On September 11, 2014 Rep. Gohmert of Texas gave a speech before the assembled House of Representatives to talk about President Obama’s ISIS war speech. What he said was very interesting especially the part about Islamists coming across our southern border. Of course the liberal media completely ignored Rep. Gohmerts comments. Moreover Gohmert doesn’t seem to realize that ISIS is already here among us.
What follows is the entire speech of Rep. Gohmert:
“Mr. Speaker, there is so much at risk right now in this country, and the President gave us a fine address last night, very interesting. I know some people say, you know, in times of trouble, when the United States is threatened, we need to all get together behind our leader. As someone once said to me about Republicans, he said, I just wish the Republicans would all run the same play together. And I responded, I agree. I wholeheartedly want for the Republicans to all run the same play together at the same time.
But I said, the trouble is, if my leader calls a play running to the wrong end zone, I am not blocking for him. And that is also, I think, applicable with the President of the United States.
I was blasted after statements on FOX News saying that if the President wanted to go to war with ISIS, I would support that. So I was anticipating something last night that would unite us and not divide us.
To relate, one of the problems with the President is, he starts off early in his speech saying, as Commander in Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Well, I have come to know friends, close friends with a number of the family members of Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Chris Stevens, and they debate, they don’t believe that the highest priority of this President is the security of the American people.
The actions of this President, in saying that he cares so deeply about the security of the American people, don’t seem to resonate when you stand by weeping parents who have watched their son’s head be cut off by these enemies, and you say it is your highest priority to protect the American people, but they are wondering, that same day that you spend 5 or 6 hours playing golf, do you spend that much time figuring out a way to protect other Foleys?
That is a tough sell.
The President said, now, let’s make two things clear. ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.
Well, that has certainly got to be a shock to the radical Islamists who brutally kill, behead, maim innocent people in the name of what they say is their religion.
In fact, the American people don’t seem to be sold on what the President said. This story from CNN filed at 8:15 a.m. this morning by Ashley Killough quotes what the President said about ISIL’s not Islamic. No religion condones killing of innocents.
Then they have a number of tweets. According to the CNN article, Twitter just lit up with responses to the President saying that. Lots of retweets.
Let’s see, from Ron Christie: “ISIS isn’t Islamic? What kindergartner briefs the President on terrorism?”
Another: “Obama: ISIL is not Islamic? He just countermanded anything he plans to say tonight. Right there is the fatal flaw.”
Another: “ISIL is not Islamic? Hello? THIS ISIL, `Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’?”
Another: “ISIL is not Islamic and Lois Lerner and the IRS is not corrupt. Obama is such a freaking”– Well, Mr. Speaker, I can’t say that word. Joe Wilson said that and it was found not to be appropriate.
Another: “ISIL is not Islamic? Is he kidding? I suppose those black flags are just for giggles then.”
Another from the CNN article: “ISIL is not Islamic–POTUS opens a section aimed at motivating Muslims around the world to disown ISIL, aid U.S. fight.”
Another from Mohammed Ansar: “ISIL is not Islamic, says prime time @BarackObama (and virtually every Muslim and reasonably educated person on the face of our planet).”
Michael Oleaga: Some folks on Twitter didn’t understand Obama’s “ISIL is not Islamic” statement. Study foreign affairs, folks, or religion–all religion. It is interesting because President Obama’s statement is apparently similar to the historic reaction that Thomas Jefferson had before he was President when he was negotiating with the radical Islamist Barbary pirates in northern Africa, who had been capturing American ships–killing, enslaving, holding people for ransom.
Jefferson was rather shocked when he reportedly indicated, “I don’t understand why you keep attacking us. We don’t have a navy. We are not a threat to you.”
It was explained to him, “We believe if we are killed while attacking infidels like you, then we will go instantly to paradise.” Jefferson is perplexed, and he ends up getting his own copy of the Koran because he couldn’t believe that any religion would ever promote going to paradise for being killed while killing innocent people. He read for himself, and history can tell you exactly what his conclusion was.
As President, he ultimately decided that the only way to deal with these radical Islamists was not to keep paying 10 to 20 percent of the American budget for ransom to get people back.
The solution was to send this new group called the United States Marines to the shores of Tripoli to fight the radical Islamists with everything they had until they yelled “uncle” or were wiped out, and they ceased to come after Americans.
The President says: I have insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government.
That strikes me as strange because if the Commander in Chief’s highest priority, as he said at the start of the speech, is the security of the American people, then it begs the question: Why is he so worried about what the Iraq Government does if he knows he has to do something to protect the American people?
Now, I remember Senator Obama repeatedly went after the Bush administration. It seemed that he thought little or nothing of the coalition that President George H. W. Bush put together with 43 countries to go in and liberate Kuwait and that he thought even less of the 49 countries that put people and money on the line to support the effort in Iraq–49 countries.
President Obama thought that was not a real coalition, yet they put people, and they put money. Now, magically, since he is President, he thinks a coalition of nine countries that he won’t name or commit what they are going to put into the coalition is somehow better than the 49 countries’ coalition that President Bush put together before going into the Middle East.
President Obama said: In June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq.
