The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1798-H1800 on March 19, 2015.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
{time} 1330
NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the story out in a number of media, like this from Breitbart, ``First Details of Iran Deal: Allows 6,000 Centrifuges, Rolls Back the U.N. Arms Embargo.'' That story talks about in order to entice Iran to cut back to 6,000 or 6,500 centrifuges, elements of the U.N. arms embargo against Iran could be rolled back.
I think it is important to recall, it hasn't been that long ago that a principal cornerstone of the discussions between the Obama administration and the--I have to be careful the words I use here on the House floor--America-killing Iran administration was going to require them to dismantle their efforts toward nuclear production, and now they are floating a draft that is going to allow them to have thousands of centrifuges.
Now, I have been advised by people at the IAEA in Vienna that, actually, if they just have 3,000 centrifuges, with all of the uranium that has been enriched to 5 percent, they only need 3,000 to take it up to 90 percent. Once you are at 5 percent, it seems like it would be a long way to get to 90, but actually it is just a matter of weeks.
You could do it easily in a facility that would be easy to hide, because you could take those 3,000 in a facility 30 meters by 70 meters and you could enrich from 5 to 90 percent at weapons grade uranium, have the nukes that at least at one time Ayatollah Khamenei has indicated--I understand still believes--that they can hasten the return of the 12th imam, the Mahdi, to rule over this world caliphate, and they can do so because they believe the prophecy is that he will arise--the 12th imam, as the Mahdi, the head of the caliphate, this world caliphate, he will arise out of chaos, and they believe that could be nuclear chaos.
So, in effect, if this administration agrees to allow even 1,500 centrifuges to continue to spin in Iran, he is hastening the demise of millions of people, ultimately. A new Holocaust. Now, it is one thing when leaders in the United States could say, ``Gee, we didn't know that millions of Jews were being killed by Hitler; gee, we just didn't know,'' but there came a point where it became very clear, and Hitler and his subordinates really tried to hide what they were doing.
Iran has made no bones about what they want to do. They want to wipe Israel off the map. First of all, they are never going to eliminate all of the Jews in the world; it will not happen. As God is my witness, that will not happen. What will happen, as anybody, including this administration, if they are intent on going there, to allow Iran to continue to move toward nuclear weapons under this so-called nuclear agreement, they move there, it will cause judgment to come down on our country for allowing something so horrific to become possible when we had the means to stop it.
This is no time for anyone who is a civilized individual, who believes in the rights of men, the rights of women, the rights of children, to be cutting a deal with these cutthroats in Iran. Nobody seems to want to talk about it, but Iran has drug this thing out for over a year.
Perhaps Valerie Jarrett was working a deal even longer than that. There were reports that she was negotiating with them early on, trying to see if something could be done. Whether that is true or not, clearly what Iran has done is drug out the talks, continued to increase the number of centrifuges it has spinning, continued to move toward the ability to have a tremendous amount of 5 percent enrichment so that it very quickly can move to 90 percent and develop the nukes.
They would likely develop a number of them at the same time, not just do one. They would do a number and then spread them out so that, once they move into nuclear mode, they have several. You try to take them out at that point; you are going to find one or more of them in cities that you care about. So we should never allow that to even become possible.
When I see this deal, I see all these articles about it, then I see this article ``Obama Planning Drastic Shake-Up in Policy Toward Israel.'' So because the people of Israel, in their election, made clear, ``We would prefer not to be wiped out by Iran, and we can tell that the deal that the Obama administration is cutting is bad for Israel and puts us at extreme risk,'' they gave more seats than were expected to the Likud Party, Netanyahu's party.
What is the response of the Obama administration after they threw everything they possibly could, threw temper tantrums about Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking from right here just to tell us his perspective on the Iranian deal because his country is most at risk? Those that refused to understand--it isn't just Israel at risk--may pay at the cost of thousands or millions of lives. These people have no respect for the lives of people who are not radical Islamists, as they are.
So you might think: Oh, gee, maybe the Obama administration learned a lesson; let's don't try to interfere in the election process in a foreign country. It does make you wonder, you know, there were all those rumors about since the Obama money was never audited in his original campaign in 2008 and there were massive numbers of $50 contributions with credit cards, where did those come from? Were any of those foreign?
We have seen allegations about money coming in to Hillary Clinton's campaign from foreigners. We know in Bill Clinton's campaign they got caught redhanded with money from monks that was given to Vice President Al Gore, but, you know, foreigners are not supposed to be able to influence our elections. It appears that potentially they have.
If that were true--don't know for certain because there wasn't an audit done, but maybe that would help explain why this administration is so quick to get involved in the election process in Israel to try to destroy Netanyahu, who was more concerned with the preservation of the nation of Israel than he was in getting another Nobel Peace Prize for this administration.
But this, dated today, by Melanie Batley says:
The White House on Wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades-old policy of using its veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel. It could refuse to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians or introduce a measure of its own, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The U.S. could also lend its support to a two-state solution based on Israel's 1967 borders, a senior White House official told The New York Times: ``We're currently evaluating our approach,'' State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, according to the Journal. ``We're not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action.''
