tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 24, 2014 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
keep their own faith? it's now the rule that's open a company or work in a job or to get health care, you have to have the same religious convictions of the president of the united states. if you don't, you'll be fined until you change your faith practice. that's not what we're founded on. that's not whoer. every faith, every opportunity for every person to live out what they believe, at home, at work, and in the community. just days ago, the president spoke at the national prayer breakfast about the cornerstone right of the free expression of religion that means -- that includes americans who believe children are a gift from god and should be nurtured and cared for and not discarded as tissue. ur constitution matters, our freedom of religion matters and
the constitution matters this family, this family is not some corporate ogre, trying to rule over their employees. they're my neighbor. they live a mile from my house. they're a quiet family. great family that's lived out their faith. they're a tremendous community partner in so many ways in our community and around the country and quite frankly around the globe with what they've done to take care of the poor and the needy and the people of faith all over the world. they're an incredible gift to our nation. yet they're being told, you cannot practice your faith anymore. this is not something new that they're doing. the government changed the rules on them. they didn't change their practice. suddenly a new administration walked in and changed the rules and said you can no longer live our faith at work. well, i'm honored that they've stepped up. they've said not so, not so for their business, not so for businesses around the country.
all of us have seen the lists and lists of waiver this is administration has given for the affordable care act. waivers for the employer mandate. waivers for the income verification requirement. waiverers in small business health operation. a waiver just given a month ago, the administration delayed the requirement for businesses with fewer than 100 employees to offer health insurance until 2016. and then this one. just march 5, a few days ago, the administration announced it will allow people to keep noncompliant insurance plans through 2016. that is noncompliant except in this area. in this one area they said, no, we're not going to give a waiver for that up with. instead we'll fine you $36,500. everyone else is noncompliant, we'll give you a waiver except for hobby lobby and other businesses like them. they get no waiver. they get the hammer. is that fair? is that right? is this what we've become as a
nation? i think better of us. i look forward to the supreme court taking up this case and setting things straight because in this country, we have a constitutional right to speak out and to live out our faith. with that, i yield back to the entlelady. >> thank you. i'm so glad you shared about this family. mrs. hartzler: they're truly courageous, putting their business on the line saying, this is what's -- this is worth fighting for. those who have gone before us have fought for us, now it's time for us to fight. thank you for sharing that. you're right. they're trying to change the regulations you can't practice your faith at work. being co-sersed to change your faith practice. gave waivers to others, but they give the green family the
hammer. well said. now i turn to someone who knows the other family involved in the supreme court decision, who has the honor of representing the hahn family, my friend and courageous leader for faith and famly for years, representative joe pitts. mr. pitts: thank you. mr. speaker, first i want to thank the gentlelady for hosting this special order, it's so important. because tomorrow the u.s. supreme court will hear arguments in the case of hobby lobby and conestoga wood specialties against sebelius. i have the privilege tomorrow to sit in the chambers and listen to the oral arguments. and at the heart of the argument is the question about whether you stop following your conscience when you go into business. for family businesses like conestoga woods specialties, located in my congressional
district, faith and business are not separate. their business would not be the same if they did not apply the values that guide their life. i have visited this business. i've talked to their employees. i know the hahn family, they're sincere mennonites and wonderful people of faith and good business people. it is those values that prompted connest toga wood to -- conestoga wood to provide health insurance for their pleas in the first place. they supplied health insurance before any government mandate no government mandate had to tell them it was the right thing to do. now the government wants to use force and fines to stipulate the details of what that plan covers. conestoga wood and many other business owners of faith find themselves in a catch-22 of
conscience. the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act were meant to guard against using the heavy hand of government to infringe on our religious rights. we should not have to leave our faith at the church door. under the first amendment, we're guaranteed freedom of religion. and i might remind you, it is the first amendment, it's not the second amendment, it's not the sixth, or the 16th, or the 26th, it's the first amendment. and it's the first thing mentioned in the first amendment. freedom of religion. not freedom from religion. pennsylvania has a long history of people of differing faiths engaging in commerce. a hundred years before there was a first amendment, william penn established his colony as a place where religious dissenters could find freedom and safety.
and the forefathers of the hahn family, mennonites and others, came to pennsylvania because it was advertised as a place where you could live and work freely according to your religious beliefs. these people of faith supported themselves with businesses and the colonial authorities of pennsylvania let them apply their principles freely. and these prince preponderancing -- principles of religious freedom would inform later the founding of our republic as something that had at first been uniquely pennsylvanian would become part of our national culture. family-owned and operated businesses provide millions of good jobs in america. the hahn family is facing a difficult choice that no american should have to face. we hope and pray that the supreme court will uphold a basic pennsylvania value and a
basic american value and the first amendment right to religious freedom. every american, including family business owners, should be free to live and work according to their beliefs without the fear of punishment or coercion by the government. americans don't give up their freedoms when they open a family business. let's hope and pray that the supreme court will uphold all of our rights to religious freedom here in this great country we call america. i yield back. mrs. hartzler: thank you, gentleman, so true. family businesses have a right to not be coerced into giving up their faith just for providing jobs. and now i'd like to turn to my friend and truly a leader here for families and life and common sense, representative chris
smith. mr. smith: i want to thank my good friend and colleague from missouri for her outstanding leadership on behalf of the life issues, for her courage and her consistent approach to these tal issues that really are important. i, like my colleagues, am grateful that the u.s. supreme court took up this critical case for religious liberty and i, we, mr. speaker, are hopeful that the court will provide much needed relief from this discriminatory obamacare policy. under the obama administration's coercive mandate, family owned businesses like hob lee lobby and conestoga wood have found themselves in the impossible situation of being forced to violate their moral or religious beliefs or face crippling fines. this not only puts businesses in serious and unnecessary risk, but also employees who may lose
their jobs as well as their health care. it is the height of hypocrisy, mr. speaker, for the obama administration to coerce family businesses that provide generous health care for their employees into a situation that may force them to close and to shutter their businesses. the obamacare financial penalties are draconian, egregious, and without precedent in u.s. law. under obamacare, family businesses that does provide health care for employees, like the hobby lobby but objects to covering certain drugs and devices new york their case that provided for abortions, will be fined up to $36,500 per year, per employee. that's outriges -- outrageous. for the green family of hobby lobby this could mean an amount to nearly half a billion dollars in fines every year. there's no way they can absorb that kind of body blow without
closing their doors. i would note parenthetically that a company that does not provide any health care insurance, the gentlelady from missouri spoke about this in her opening comments, will be fined some $2,000 per year. clearly an unfair burden but far less than the $36,500 per year, per employee, if they refuse, again to include certain drugs or devices that violate their moral or religious tenets. when you calculate that out for the green family of hobby lobby, dumping their current coverage could result in $26 billion per year, a huge penl but $448 million less than if they provided health insurance and remained true to their core convictions, which they will do. mr. speaker, this burdensome penalty is completely unfair, unreasonable, it is unworkable and it is unconscionable.
