a hands-off list.

    Apparently, when there were indications Muslim leaders should be secondarily screened, pulled aside from their first stop, asked further questions, the indication is this guy is in a group, they say: Well, he is on the Secretary's hands-off list.

    Well, not only can we not get specifics of exactly why somebody is on the no-fly list or the terrorist watch list--just that this administration has a bad feeling about them--we can't find out just how you get on the hands-off list. That is another matter that requires some looking into.

    Then we find out this week that an ex-Guantanamo detainee now is an al Qaeda leader back in Yemen. And it talks about al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, released a new video featuring former Guantanamo detainee Ibrahim al Qosi, whose name is also Sheikh Khubayb al Sudani.

    In 2010, he pled guilty to charges of conspiracy and material support for terrorism before a military commission. It ended up that this administration transferred him to his home country of Sudan. Now he is back where he wanted to be, helping al Qaeda. We already knew he was a terrorist--he pled guilty--and this administration sent him back.

    The question still out there and remains: How many Americans will be killed because this administration decided closing Guantanamo is more important than saving American lives? They traded five murderous terrorists, coconspirators, for a guy who, all the indications are, deserted his American military post. I wonder how many American lives will be lost because of that.

    I have an article from KY3 saying that on Saturday, around 3:50 a.m., two men buying a large number of cell phones at Walmart in Lebanon set off a concern. `` `Somebody went in and bought 60 cell phones from Walmart. That's not normal for this area,' explained Laclede County Sheriff Wayne Merritt.

    ``After talking with the men, officers didn't have a legal reason to detain them so the men were allowed to leave, according to the Lebanon Police Department incident report.'' That is in Missouri. ``Sheriff Merritt said calling law enforcement officers was the right move.'' But, unfortunately, because of the statement of our Attorney General in recent days in the aftermath of the San Bernardino killings, she has made clear that, in the aftermath of all of those Americans being killed, specifically targeting Christians and Jews--apparently, there was a Muslim shot, but the targets were Jews and Christians, them telling one Jewish man before he was shot: Now you will never get to see Israel--targeting the Christians specifically, instead of going off on how clearly this was a hate crime, the Attorney General says her big concern is that people are not prejudiced against Muslims.

    It made it clear to people like the terrorists' neighbors that, if you see radical Islamists gathering and you are suspicious of--maybe they are making pipe bombs in the garage--and you call that in, there is a good chance that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is going to come after you for being biased and bigoted.

    What a ridiculous thing to say. Basically, she is saying, if you see something and say something and that something involves Muslims, then I am coming after you. What a ridiculous, terrible thing for the chief law enforcement officer of our country to say.

    Then, this article today from Liam Deacon, Breitbart News, ``Homeland Security Shut Down Investigation Into Farook And Malik Linked Islamist Group To Protect `Civil Liberties' of Potential Terrorists'': ``The Department of Homeland Security has been accused of deleting intelligence records relating to dangerous Islamists linked to terrorists Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, because they wanted to protect the `civil liberties' of members of the caliphate-supporting network.

    ``Phil Haney, a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol analyst''--now retired--``says he was ordered to stop investigating Deobandi Islamist groups and his work on them was erased. He even says he was subjected to discipline when he attempted to blow the whistle.

    ``If he'd been allowed to continue his investigation, he claims Malik's visa application would have been flagged for greater scrutiny.

    ``He explained: `The administration was more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of foreign Islamic groups with terrorist ties than the safety and security of Americans.' ``Analyst Phil Haney told Fox News that he once worked as a researcher looking into potential terrorists in the Passenger Analysis Units at the Department of Homeland Security in Atlanta, as well as at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's National Targeting Center.

    ``Mr. Haney says that he had been identifying and tracking members of the al-Huda and Tablighi Jamaat groups, offshoots of the radical Deobandi school of Islam, which was founded in British colonial India specifically to oppose western culture.

    ``Tablighi Jamaat is a Deobandi revivalist movement whose mandate is, according to its leading advocate Ebrahim Rangooni, to save the Muslim world `from the culture and civilization of the Jews and the Christians' . . . To this end, he has suggested cultivating `such hatred for their ways as human beings have to urine and excrement.' ``Tablighi Jamaat have been linked to 80 percent of all recent terrorist related crimes in France.

    ``Mr. Haney's work tracking the radical movement was considered so important that he says he was given an agency award for identifying potential terrorists, and he was asked to become part of the National Targeting Center, which works to connect the dots and build a bigger picture of terrorist activity.

    ``However, after more than six months of tracking the Deobandis, Homeland Security unexpectedly halted his investigation on the request of the State Department's Office of Civil Rights.'' Anyway, that is what happens. Phil Haney is one of the most patriotic, finest people ever known. He cares so deeply about this country.