She should have said ``if there were,'' but she said ``if there was.''
The article also says:
The Obama administration in the past has shielded Israel at the Security Council, using a veto to strike down a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory.
Now, Obama officials may decide to allow Israel to be exposed to more international pressure in an attempt to force them back into negotiating.
This is what I would call a deal to hasten the attempted demise of Israel.
It is interesting, though, ``We're currently evaluating our approach,'' the State Department said, because we were told by a Muslim Brothers publication in December of 2012 that--yes, I believe it was 2012. It was before the fall of Muslim Brother Morsi as President of Egypt, but it was a Muslim Brothers-approved publication in Egypt that bragged about the six top advisers in the Obama administration who they bragged were Muslim Brothers.
Now, some in the media don't want to do anything but vilify me for pointing out what the Muslim Brothers have pointed out, but for a number of years I tried to advise the Homeland Security Department that you have elevated a man to the top advisory council, given him a secret security clearance, allowed him to access documents, which I was told by people, I believe, including the director of DPS in Texas, that we know that this man downloaded two documents. We know he downloaded them with his personal computer at his home, and then the report from Patrick Poole, the reporter, that he had direct indication from a national media outlet that Mr. Elibiary had shopped those documents to this national media outlet, who happened to refuse.
I asked Secretary Napolitano about it. She said she knew nothing about it. That was interesting, because her chief told the director of Texas Department of Public Safety the night before, who advised me the night before, that she had been totally briefed on what Elibiary had done. When I brought it up the next day, either she lied in front of our committee or her close staff member lied to the Department of Public Safety director in Texas the night before.
But we do know this. Later when I again asked her about it and if it had been investigated, she said that DHS had looked into it and there was nothing to it. Yet, when there was a FOIA request for the documents pertaining to the investigation, there were no documents that supported that there ever was an investigation. So either, again, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary lied, committed a crime, or DHS lied and there were documents about that investigation.
In any event, last September, the Homeland Security Department, after years of being warned about this person they kept elevating, after one of the ISIS videos hit television and showed the Islamic State cutting off the head of an American, this top adviser to our Homeland Security Department tweeted out, basically, the caliphate's inevitable; people just need to get used to the idea. That was the basis of it. So at Homeland Security, they allowed him to go ahead and not be renewed as a top adviser to Homeland Security.
We also know that Imam Magid, who had been head of the Islamic Society of North America, which Islamic Society of North America was aimed as a co-conspirator in the largest prosecution for supporting terrorism in the history of the United States in going after the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas, Texas, Federal Court. The Islamic Society of North America was named as a co-conspirator, as was the Council of American Islamic Relations, CAIR.
{time} 1345
Although, we saw a story last year where they were thinking about changing their name to--I forget what the words were--but instead of CAIR, it would be WTF. I guess they thought better of having WTF be their symbolic letters representing who they are.
In any event, CAIR, ISNA, they were named coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. When an effort was made to remove their names from being listed as coconspirators, the judge in the Federal court there in Dallas reviewed the evidence and said, No, there is evidence that supports having their names as coconspirators.
They appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States and all those judges looked at it and said, No, there is plenty of evidence here to support that these groups are coconspirators with the Holy Land Foundation--whose principals were convicted of supporting terrorism and sent to prison.
This administration gets sworn in within 2 months of the conviction, and instead of being careful about these groups that U.S. Federal courts had said we had plenty of evidence to show that they support terrorism, this administration neglected--refused--to consider that because they thought they knew better.
They brought the leaders of CAIR and ISNA into the realm of their close advisers; so is it any mystery that when Prime Minister Netanyahu was coming to Washington in May of 2011, the President sought advice--
got advice--from the leader of this named coconspirator supporting terrorism, Imam Magid?
When the President gave this speech in the State Department itself, Imam Magid was there. This administration had obviously given him credentials to allow him not only in the White House, but in the inner sanctum of the State Department.
When I read, ``We are currently evaluating our approach,'' from the State Department, I can't help but wonder: Have you got Imam Magid in there--which this Egyptian Muslim Brother-approved article said was a Muslim Brother, a top adviser--have you got him in there helping advise you on how to go after Netanyahu and how to put Israel more at risk than you already have?
``We are evaluating our approach'' scares me--should scare others--
when you know the kind of people that are giving this administration advice.
This article says:
The Obama administration in the past has shielded Israel at the Security Council, using a veto to strike down a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory. Now, Obama officials may decide to allow Israel to be exposed to more international pressure in an attempt to force them back into negotiating a peace deal.
Well, Israel has eyes wide open as Iran continues to spin centrifuges and enrich uranium. They understand that their very existence is at risk; yet we have people here in Washington--this administration--that apparently are hearing from people saying, Oh, no, it's no problem. Israel is the real problem here.
Never mind the people that are advising this administration are more upset with Israel wanting to continue to exist than they are with Iran for wanting to wipe out Israel and the United States.