the obama administration is saying, we will punish you. we will hurt you. we will even put you out of business for providing health care to your employees unless you provide health care according to the government's conscience. also employees currently on their business health plan could lose their coverage that they desperately need for their families as well as thems. secretary sebelius and president obama have no business whatsoever imposing their morality on people of faith. but that is exactly what their oppressive mandate does. the supreme court, mr. speaker, has a duty to protect religious and conscience rights of the greens and the hahns and everyone else suffer government-imposed harm. u.s. high court must act to protect the first amendment rights of these families to -- of these families. protecting these rights also protects their employees. let's make no mistake about it, mr. speaker. this mandate and its deleterious
effects and consequences are very much obama's willful intention. the imposition of this attack on religious freedom is no accident. it comes straight from the pages of obamacare. in december of 2009 in the run up to the passage of that legislation, senator mikulski offered an amendment which provided the authorizing language for this oppressive mandate. 2009, the same year, when president obama spoke at notre dame university, which parenthetically is also suing over the mandate, he spoke about drafting a sensible conscience clause, his words, and yet today protection of conscience is another highly visible broken promise of obamacare. you know, mr. speaker, to tell people that their conscience is irrelevant and that they must follow the federal government's conscience rather than their own is pleatly antithetical to the american principle of religious freedom in the first amendment. let's reverse obama's attack on
con -- unless reversed, the willk on conscience rights hurt many. many businesses could be forced to shut down, eliminating jobs. i would never have believed that this kind of religious violation could occur in the united states of america, but it has. the supreme court must end this abuse. i yield back to my good friend. mrs. hartzler: absolutely. this is a moment in history a moment of opportunity for this supreme court to stand up and to do the right thing. half a billion dollars in fines. half a billion dollars in fines, this company is facing, thank you for bringing this home what that means. you know, they're going to coerce -- coerce, it's draconian, uns predebited, that every going to force you, that's the definition of a bully.
we're going to bully you into doing what we think is right. we stand up against that in every other arena and we are standing up against it here as well. now i'd like to turn to my friend from nebraska, representative jeff fortenberry to share your thoughts at this moment in history. mr. fortenberry: let me thank the gentlelady from missouri for our leadership not only one that has come upon our country. i'm not sure most americans know what is at issue and whether or not the relationship between the government and her people will shift. whether the government will be able to coerce people who disagree as to the content of what their health care should be, based on their religious beliefs. and if they don't obey, they will be fined as has been mentioned here earlier in an ir ronic way.
the case tomorrow, hobby lobby with millions of americans enjoy shopping at, project its christian perspective in the way it conducts its business and the desire to do the right thing, they have established a good health care plan. if they drop their health care plan, they will be fined by $2,000. if they refuse to go along with that which violates their religious perspective, the government will fine them $36,000. the irony is striking that a business that is doing the right thing that is based upon the values of their owners, who promote good products that millions of americans enjoy, who close on subpoenaed, because
that's their stated christian belief. i don't see any lawsuits over that. they are saying they cannot provide certain drugs that would violate the dictate of their faith, certain drugs that this administration has deemed preventative. when most of us were looking at the health care bill when it was first passed, there was prevention services. i didn't vote for it. and what we have is a huge shift of cost to unsustainable government spending and serious erosion. we can do better than this. but buried in that health care bill was prevention authority. that means we are going to prevent the onset of diabetes or
heart disease, chronic disease which is driving up our health care costs and what we are thinking about to the principles and dynamics of wellness, maybe we can get underneath. that's what i thought it was all about. it is an ideology of the administration that is imposing of people upon faith or other americans who don't have a faith percent perfecttive, and the government should not coerce people from their deeply-held, reasonly-held beliefs. that's what is at issue here. and if it goes the wrong way, the relationship between the government and her people will ultimately change. you see, the government will be confering this right of religious liberty, not protected. it will be deciding who gets to
exercise what type of religious liberty rather than protecting the individual conscience of the person, that sacred space that is inherent to the dignity of all persons. where do our rights come from. the first amendment of the constitution, it is reflected in the ideals, separation of church and state. have a copy of the orange in my office and penciled in there as they were working in there, it says the rights of conscience. the principleept, of conscience freedom. rights come from the inherent dignity of each person by virtue of who they are and the way they were created and the ability to
exercise who they are is a sacred space that the government must protect. they listed it as the number one space in the bill of rights. in the aftermath of the french revolution, there was a young jug arch n jamed jean and her father was a fisherman and one day he was lost at sea and the family was reduced to poverty. she went out and worked as a maid servant to help the family. she received a proposal of marriage but she decided that was not appropriate to her and lived a quiet and humble life and one day she saw a woman outside in the cold blind, paralyzed and freezing and
picked her up and brought her to her own bed. and this was a key turning point in her life. perhaps she knew her life would turn out this way. the little sisters of the poor who trace their origins back to that similar am act of kindness. she was a cannonized a saint after pe john paul and having asked for her intersessions and recently a saint. the little sisters of the poor are not nuns on a bus. they just take care of the vulnerable elderly through health care facilities and they find themselves having to sue the federal government to be able to exercise their religious freedom as they see fit.
that's what this health care bill has brought about through this prevention mandate. it is a direct frontal assault on america's first freedoms, so much so that a group of humble nuns and as i spoke to one, she told me we see in the elderly, christ, a group of humble nuns that have dedicated their lives,r are having to fight their rights to exercise their rights as they see fit. tomorrow's decision, while it is about two strong businesses, it has vast ramifications. even for people who aren't in religious orders who have set up charitable institutions who are being forced to buy products for their employees. as one of the nuns told me, it
violates our conscience. we didn't want to see the government. i'm glad to have had the opportunity with you tonight to discuss this most essential issue, because if we don't speak, who is going to speak? i'm not quite sure that all of america has realized what is at stake at 10:00 tomorrow morning, whether the government will be allowed to coerce americans into -- funnel violate freedom. it will change the nature of the relationship between government and her people. let's hope the supreme court gets it right. there are a few precedence before this where they have gotten it right. the little sisters of poor have gotten an injunction.
whether or not the first amendment to the constitution is guarantees the right to religious freedom and appropriate separation of church and state is going to hold. thank you. i israel back. mrs. hartzler: thank you, gentleman. fundamental shift. this would represent the relationship between the government and her citizens will forever change. that's chilling. it's chilling. i appreciate you sharing this story of the little sisters of the poor, to show that isn't just about the two entities that are before the supreme court tomorrow. there are 94 different lawsuits around the country from other small businesses and entities and colleges and others that, too, are being forced. these are huge implications.
not just for the 94 that stood up and said no and challenged it, but for each and every citizen. with that, i would like to thank dan lipinski from illinois coming here and i appreciate his leadership from the pro-life caucus and other family issues. what would you like to share tonight? mr. lipinski: i would like to thank you for yielding on this critical issue, which is not just -- i'm a democrat. i know this is not a partisan issue. this is not even just a foundational american principle, it's a fundamental human right. many of the men and women who came to america were fleing religious persecution. they had the courage to pledge
their life, fortune and lives to the cause. the first amendment to the our constitution starts with these words, congress shall make no law making establishment ever religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. i used to teach my american government students that clearly this was not freedom to worship just freedom to go on sunday or saturday, whatever day of the week that you worshipped, but a freedom to exercise religion in the way you see proper. as first lady michelle obama stated in a conference, our ith journey isn't just about on sunday but monday through
saturday as well. and that is what americans believe. and we must protect the freedom to exercise our religious beliefs every day of the week. many millions have had the courage to filet and many have died to protect our nation in this constitutional right. we have the duty to our fellow americans and the world to claim a true religious liberty in our nation, because this goes beyond our board. america has been a beacon of liberty for people around the world for more than two centuries. as the people blessed with liberty, we have the special objectly gation so protect it and proclaim it. world. e around the we must stand up here in america and i want to thank all of my colleagues for standing up here today to continue to work here in congress to protect our
religious freedom and i want to pray for wisdom for our supreme court justices tomorrow as they consider this very critical, funnel case where we must rededicate ourselves to fight for religious freedom in our nation without which we would be giving up on a funnel principle that underlies this nation. mrs. hartzler: so true, that we are and have been the beacon of liberty for this world and this court decision tomorrow has implications for not only our country and citizens but for around the world. i was a teacher and i appreciate how we taught our students with the basic rights were. but this decision will impact their future, too. if governments can force its citizens to go against their basic, most fundamental, moral
values and conscience, what else can it do? so, with that, representative andy harris from maryland, thank you for being here tonight and the floor is yours. mr. harris: the gentleman from illinois talked about people who come to this country fleing religious persecution. my mother came from the ukraine. she was, in fact, a ukranian greek catholic and the gentlelady knows of the history when the soviet union took over the ukraine, they burned the catholic churches to the ground. in fact it is ironic that we are discussing this year and the supreme court will take this up as we are seeing religious persecution going on in the ukraine, where the ukranian
greek catholic commump was burned to the ground. it doesn't agree with our beliefs. they burn churches to the ground. we have to learn the lesson, though, they tried that after world war ii. they tried to destroy churches that way but learned the lesson that the church is not the building. the church is a group of the church is believers who share common religious beliefs. that's why then the soviet union fell, the churches they thought they had burned to the ground rose up. i would suggest that what's going on in oklahoma city with hobby lobby and in lankster, pennsylvania, with conestoga wood products is a church burning without a match. in fact it's even more insidious. because you can't see something you can't see the ashes.