He goes on to say:
We will send an additional 475 servicemembers to Iraq. He has made very clear he is not going to put boots on the ground, as he said, in Iraq, so the only conclusion logically that you can make from the President’s saying, on the one hand, we are not going to put boots on the ground in Iraq and that he has already sent several hundred soldiers and is sending 475 more, is that those thousand or so U.S. soldiers will be wearing sneakers. He said that America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. It is hard to believe that nine people who are a bit timid about being named and committed to what they will do are really that broad of a coalition.
He said “mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges.”
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard from General Kelly, testifying before the House and the Senate–he is the commander of SOUTHCOM, the Southern Command–he knows what threats are to our south. As he testified, the penetration of our southern border by the criminal networks and radical Islamists, in his words, is an existential threat to the United States.
You have got the man who is supposed to know the most about the southern border and protecting us, telling Congress that the penetration going on of our southern border is a threat to the very existence of the United States of America.
So I would urge the President, Mr. Speaker, when he says he will “mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges,” to change that word in his teleprompter to read “border” challenges, so that we can protect ourselves from the criminal networks and the potential for radical Islamists who want to destroy us from coming across our southern border.
I truly hope that the late Tom Clancy was not as clairvoyant in one of his last novels as he was in the early nineties, when he wrote about someone who was irritated with the United States flying a jet into the Capitol to wipe out a joint session of Congress.
I love George W. Bush, but when he said “who would have ever thought somebody would use a plane for a bomb and crash it into a building,” I was thinking, well, Tom Clancy several years ago, as that was in one of his novels.
In one of his recent novels, one of his last, he wrote about a coalition beginning to form between radical Islamists and drug cartels in Mexico and ultimately a deal where they brought in–I can’t remember–10 or 12 radical Islamists with surface-to-air missiles.
They paid tremendously to the drug cartels to smuggle those into the United States, so they could get themselves in vans and, at the appropriate time in areas all across the country, step out and shoot down American passenger planes.
We know that although the radical Islamists are really insane–crazy–when it comes to the killing of innocent people, they are not stupid. When we give them an opening to come after us, they will take it. The President lost further credibility last night at a time when he really needed to be getting the world behind him.
Credibility was lost when he said:
It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression and in support of the Ukrainian people’s right to determine their own destiny.
Mr. Speaker, people around the world–as I have traveled in west Africa, north Africa, the Middle East, moderate Muslim countries in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Europe–all understand that this President has done virtually nothing to help Ukraine.
They haven’t rallied the peoples of the world, and when the people around the world hear that, they have to think: What? Does he think we are crazy ourselves?
You go back and see what this administration did in response to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the response was a Twitter campaign. They actually did try to put restrictions on, as I recall, 10 or 11 bank accounts that the Russians laughed about.
This President needs to do more to rally the world around us–with us–against radical Islam, against imperialism, like we have seen from Putin, and we can all stand together.
After the President seemed to indicate that he wanted to take out ISIS–or he said “ISIL”–I really
felt that when the President had finished last night, that I would be saying that that is something I have got to support, that I am with him. ISIS has said they are a threat to us. We need to take them seriously. They are cutting off American heads. We have got to take that seriously.
Yet when I hear the President, he wants to give support to the moderate, vetted Free Syrian Army; and we read the article from Patrick Poole, where he quotes one of those vetted, moderate Free Syrian Army brigade commanders, saying that his forces were working with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate–both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations:
We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in ….. Qalamoun.
Then a quote from another Free Syrian Army commander–vetted, moderate–that this President is going to help:
We have reached a point where we have to collaborate with anyone against unfairness and injustice.
Let’s face it: the Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun, and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.
I really expected to be standing today and saying we need to get behind the President’s activity, just as I said in the last couple of weeks, immediately after the President’s speech, that I agree, and let’s go to war with ISIS; but with the President’s wanting to continue what he has been doing for over a year–giving weapons to the Free Syrian Army which somehow, magically, keep having them taken away by the Islamic State–or ISIS/ISIL–the President finally suspended giving them more arms in December.
This President kept sending arms to the vetted, moderate Free Syrians, and they ended up in the hands of ISIS every time, so it was suspended in December. Then in April, for some reason–they think they can now trust the Free Syrians–he started sending more weapons to the Free Syrians, and magically, they keep ending up in ISIS/ISIL control.
This President does a speech last night, and now, we are supposed to get with him and send more weapons to the people whose leaders are saying publicly, “We support ISIS. We support al-Nusra. We support the enemies of the United States.”
Source: Congressional Record
Note: Rep. Gohmert serves as the Vice Chair on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the following subject matters: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and pardons, internal and homeland security, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, criminal law enforcement, and other appropriate matters as referred by the chairman, and relevant oversight.
He also serves as a powerful member on the House Judiciary Committee:
House Judiciary Committee:
The Committee on the Judiciary has been called the lawyer for the House of Representatives because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in Federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. The Committee has oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice and Homeland Security, civil and criminal judicial proceedings and Federal courts and judges, issues relating to bankruptcy, espionage, terrorism, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional amendments, immigration and naturalization, interstate compacts, claims against the United States, national penitentiaries, Presidential succession, antitrust law, revision and codification of the statutes of the United States, state and territorial boundary lines and patents, copyrights and trademarks.