    By the way, Mr. Speaker, his appearance decries his intellect and knowledge about radical Islam. So, he has done no telling how many secondary screenings in his time in the Middle East, his knowledge of the language, the culture, the moderate Islamic culture, the radical Islamic culture. He knows the teachings of the radicals and who they are. He has been able to get massive amounts of information that I would never have dreamed people would admit to him.

    I have been working with him for a number of years to try to get information to people in the administration who would protect the information, and instead, when they realized how much information he had of what others in Homeland Security had deleted, they thought was gone--Janet Napolitano talked about connecting the dots. She forgot to mention that they had been deleting dots like crazy. I knew that Phil's information was so damaging to this administration that, if it were not handled properly, they would destroy the man.

    So what happens after he gets an award for identifying so much information? He used the tech system. All he did was enter data. He would look even at social media, and if he found that somebody under consideration was in a photograph with somebody we knew to be a radical Islamist, he would enter that information. There is a massive amount of information out there in social media that this administration has not even availed themselves of.

    Previously, when our Embassy in Yemen was surrounded by Houthis, radical Islamist rebels, I got a call from a constituent whose son is over there and is isolated in a hotel and can't get to the Embassy. In talking to a friend who had a friend, it ends up some guy is going through a training or practice session. They set aside their hypothetical practice scenario and took on the real-life scenario of getting four Americans from a hotel in the capital of Yemen to the Embassy and trying to get more in the Embassy [[Page H9304]] out. They used social media. They were able to find pictures being taken by Houthi radical Islamists at different places where they obviously were. So they knew which places to avoid.

    {time} 1415 They were able, using people in place in Yemen, American assets, and using social media, were able to get those people from the hotel, get them to the Embassy and get them out, even though this administration would only pay for a commercial airline flight where they sat with some people who may have been part of the rebels that wanted to kill them. Not the best way to get people out of an Embassy, but they got out.

    I have heard again recently from my former constituent, and he is doing well. He is a good man. He is a patriot. He wants to help the country.

    So it should also be noted that although, in our country, the Attorney General is more concerned about prejudice against Muslims, the Euro Parliament president--this article by Dr. Thomas D. Williams, the 3rd of December, points out that the Euro Parliament president says Christians are not safe on our continent.

    In a high-level meeting on religious persecution in Brussels, the president of the European Parliament said that Europe cannot afford to continue ignoring the faith of Christians, who are ``clearly the most persecuted group'' in the world.

    In Wednesday's meeting, EP President Martin Schulz said that the persecution of Christians is undervalued and does not receive enough attention, which also has meant that ``it hasn't been properly addressed.'' I applaud the efforts of Glenn Beck trying to save Christians over in areas of radical Islam, because, as the European Parliament President says, radical Islamists' number 1 goal is not other Muslims; it's Christians and Jews. Yet, this administration's big focus is helping Muslims.

    Then we find out from the U.N. that actually they locate their refugee centers in urban areas where you rarely find many Christians. And we find out the reports, hear from people that say we are afraid to go into the U.N. refugee camps, because they are virtually all Muslim, and we are targeted, and we can't go there. We can't allow our families to go there.

    Yet, it is the U.N. refugee camps that this administration brings the refugees, and wants to bring refugees from.

    Glenn Beck, realizing that Christian refugees were being under- appreciated, undervalued by the Obama administration, has gone over and tried to do something about it. I applaud his efforts.

    So, Mr. Speaker, as we close out this week, the bill we just passed with regard to the Customs conference report, I just want to go back to January 29, 1961. In about over a month, it will be the 55-year anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's speech. It was a message to commemorate Roosevelt Day for Franklin Roosevelt.

    So, in his speech, he points out that 28 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt assumed the leadership of a stricken and demoralized Nation. Poverty, distress, economic stagnation, blanketed the land.

    He goes on in the speech, recognizing Franklin Roosevelt. And I would just like to read John F. Kennedy's words, because they are such a contrast to the current President's words, as he wants to take away people's Second Amendment rights.

    He wants to have the ability, since he controls, completely controls the no-fly list, nobody in Congress gets to know who he is putting on, why they are putting on, what criteria he is using to put them on. He gets exclusive control of who he wants to put on the no-fly list, he or his assignees. President Obama wants to restrict those rights.

    So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude today, and this week in the House, with the words of John F. Kennedy. President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961, part of his speech that day said: ``To meet these problems will require the efforts, not only of our leaders or of the Democratic Party, but the combined efforts of all of our people. No one has a right to feel that, having entrusted the task of government to new leaders in Washington, he can continue to pursue his private comforts unconcerned with America's challenges and dangers. For, if freedom is to survive and prosper, it will require the sacrifice, the effort, and the thoughtful attention of every citizen.

    ``In my own native State of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men, citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment's notice.'' President Kennedy goes on with these words: ``Today, we need a Nation of Minute Men, citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.'' The words of John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961.

    Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

    ____________________

  • submit to reddit
  • Register your constituent account to respond

    Constituent Register