but in fact, if the government has its way, with these two employers, they will attempt to persecute them for their religious beliefs and attempt to destroy them. that's not the way it is in america. as the gentleman from illinois said, there are plenty of places in the world where that may be true but we do have a first amendment. we have a first amendment that doesn't protect church buildings, it protects religious believers in whatever walk of life they're in, whatever they're doing, from the government imposing their belief system, whether it's the case of a belief of a religious body or a belief that you shouldn't provide life-destroying drugs. but that's what's at issue in these cases. and i would hope that the supreme court realizes that this country does have a first amendment.
and that its job, its duty, our duty, is to protect the religious beliefs of every individual, including those owners of conestoga wood products and hobby lobby who deserve the right and freedom in america to believe their religious beliefs and not have them -- not have the government impose theirs. so i would thank the gentlelady from missouri and yield back. mrs. hartzler: well said. thank you for sharing your story. now i have a friend from kansas, representative huelskamp. mr. huelskamp: thank you, congresswoman. it's a pleasure and an honor to join you tonight, i will keep my comments short. you've heard the words religion tax, religious litmus test, you've heard the words religious liberty and of course we heard that the two first principles, the two first principles of the two amendment have to do with
religious liberty and religious freedom. i was on the floor the day after the supreme court decision on the president's health care law and i would like to issue a challenge to what is generally considered the swing vote of this current court. the chief justice himself. when i spoke ability this issue, court challenges were already coming forward on this h.h.s. mandate. but knowing that the chief justice is a row monocatholic, i issue a strong challenge to the chief justice. given the history of the catholic church in this country, it's been one of severe discrimination at times, i would ask the chief justice, the deciding vote, to consider his core convictions. i believe he bears a particular burden to protect the religious liberties of employers and their employees from the excesses of his very own constitutional creation. the court asked to be in the middle of this position. they asked for the government to have the right to tell
businesses what to do, whether for-profit or nonprofit or businesses or nonbusinesses as well. what is it stake here is not the choice of businesses aloan. what's at stake here is not -- not necessarily what the government can tell selected entities. it's the very stake of our constitution and our rights and freedoms as americans. we were founded on the issue of religious freedom and liberty from our very beginning. let's hope tomorrow i stand with the businesses, the nonbusinesses, the private entities as well and i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. hartzler: thank you, gentleman, well said. we have been here and we're not done yet my specialed or emitigating circumstance time is about done. we're going to continue on here because we believe in standing up for the constitution. we believe in the first amendment. religious liberty. we believe in our country and our future and our children's future. and want to preserve those
freedoms that others have sacrificed for. so i want to thank all my colleagues who have come here tonight and have shared their wisdom and their insights into this and let us pray tomorrow that the supreme court hears the words that we have spoken and rules on the -- on the side of freedom. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for ree-- for the remainder of the time until 10:00 p.m. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time, i would like to yield to my friend from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. mr. rothfus: i thank the gentleman from texas and thank the gentlelady from missouri for organizing the previous hour's discussion on this very important issue. i rise in support of the people of faith at companies like hobby
lobby and pennsylvania's conestoga wood. these companies want to provide health insurance for their workers and they should be able to do that without violating their deeply held religious and moral convictions. it is simply unacceptable that president obama's health care law requires people of faith to violate their conscience rights. this happens when regulations issued pursuant to the law forces them to pay for services such as abort fashte -- aborti abortifacients -- drugs. if these family owned businesses do not comply with the mandate they could be fined $100 per day per employee. hat amounts to $36,500 per year, per employee. even if the health insurance
provided is of excellent quality. compare that with the $2,000 fine per year per employee if they stop offering insurance altogether. how is that fair? just? respect of -- respectful of their beliefs? this poster, mr. speaker, is striking. this discrepancy is simply indefensible. looking at these numbers, you would think that this administration thinks that it's more important for an employer o provide abortifacient drug coverage than comprehensive insurance coverage that would cover items such as cancer treatment. as the supreme court considers this case tomorrow and hears oral arguments, i join men and women of faith from western pennsylvania and across the country in defending conscience rights and religious liberty and
standing with hobby lobby and conestoga wood. i thank the gentleman from texas and yield back. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend from pennsylvania very much, ery, very good points. it is also along the lines my friend was talking about, those of us who are -- who were here when our fine president stood at that podium and spoke to all of us here and he said in his , that that in his bill there would be no funding of abortions. we all heard that. in fact, there was such a response i have -- responsive -- it was an involuntary response of joe wilson to categorize that statement because from the bill we had seen from the democrats it was clear there was going to be money forced out of
taxpayers' hands and forced to fund abortion and we now know that is true and so, you know, most of the time the decent thing to do if you find out that something you said was simply not true, the decent thing to do is to step up and say, you know what? joe wilson, you were right, but it was unintentional, i didn't mean to misrepresent anything and so i want to set this straight. but instead, it's like this administration has doubled down and said, not only is it going to -- is the government funding it, but you are going to have to fund abortion for your employees and it doesn't matter that you have firmly held religious convictions against it. i wanted to mention to my colleagues, before i came to the floor, to hear the wonderful
work that our friend, mrs. hartzler, has been doing, is she from the show-me state or what? i walked by where roger williams' statue has always been since i've been here and apparently they've moved statues because he's not there. it's just -- it's been in the last week i know they've moved roger williams and i pulled this up, roger williams was born in england, between 160 and 1606, he grew up a member of the privileged class, received an education -- this is if the capitol website. but he abandoned the study of law to become a priest in the church of england. he was interested in the puritan movement, the newly established massachusetts bay colony, he was warmly welcomed to the new world by massachusetts governor john winthrop, he arrived in boston, williams was an adamant separatist and accepted a post
as assistant pastor in se lem, reputedly a friendly place, however his teachings were deemed radical and he was banished from the massachusetts bay colony in 1635. he founded the colony of rhode island in 1636 and i know it's up to every state, each state gets to choose which statues, which two statues you want to have and i look forward to him coming back, i'm sure they would never have permanently removed a statue of the founder of rhode island, there's nobody i can think of more appropriate but i just thought, you know what? it probably is appropriate that a man that staked his entire life on religious freedom would not have his statue here to fig rah tyly witness what has gone on and -- figuratively witness what has gone on and what has passed in this capitol. to talk about this issue further, i want to yield such time as he may use to my friend
from colorado -- georgia. of course you're from georgia. of course from georgia my dear friend doug collins from georgia. mr. collins: i thank the gentleman from texas and i also thank the gentlewoman from missouri who started our night off. i think there's been a lot said as we go forward in bringing -- bringing this important matter. i want to take just a little bit different tack as we talk about the issues of tonight and a lot has been said. but i believe we're blessed to live in a time when medical research and technology have allowed taos extend and improve human life in ways we never thought possible. and the truth of the matter is, while we're standing here tonight is about life. it's about an understanding of life and about the life not only of the unborn and -- but also the born and the right to express the life that is given to them. from the moment of conception, each individual has unique d.n.a. that dictates his or her gender, eye color, blood type and countless other specifications.