This should scare people in the United States because, as Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out--though he didn't have to--he cares about the United States. He was educated here. He would like to see us continue to exist and be friends with Israel.
He pointed out, Look, they are developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those are not to hit us in Israel, he says, they are coming after us, but they really don't even need intercontinental ballistic missiles.
They can put them on a cargo ship and bring them right into our ports, bring them right up the Potomac River, into the Houston Ship Channel, into New Orleans. In between New Orleans and Houston, they can wipe out 70 percent of our refined gasoline, so we could be in a world of hurt in a real hurry.
The President's job is to help provide for the common defense, and it seems that his initiative is more to be opposed to anything Israel knows in its collective heart will keep them protected.
Unfortunately, that is not all the news. We look here and find this article from Newsmax:
Islamic State jihadists may have committed genocide in trying to wipe out the Yazidi minority in Iraq, the U.N. said Thursday in a report laying out a litany of atrocities. The Islamic State ``may have committed all three of the most serious international crimes--namely, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide,'' the United Nations human rights office said in a statement.
The agency published a horrifying report detailing killings, torture, rape, sexual slavery, and the use of child soldiers by the extremists. All of these crimes, it said, were violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and some may amount to ``crimes against humanity'' and
``war crimes.''
Further down, it says:
In numerous Yazidi villages, men and boys over the age of 14 were rounded up and shot, while the women and girls were abducted as the ``spoils of war.'' The report, which was ordered by the U.N. Human Rights Council last September, following a request from the Iraqi Government, pointed out that some villages ``were entirely emptied of their Yazidi population.''
Many Yazidi women and girls were sold into sexual slavery or handed over to Islamic State members as ``gifts,'' the report said, adding that witnesses had described hearing girls as young as 6 screaming for help as they were raped in a house used by Islamic State fighters.
A pregnant 19-year-old had told the investigators she had been repeatedly raped by a Islamic State ``doctor'' over a period of 2\1/2\ months and that he deliberately sat on her stomach, saying, ``This baby should die because it is an infidel. I can make a Muslim baby.''
We had the report in the last few weeks from a Catholic source in Nigeria where they have begged the United States for any help that it will give to try to stop Boko Haram and their efforts to wipe out Christians in Nigeria.
This source indicated that they had heard from the United States--
from the Obama administration--that the Obama administration will only help them against Boko Haram if Nigeria will change its laws to allow same-sex marriage.
Well, apparently, once this administration got through ObamaCare, it promised the Catholic leaders, Christian leaders: Hey, we will never, ever refuse to allow you to practice your religious beliefs.
Well, that turned out to be a lie because, of course, they went after Catholic nuns, they went after the Catholic Church--well, at least those who actually practice what they hear preached in the Catholic Church--and any other Christian who believes that abortion is religiously wrong.
I guess after the administration broke its promise and went after and used the full force of the government to prevent people from practicing their religious beliefs and being able to conform their conduct to their religious beliefs, it was a no-brainer that they would then try to impose their religious beliefs--or lack thereof--upon countries like Nigeria or others in Africa or around the world.
There will be a price for the United States as a country to pay when we know about Jews being wiped out, when we know about Christians being wiped out, and God has blessed us with the ability to protect ourselves and to stop such genocide; not only do we do nothing to stop it, we demand that they abandon their Christian beliefs before we will offer any help.
There will be a price to pay for the United States of America for being so callous as Christians and Jews around the world are suffering in numbers like never before.
I applaud my friend Brad Sherman. This article from Pam Key today quotes Sherman as saying:
I fear that you have misled this committee in telling us that once Iran has the rights of a nonnuclear state subject to additional protocol, that you'll be able to stop sneak-out, because you've said first that, well, they can't develop a nuclear weapon because that would be illegal. That's a preposterous argument. Obviously, they're willing to break the law.
My friend Mr. Sherman and I disagree on so much, but I know him to be an honorable man, and he understands Iran doesn't care about breaking deals. Any deal with Iran is like a deal with Hitler. The Soviet Union thought they could cut a deal with Hitler. The thing that their leaders were most mad about was that Hitler reached the agreement before they did because they had intentions, apparently, of breaching it.
We are somewhere between Neville Chamberlain and Stalin in trying to reach a deal with a modern-day Hitler, except Hitler didn't have some crazy religious idea that he should wipe out everybody in the world that didn't have the exact same religious beliefs that he did.
Look, we are on the side of right. President al-Sisi in Egypt is on the side of right. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, all over the Middle East, they are becoming afraid because this administration is on the verge of cutting a deal that will allow Iran to continue moving forward to not just one nuke, but many nukes, and a breakout could be a matter of weeks.
I know people are talking about it could be years, but when you hear from people that know that you could have a facility 30 meters by 70 meters and that you could sneak that 5 percent into a secret facility without people knowing and you could enrich it to 90 and have nuclear weapons, we ought to take notice.
We have been blessed with much, and to whom much is given, of them much is required. The world deserves better with what we have been blessed with in the way of power, and they deserve to have us stand up against Iran. It is time for us to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