even from his or her earliest moments, a child in the womb has the ability to respond to his or her environment as well as adapt to that veerment. these scientific facts are amazing but i have a deeper motivation for protecting human life. i believe that life is a gift from god. and i believe that that gift from god is also expressed and was expressed by the founders when they said they would stand up for the right to express our religious liberties, as roger williams was just spoke of, that statue that right to say, this is what i believe and this is why i'm in this country and that is what we're talking about here. it is not only life, at birth and in the womb but life expressed outside of that. and the god-given, i believe, right to express in our constitution. you know, for me, i not only understand that life begins at conception but continues through until natural death. it's that natural life here in america is expressed in ways that we can contribute our life to others and how we express it
should not be taken away. unfortunately, this administration is too preoccupied with its own ideological commitment to its definition of good health insurance to care about other points of view. that's why i continue to spending so much time and energy and by the way taxpayer resources trying to silence those who do not share its view of the contraseptember i have mandate. just a few months ago, i stood on the floor of the house and thought, never would i have thought i would come to the house of representatives and determined that it would have been nonessential, never determined to be nonessential to have religious liberty protected on the floor of this house or in this country. that's an amazing thought to me that we would even have to think about that but under the president's nonsensical policies expressed by the gentleman from pennsylvania, business owners would face fines of $36,500 for each employee every year that were offered health insurance consistent with their religious
convictions. on the other hand they could quit offering health care altogether and only pay $2,000. tell me what the priorities of the administration are and show me the money. if you want to see the priorities of someone's life, look at the checkbook and their calendar. -- calendar. they want to punish us and they've got a timeline and now is the time. the argument you want to step forward with hobby lobby and others, when they step forth before the justice tomorrow you say here's the priority of this country the priority of this country should be that it protects religious liberties, protects the constitution, protects those liberties on which we were founded and not an ideological aden -- agenda and not hurting others. i agree with my friend from texas, i was taught when you make a mistake, say, look, i made a mistake. but the administration wants to
continue to beat an ideological policy and continue to beat down and say this is what we believe and you will believe like us because we're not so sure that the essentials of the constitution are essential anymore. it's time that i hope tomorrow, mr. speaker, that the argument made before the highest court in the land is that there is a right to protect life, that there is a life even better than having religious liberties protected. that when i have a business those rights when god forbid and they say i hope they stood up and when they do that, they'll see our priorities and will say what is priority and what we spend on and what we plan on and for this administration, it is obvious at there is a ideology
call-driven agenda. mr. speaker, that's wrong. it's time to change it. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend from georgia so very much. i need to come where he preaches sometime. that was outstanding and i know as a servapt to the country and congress and military as well as a servant of christ, what a powerful message. mr. speaker, you may be aware, i wasn't until today, in times when there are oral arguments en members could call on the -- any d made one bench
way, the marshal of the supreme ourt, pamela, has decided that though there has been reciprocity in the past, we invite the supreme court to watch, reciprocity -- maybe you got it from the chief justice, but members of congress are not going to have a reserved spot. we are supposed to oversee that court just as they oversee the congress. as of today, i'm going to be the most outspoken supporter of getting cameras in the supreme court. we need people to be able to see it. if we are funding it, we need to
combelt cameras in there and thank pamela for that. and i yield to mr. lamb borning. -- lamborn. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i rise dd in support of hobby lobby stores as they stand against the obamacare mandate. family business owners should live and work without fear of the government punishing them for doing so. this issue of religious liberty are not limited to these two employers. many nonprofits across this country have expressed grave concern. it forces them to violate their deeply-held religious beliefs or
face penalties. herkules, a ate, heating and cooling manufacturer has been forced into this legal dilemma as well. as devout catholics, they worked to run their companies in a way that reflects their religious convictions. this is why the obama administration forced them to violate those beliefs and they had to age, file a lawsuit. the industry already provides generous health insurance for their employees with 265 full-time employees, it could be acing over $9 million in fines
each year. they if they don't comply with the mandate to provide drugs that they believes can end human-. what eastern unbearable choice. not only has the mandate an attack on the liberty, it puts in jeopardy jobs. i support businesses like here cue less, hobby lobby and because of their stand against this oppressive mandate. it is a component of american greatness. it is of importance to do everything we can to defend it. i look forward to the supreme court's decision and i hope this will be a precedent for future
cases. i yield back to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend from com so very much. i'm grateful for your service. at this time, i yield to my good friend from florida, mr. yoho, .uch time mr. yoho: i thank you for starting this discussion. i rise today or tonight not only in firm opposition to the affordable care act's religious mandate. 2009, a one-sided government passed a bill and said we have to pass it to see what's in it and see how it's going to work. and we are seeing the tip of the iceberg.
h.h.s. issued rules that health are plans must include include drugs that could terminate pregnancies. t is an emshon for churches. people are morally opposed. the mandate puts jobs and millions of america caps atlanta rifpk and forces people who stand up for their conscience to choose between paying fines as you have seen expressed. yet it excludes some people of certain faith because participating in group health insurance is a form of gambling and that's against their religious beliefs but won't exclude people who are moral alley spluded.
first amendment protects religious beliefs. obamacare disregards this and attacks the freedom of americans' conscience, we are a nation of free individuals who should not have to foresake in order to adhere to legislation that was quickly passed into law before all the disastrous effects could be canned. we as americans must take this opportunity to stand up to the federal government and protect our first amendment and i would like to caution all of my colleagues and more we allow the federal government to do for us, the less freedoms we as americans enjoy. for me, i will stand with the first amendment, the constitution and with the american people and stand for freedom and liberty. and i yield back.
mr. gohmert: thank my friend rom florida for those strong wods. rofert reported by cbs. the vatican chief justice saying, it is true that the policies of the united states president has become more hostile. appears to be a tote taltly secularizedman who supports anti-life policies. i know he professed christianity. so i don't necessarily agree with wull of those statements but how profound when the vatican chief justice feels compelled to make that statement. and for the remainder of our time, i yield to our friend from louisiana steve scalise.
mr. scalise: thank the gentleman from texas. thank the gentlelady from missouri in bringing to light an important issue that will be debated right across the street over in the supreme court in the hobby lobby case deals with much more one cowp company. and that is the right of religious freedom. and what does that mean. and just how much ability does the federal government have to impede upon that right especially when we talk about the right of a president in this case ks barack obama, to put out an addict that would take away that right of religious freedom from millions of freedoms that have enjoyed it since the beginning of our country. if you look at this, it says in god we trust. a lot of people would be
surprised because their school boards that have threats against them if they try to pray before any governmental service. in schools across our country. that is being challenged by groups every single day and threaten groups, schools, other governmental organizations. and we pray at the beginning and start of every session every day. we have in god we trust. and it's there for a reason. because our founding fathers when they created this nation they deposit say these were rights, rights laid out in the constitution. these weren't rights given by men. but men. these were the writings of our founding fathers. they traced god and talked about the great blessings.
our founding fathers said that. thomas jefferson may have been a right-wing nuts. but if you look at what this president is doing right now trying to tramp will on those freedoms the hobby lobby case is where those rights converge. to our job creators. this is a business that wants to run and provide services to people. a few locations in my district. wife likes going to hobby lobby but shouldn't be faced with the dilemma. whether or not they are going to violate their own religious freedoms in this country. nobody should be faced with the threat of our government taking away their religious freedom just to be able to operate as a
business and that is happening right now with the president. and not limited to businesses. if you look at what is happening, the president likes to talking about a war on women, he loves to divide this country to divide, how shameless that is. and where is the president's war? it is against the little cyst ders of the poor, a catholic order of nuns that are trying to do good. they are forced to sue the federal government because barack obama wants to make little sisters of the poor to pay for iran duesing-drugs. otherwise they are in violation of the law. what law would force catholic nuns to pay for inducing-abortion drugs to
comply with health care laws? that's what is at stake. that is why it so important we come together to stand up against this kind of oppression of religious freedom. wasn't the 10th of all 10 amendments, it was the first amendment. that's why we stand here in support of this. i hope the supreme court recognizes what our founding fathers laid out as one of the bake fundamental and that is the right of religious freedom. i appreciate my colleagues standing up and we hope they rules the right way and i yield back. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i'm so combrateful to the gentlelady from missouri for calling so many members and leading us in this time and mr. speaker,
closing with one line from benjamin franklin, without god's concurring aid, we will succeed in our political building no better than the builder of babel and becoming a byword throughout the ages. mr. speaker, we pray for his wisdom for the supreme court and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: i adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: sthafere. those opposed, no. the ayes have it it. the motion is adopted. the house is
>> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook age. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> and now the discussion of terrorism as communication -- terrorism and communication from the university of central florida. he spoke at embry riddle aeronautical university earlier this month. a half.an hour and >> good evening -- from the campus of embry riddle aeronautical university, welcome
to the president's speaker series. president, i am marc bernier, the moderator for tonight's event. tonight, the terror -- the 15 for terrorism. we will talk to an expert on this subject and the author of the new book, and then we will talk to the audience about the 15 points he brings up. it is my pleasure to introduce our speaker, the author on the same topic, ladies and gentlemen, dr. jonathan matusitz. >> thank you, thank you. >> a little bit of background for those who perhaps have not heard you or seen you before. what led you to write and speak about this subject?
>> most books on terrorism are in criminal justice. very few are in communication. there was no big book mixing both fields. i took the opportunity to write a book and sage, the social sciences publishers said yes, we will publish it. >> we will go through the 15 points. i am asking him to outline where and why this happens. we just came off the olympics. what was the number one worry for the participants and the visitors -- with their bridge terrorism there? located where caspian's used to live. they were in ethnic minority group and in 1864, february of 1864 -- if you do the math, before the years
olympics. they were discriminated and many were killed by the russians. wereact that the russians holding the olympics there were a good way for them to wreak revenge. the main concern was terrorism as a form of retaliation. >> there were no major was a war -- there happening just outside the perimeter. were you surprised there were no acts of terrorism? >> the russian secret police was very good at foiling these attacks. are fromround is you belgium? >> that is correct. i was born and raised in belgium. >> how many languages do you speak? >> three. french, dutch, and english. here?t brought you >> the land of opportunity. come to america.
i got here in 2000. i have been living here for 14 years. from belgium to hear? theo. uc of hired me and summer of 2006. i have lived here for seven and a half years. he reminded me it was about in thers ago -- he was audience and came up and gave me his card and i started watching the classes you were teaching in the events you were doing and then when we were putting the series together, the topic of homeland security here at embry riddle, we thought we should do this. that is how we came to do this tonight. >> it is good to see a lot of adults and a lot of young people. i give a lot of talks like this.
here there are a lot of young people. thank you for being here. >> let's talk about the 15 points. let's go through them one at a time to read where in the world are these reasons for being employed? i'm going to do religion at the end, i will just tell you. it is huge and opens up for >> other things. but you list a question. give us an example please. >> the best example from the 1990's to today, oppression leads to revenge. a lot of the chechen terrorists say the russian army oppresses them. and a lot of chechen men get killed by the russians. a lot of the wives, the widows to come suicide bombers. we call them the black widows, like the spider. it's a colorful metaphor. feelhechen black widows oppressed and seek revenge against the russians. most of the suicide bombers in
chechnya are actually female. >> historical grievances. this is interesting. it can take on all kinds of life. >> pfister urkel grievances refers to a wrong that needs to be repaired, needs to be restored. it is a group of people that need to get even with the enemy, even though the wrong was committed 1000 years ago. for example, the basque terrorist group eta. they want to regain their territory and they want to have their own independent state, and they say france and spain stole their territory. as ane the palestinians example of historical grievances. we have the ira. they want to get back six counties from northern ireland. their main slogan is "brits out." we would hear ago about terrorism in ireland.
much now.hear that so >> the ira is very active today. in fact some of them have become members of the british are limited. they were bigger in the 1960's and 1970's. >> i was reading >> weeks ago, -- several weeks ago in american history. from were terrorist acts mexico into the united states. there was resentment, i guess, status and iorial think it was black back -- blackjack pershing. >> absolutely. the mexican drug lords are joining forces with groups like hezbollah.- >> stay with that. don't they know how dangerous these folks can be?
principleerate on the of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. and the common enemy for hezbollah and mexican drug lords is america. they will have a common denominator. in this case, it is america. along -- the 15 reasons -- violations of international laws. is the perception that countries did not fulfill the promises. for example great britain promised palestinians that the palestinians would have a lot of rights and the palestinian people feel that britain betrayed them. that is an example thomas the one that you mentioned. during the treaty of her sigh -- theygh -- versailles, made promises to arab countries and those thomas's were not fulfilled.
conflicts, does that fall under the international war -- >> historical grievances. the bosniak's are bosnian muslims. and bosnianims serbs have never gotten along. the bosnian serbs killed a lot of bosniak's and raped a lot of women. a war that killed 100,000 people. >> wow. to probation. >> relative die privation is code for poverty. -- relative deprivation is code for poverty. their life on earth, as you can imagine is miserable. because they live in abject misery, they will join suicide commandos in martyrdom operations. which is code for suicide operations.
when you join the suicide commandos, your family is from for yourand tuition children. hijackers came from saudi arabia and the main leader was 33. he came from egypt. is not always a correlation between poverty and terrorism. there is some correlation. these pointsiscuss in your classrooms, what is the reaction from your students? i saw channel nine report about your class, and they came out and they were all very supportive, but do they understand the information you them?ving >> this is a tough subject. i teach to mutation. they take culture, interpersonal communication. terrorism.is about that is a heck of a switch. some of them get taken back. wow.
and warabout beheadings rapes. some of them are not offended by what i say. >> i should have asked you this upfront. how do you define terrorism? >> before i define terrorism, let me tell you where the word comes from. the word is 220 years old. at the end of the french revolution in 1793-17 94, the guillotine was being used on anyone who did not agree with the government. what was the government called? the government of terror. the leaders of the government of terror were called terrorists. timeord was used the first by the people themselves -- we are the terrorists. the first and sense of the use in english was 7098. -- 1790 eight. the end of the 18th century. it has different meanings.
the chinese, the monks from tibet are terrorists. they call themselves freedom fighters. bombers.hem suicide they call themselves martyrs, heroes. muslims -- two young muslims from holland looked at all the definitions. they said they would look at the commonalities. based on that, in 83.5% of all definitions, the word violence appeared and and 65% of all definitions the words political goals appeared and and 51% of all of these definitions causing fear and terror appeared. finally 25 years ago, we a definition that was comprehensive, and that most governments would agree on and that division -- that definition was that terrorism is the use of fear and terror in order to reach political goals.
were americans in our history terrorismed of against each other? i think of acts against native americans, the klan? examples of terrorism within our own country? >> definitely the kkk. the lynchings. they have the special knife called the bowie knife. they would/peoples throats. -- they would slash peoples throats. you have the aryan nation, and the aryan nation is a neo-nazi group. very racist against blacks and choose. -- blacks and jews. it wasahoma bombing -- only 26 years old when he committed that horrifying act. i got my doctorate close to the oklahoma city bombing. 2, i went to the site and
it's really in the boondocks. timothy mcveigh chose a building -- he chose a building in the boondocks because he knew he would receive the attention from anybody. when i lived in belgium, i did not know what oklahoma was. is that a new band? the map.klahoma was on it took a sad terrorist act to put oklahoma on the map. isply to stay with that -- there something happening in this country that is making people act out more in terrorist fashion? >> i would say the law enforcement in the u.s. have foilingetter at terrorist attacks. they have decreased sharply. there is an inverted relationship between the number of terror attempts and the successful terrorist attacks. >> do the people who are the terrorists somehow think, maybe i will not be the one who was caught?
>> in some cases the terrorist does not think about that. i am going to fulfill my mission. that is how they operate. they want to reach their goals. >> something you wrote called " hatred toward global hegemony --" is the scientific term for power. it is an anti-western sentiment, and anti-american, imperialism sentiment. it is a hatred of the west, a word used by the grand ayatollah khomeini. it is a terrorist sentiment against the world trade organization, against mcdonald's, a lot of the kfc restaurants up and blown up in pakistan. they do not like the idea of parking lots in some countries. a see it as cultural invasion
and they are against it. one of theine reasons is the financial reward. how often does that happen? >> that does not happen very often. not get paidt do for what they do. i gave you the example of the suicide bombers. they do not get a financial gain. they know their families, most of whom live in poverty, get some financial rewards. in south america there is a ,roup in columbia -- colombia and they are notorious for abducting people for ransom. they will adopt political figures. abduct political figures. >> stopping for a moment. all terrorism is not acts of violence. sometimes it's internet terrorism, banking terrorism, other things to put fear and suppression to people. is this going to become a new
wave of terrorism that is much more common, striking through the internet and financial communities? -- cyber terrorism happens on an hourly basis. the pentagon gets hacked 5000 times a year by a chinese group, but of course, our side of at foilingeally good any cyber terrorist attacks. if they succeed delving into canuter networks, they cause millions of dollars of damage. that does not happen very often. ascan you talk about an emt -- an emp as a method of terrorism? >> it stands for electromagnetic pulse. it is launched like this, and as itflows up in the air, what does is, it shuts down anything under its umbrella. anything that works on , on waves, like your
pacemaker, your cell phone. it stops. launched on top of kansas and the radius is 2000 miles, you can cause a lot of damage. it looks great on paper. , we canlaunch an emp launch one above it and it would shut down their emp. >> oh, really? we have a method to shut one down? >> let's hope it does not happen. it is cheap to make. launched from cuba or venezuela. it looks good on paper. i doubt it will happen tomorrow. we know they want to do it. want to do it, but there is the worry some developing countries that do not have the armament we do will launch one. will accuse us of using nuclear weapons on them, even
though it is not a nuclear weapon. that would be against the geneva conventions. under the geneva conventions, you should use tanks and rifles, and nuclear emp's weapons. >> i'm going through this material kind of quickly to give those of you a symbol tier two after questions of jonathan. another of the 15 reasons terrorists exist is racism. i saw a video on youtube of the texas aryan brotherhood? >> yes, the texas aryan brotherhood is a neo-nazi group prisons.ed in american there are neo-nazi groups that form. when they get out of prison, thathave those cells coalesce and lead to that group. it has been on the fbi list of terrorist's for the past 20 to 30 years. >> guilt by association? >> guilt by association is when you strike a target that has nothing to do with your enemy
directly. i give you an example. spain, 9/11. al qaeda killed 200 people by bombing for trains at the madrid train station. why? why kill spanish people? spanish tourists? because spain had troops in a rack. and people like osama bin laden were upset the west was in iraq. they saw the spanish people as helping george bush in iraq. be guilt by association. it could also be an example whereby a leader in africa is considered -- not help hises people, so the local people think the leader is on the same side as america, as great britain. that would be guilt by association.
so you have rebellions against about leader. you see them in rwanda, in the congo, various african countries today. of sympathizers. >> that is when you kill people to expand your support base. until osama bin laden killed 9/11, very few people knew him, even in the muslim world. of course he became a household name after that event and his support increased. his support increased? >> oh, yeah. on 9/11?were you >> i was in alaska. someone opened my door. "america is under attack." 5:00 in thebly afternoon. i was shocked like everybody. >> did you stay in alaska? my doctorate.et >> during that time, did you
feel that you needed to leave alaska? >> i was terrorized -- i was terrified, but i was not enough to leave the country. i was sad. of failures. >> this is not a concept we confront every day. it asks the question, how should i die? i imagine a lot of people would want to die as old as 150. in some cultures, people want to be recognized for who they are, be recognized as a martyr. and the palestinian territories, in the gaza strip, when a suicide bomber accomplishes his or her mission successfully, their face is shown on the street. his or her face is shown on the main street for weeks. for them it is like social status. >> but they are dead.
famous?this to be >> do you think they care? they don't care. they want to please their god. they want to please their culture. >> they sacrifice themselves? >> absolutely. some of these people in gaza do not think the same way. to us it is unconscionable, unimaginable. if you watch documentaries on palestinian suicide bombers, this is what they are going to say. we love death the way you love life. >>wow. narcissism? >> there are people who have a big ego, a larger-than-life ego. they need to make themselves known. >> lead a terrorist group. can you give me an example of that? bean example of that would
better mine half, the red army meinhoff. badder successful students. they had a bright future. i don't know, they were bored with life. they decided to create a terrorist movement, and anti-capitalist movement, anti-vietnam. now everybody knows who they were. that is a good example of narcissism. sensation seeking. >> sensation seeking follows the same train of thought. you have bungee jumping, skydiving. it is like the movie "goodfellas." a mafiah someone to be guy. i guess it is fun. >> this is more like gangs that really act out. we have some of that here. i want to say there is a number with it -- 21 or there is a
group that identifies with a number, and it is popping all over the hundred. >> and they do it out of sensation? >> the failure to achieve diplomacy. >> the death of statecraft. when diplomacy fails. when two entities meet and failed to reach an agreement. after a few years, possibly a few decades, no agreement has been reached. what do they do next? they use terrorism. do people turn to terrorism when they cannot communicate or communication does not work? can't work out your differences. >> when diplomacy fails, sometimes people resort to terrorism. harborattack on pearl that began world war ii for the united states. of these 14 so far, what would you define that as?
i would not call that terrorism. that was more of an act of war. it was definitely a surprise attack. it was the japanese imperial ony basically dropping bombs pearl harbor. i would not call it terrorism. more an act of war. a surprise attack. >> so, surprise attack is not defined -- >> not in a context. here is the last one, the big one. religion. >> religion is the motivator for a lot of groups today to do what they do. you have islam. group few- this is a it was aow, but japanese terrorist group in the 1990's. it was a mixture of the eastern religions, buddhism, and new
age. they said the whole world was wrong and only they knew the whole truth. so, they wanted to obliterate the entire world by using a special kind of toxic gas, and the plan did not go as planned fortunately. it was called sarah and -- sar in. sarin gas. it, you doexposed to not last long. they went to the subway. tokyo subway. they released those capsules, but only 12 people died. the plan did not go as planned. that would be an example of a cook up religion that was made by the terrorist leader who was caught by the japanese and he is going to die by hanging. ofre is the massive force islam. .hey get motivated by the koran
>> when chemical weapons were used in world war i -- mustard gas. i know the german army used mustard gas in defiance of the geneva convention. illesg the treaty of versa in 1919, germany was punished for many reasons, including that one. german troops were accused of using weapons that were unconventional, that were for bitten, that were cowardly weapons. how aware is the general population of how and where terrorism exists? >> 9/11 woke up a lot of people. a lot of people are aware. ofy definitely see the tip the iceberg. the iceberg is $.99 -- 99% submerged. do they see the whole iceberg? it would take a lot of attention to delve into a subject a lot of people are afraid of.
i'm sure that virtually everyone -- a general idea of what terrorism is. do they all understand why you have terrorism? no. that is why i am here, to explain. >> tell me this. in your opinion, is the united nations and effective mechanism to minimize terrorism? >> to minimize terrorism, no. helmet of the human soldier -- a lot of them have no weapons. they are here to maintain social order. they are here to make us aware of the lack of sanitation for 2.5 billion people. -- united nations soldiers our united nations soldiers effective at pushing back terrorist groups? no, they are not. >> an interview right here at embry riddle three years ago, hamas and his he were more
dangerous -- hezbollah were more dangerous than anyone we were going to get. a sum of bin laden, any of the others. do you believe his he -- hezbollah and hamas are the threats tororist united states? >> lets me start -- let me start with hezbollah. it is a shia group. it is present in 100 groups, including mexico. they are joining forces with mexican drug lords. a lot of tunnels have been discovered in tijuana and san diego. not only do they smuggle weapons. they smuggle people. for the second one, hamas is less dangerous in north america, but they are definitely dangerous in the middle east. going to take
questions from the audience. think of what you would like to ask. we are going to come left into right. you can ask your questions of next fewitz for the moments. i want to ask this because it's very sensitive, but very important. there is -- i think a misperception when we put this program on that this was going to be an anti-islam night. the purpose was to educate and highlight the different fashions of terrorism, how it happens and why. there are peaceful muslims. i have friends who are of the islam faith. they are peaceloving people. -- you have had people protest almost every place you have gone to. why is that happening? itsome groups do not like when people use terrorism and islam in the same sentence. we have a lot of peaceful muslims. i know that. they are not the ones we have to
worry about. we have to worry about a small percentage of muslims who join terrorist groups and have an agenda. >> does it make it more difficult for peaceloving muslims in a society if we stigmatize those who are muslim? >> if you look at the victims of islamist terrorism in countries like pakistan, india, central asia, the middle east, post victims are muslims themselves. during ramadan, that is when you hear -- if you turn on the television, you hear the mosque being blown up. it happens during ramadan because that is when muslims go to the mosque the most. even in this part of the world. >> hasn't happened recently? i was not aware of that. -- paste past through five months, it has happened in iraq, afghanistan. wherere was a discussion
four or five people were killed and the president was upset. karzai, the afghan president. it was a mistake on the part of the united states. they killed five people in afghanistan, supposedly by mistake. >> you say supposedly -- >> i was not there. not think america killed them intentionally. >> ok. >> but i wasn't there. do you suspect when our commitment to afghanistan is over that al qaeda will overrun the country? >> the problem is when you go to the middle east and then when you leave, somebody else takes over. if we leave iraq, iran is going to take over. that is my fear. >> what is a constructive message you have wanted to go to students in the general public about terrorism so we could actually improve and understand the situation?
>> one word. awareness. i want them to become aware and make other people more aware of terrorism across the world. >> is it because they become victims if they are not aware? my opinion people in are too complacent. i want to go back home, get my wife, my children. how about you just watch the news. i wish it were happening more. at the answer is awareness. not watchf people do the news. all right, we have to come through the audience. keep your questions brief and to the point. if you could speak up. welcome, thank you for coming to embry riddle. >> thank you. my question is -- over here -- it's all right. goal of these terrorists is to get as much attention for
their group as they can and you go back to the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, all of the channels that are out there, the internet, twitter -- today any act of terrorism is reported millions of times in just maybe the first 10 minutes. versus back in the 1960's where it might have been reported 100 times in days. so, the advent of technology and the use of its we have really makes it perfect for terrorism to be the number one way for your group to get attention. >> absolutely. there is a symbiotic elation ship between the media and terrorism. andorism attracting media the media attracts terrorism. >> we encourage terrorism by mass media coverage? >> we do not glorify terrorism. qaedaody knows what al is. until 9/11, nobody knew what al qaeda was. everybody knows what osama bin
laden was. >> over here? your question? good evening. >> are there states out there that would use a terrorist group to complement their conventional forces? >> are we using their terrorist groups to meet our goals? >> [indiscernible] >> in conjunction with a standing army, fighter planes, tanks, all of that. auld they have a plan to use terrorist group to complement conventional forces? >> as most of us know, it ron has been accused of using his he hezzbollah.- argentina, the dirty war, capital d, capital w.
you have a state army and you are using terrorism on the side. >> welcome. you spoke about the definition of terrorism. >> yes, i gave a definition. explanation? the >> no, no. i'm just addressing it. you spoke about the palestinians ? i do not know if you have been are the of all, but oppressors of palestine terrorists? would they be terrorist to the palestinian people? do the palestinian terrorists kill their own people? i am talking about the oppression inside the occupation of palestine. would that be seen as terrorist? example, the idf, the israeli defense forces? >> talking about the invasion. >> so your question is, do i
think they are terrorist? not think people like the idea of our terrorist. i would say in that part of the world, palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists. isn't that one question per person? >> we are going to go back here and come back. way over here, your question? >> my question is on the awareness aspect. he said, everyone wants to go home and have a good time with their families, but they should be aware. to what extent would that be paranoia? i feel like that is the ultimate goal of terrorism, to strike terror in the people. if they are going home and being constantly aware, at what point does that become paranoid? >> i was not inferring you must terrorism.s on paranoia is an extreme state, and extreme dealing. in my opinion, there are are too
many people who do not care about this at all and i think they should care. to ask a different person and then come back and get people who would like to ask a follow-up or a different question. who would like to ask a question on the side? right down here? go ahead, sir. >> guantanamo in the context of what you are explaining, how does that fit in to what you have discussed? >> in other words, the camp? could you speak up? we could not hear you. >> yes, the actual prison situation in guantánamo is often used as a reason that sparks terrorism. what would your response be to that? people at guantanamo fostering the fact that we are holding them there, does that foster terrorism? >> that is what osama bin laden was saying, that is what the
egyptian doctor, the new al qaeda leader was saying. base in u.s. naval cuba. is it the reason for which we have terrorism? terrorism existed way before guantanamo was created. >> right over here. , i think the group you were try to think of earlier was ms-13. dr. matusitz, my compliments to you just as an average citizen. america take everything for granted. there is no question about that. that prompts this question to you. and the last of love years we saw the decline of the government in egypt, -- couple of years we saw the decline of the government in egypt, libya oh with gaddafi. in america, there is concern we are backing the wrong horses. isquestion to you, sir --
america for all presence in those areas, are we getting involved with the proper groups to restore some type of stability in those regions, or are there terrorist organizations? washe obama administration accused of supporting the muslim brotherhood against hosni mubarak. -- muslim brotherhood like al qaeda, osama bin laden was a member of the muslim brotherhood. the egyptians are afraid of the muslim brotherhood. thet recently designated muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization. russia, the same thing. sometimes we're supporting the wrong side. that is for sure. >> i want to thank you for that. ms-13 is a transnational
criminal gang that started in los angeles and has spread to other parts of the united states, canada, mexico, and central america. it is ethnically imposed of central americans that act in urban and suburban areas. the united states has an --ecially heavy presence in metropolitan areas of fairfax county, virginia, and emery county, maryland, and prince george's county in maryland. in one area -- long island, new york, boston, charlotte, houston, and there is also a presence in toronto, ontario, canada. we talked to the sheriff of falluja county and he says they are hard to find, but they are everywhere. >> that is probably because they operate in the structures of cells. they do not have a central command or a headquarters.
they have cells of 3, 5 people. they are scattered. >> upfront, your question for dr. matusitz. >> many people say it is our fault about the terrorist because we are running them in some way. hatred isrue that the also because we are just different? if that is the case and we are just different, christian versus muslim, say our women show more skin than their women do, just because we are different, we are inviting all of this terror because of those reasons -- not able to take them out then? the first part of the question brings up a concept called blowback. blowback theory. blowback theory says we are
getting blowback from groups like al qaeda and the mass. to address the second half of your question, the goals of these groups is to establish a global caliphate. no matter what we do, that is their agenda. >> in the front, ray sanchez, your question. you foratusitz, thank coming and giving very good reasons for terrorism. -- you can make a comment here -- do you have a most effective ways of combating terrorism or what do you think is the best way? like you said, there are cells and it is so hard to combat. do you have in your book some suggestions on the best ways to combat terrorism? about book is communication, not so much about practical strategies. there are two types of terrorism. you have homegrown terrorism and international terrorism. terrorism can be
combated by operating on the principle that prevention is better than cure. anybody coming from any country that has some questionable background should not enter our country. >> way back here. >> how does the misinterpretation of religion affect terrorism? >> do you think it is a misinterpretation of religion are following the core principle of the religion? >> misinterpretation. >> if it is misinterpretation of religion, it would be hijacking a religion. if you follow the core of the religion, there will be religious fundamentalism. some religions have been hijacked. other religions are just following their mainstream fundamentalists. i am not going to list them. coreu maintain there is a -- >> do you maintain that there is a core function within a purpose isat's terrorism?
>> i would not say it's core purpose is terrorism, but some religions have an agenda they need to fulfill. if they cannot fulfill that agenda in a peaceful way, they will pursue more violent means. common belief with all different faiths that peace and love and if you strike out to a different person you are undoing your faith? >> some religions have 90, 150 contradict each other. even in christianity, you have christian fundamentalism and the christian identity movement says that only white christians should be called christians. a lot ofld say religions have conflicting things in them. >> way back here. >> if you have all of these theories for why terrorism --sts and why terrorism
terrorists do what they do, are you not justifying terrorism? >> am i justifying terrorism? no. i understand the question. i am explained 15 reasons why terrorism exists. >> he is not justifying. he is explaining why it happens, sir. >> did i ask your question -- answer your question? .> good evening, dr. matusitz thank you for coming. in the homeland security here at embry riddle, we are told that highly kinetic methods are not effective in combating asymmetric terrorism. what is your take on that? what is the most effective tool? can say for example that changing a culture from the bottom up is one way to do it. it is one thing to change a doctrine. especially a doctrine that is built on killing us. i believe
killing the target of attack or of influences the way to go. >> how much of our way of life is so offensive to other people but they feel they have to act out to exterminate us? is that common? >> if you go back to what george w. bush said in 2001 at the joint session of congress, he said referring to groups like al qaeda "they hate us. they hate our freedom. they hate the fact that we are meeting here freely." i think that captures the essence of what you said. is a clash of civilizations. >> i wonder if that plays into it -- the way we dress, the way we act, the amount of skin the show. does that bring out violence and other people because it is so against what they believe? >> yes. i can give an example.
one of the supreme leaders of the muslim brotherhood. 1940's, heof the went to the united states. he lived here for a few years. america was basically a whorehouse. people lived in debauchery, sin and corruption. as ascribed it in arabic state of divine ignorance. he went back to egypt and wrote a book that has become the bible for global jihad is him and the book is called "milestones," that was published in the 1950's. that would be an example of a direct attack on our lifestyles. girls have bikinis at the beaches. what? osama bin laden was heavily inspired by this book. >> yes, sir? >> in syria, you have muslim sects fighting each other.
do you think there is a chance if israel should feel threatened and strikes against syria, do you think there is a chance at will unitelim sects against israel which will draw us into -- >> yes, understand israel is >> times smaller than --several times smaller than those surrounding the country. you have some of the syrian rebel groups attacking people and beheading christians. in my view, both sides are not clean. both sides have a lot of blood on their hands. in the societies you spoke of terrorism,volved in do the good people from these cultures ever speak up and say, this is not the way to be?
of places, places like pakistan, somalia, if you speak up, if you point a finger will not say a lot for a long time. out of fear -- a lot of people want to have nothing to do with terrorism, with jihad. a lot of people are afraid. i think it is the fear factor. >> backup in the audience. i would like to ask a question -- >> if we could ask you to speak up just a little. >> you brought up awareness. i would like to address it from a different respective. [indiscernible] opinion on howur the -- how theamerican, american actions have contributed to the sympathy by againstt groups
americans? >> i don't understand. >> i think he is saying -- the actions of americans are perceived as? >> no, what i would like to say is not your american ideology, but the actions taken by agencies abroad -- >> let me do this in pieces. like the nsa? to know how much this has contributed to terrorist antipathy against americans? >> let me start with the nsa. it is hated not just by people in the middle east, but people in germany. according to edward snowden, the nsa was investigating the conversations of the chancellor in germany. resented.ons are but then there are a lot of things where we do not know what
is going on. we are here talking. i'm sure there are many things we do know know -- we do not know were happening. >> we have an e-mail question from one of our listeners. is jealousy of our way of life a reason for terrorism? >> i would not say jealousy in and of itself is a massive motivator to lead able to commit terrorist attacks. termld say it is the same as the clash of civilizations. >> what went on in my mind was the haves and the have-nots. those who do not have any -- to go to your point, those in poverty, who resent that we have so much riches. suicidehe palestinian is ar, their life on earth life of abject misery. they are promised 72 virgins and servants and internal life. there is relative deprivation.
do they hate us, america, based on that fact alone? i would say maybe partly, but that's not the only reason. >> your question question mark >> good evening. could you make people aware that the holy quran is the holiest book for muslims around the world. and -- is the second holiest book. [indiscernible] i just want your take on this. theo, do the quran and to -- semper no, as you mentioned earlier, they -- >> no, as you mentioned earlier, they would motivate terrorism. i want you to tell how. how did they motivate terrorism, as you mentioned. >> certain verses in the quran
are very clear. for example going back to the palestinian suicide bombers. "if you die in jihad, if you die in holy war, and you kill for the profit, you will reach the place inays in -- paradise." that verse has motivated people to kill. it has validated. some person is motivated the bowl. now, some are considered fraud, forgery. but the ones written 1000 years ago, he is considered one of the most credible authors of those who understand islam. >> do you think because of impoverished areas