[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5700-H5702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2000
TROUBLING TIMES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, these are interesting times we live in, and
it's nice to follow my friend, Mr. Shimkus, a graduate of the United
States Military Academy, a servant of this country in the military, and
still a servant in this country. It's good to call him friend.
Hopefully he calls me friend, as well.
These are troubling times. When the name Justice Department depicts
something other than justice, it's a very troubling time. Some of us
are extremely familiar with the prosecution of what most would consider
the most significant, largest prosecution of terrorism support and
funding in the United States history, which occurred in Federal
district court in Dallas, Texas. It was begun under the Bush Justice
Department, all part of the aftermath of 9/11 because, as President
Bush indicated, we can't just go after the people that actually plotted
and carried out the events of 9/11, who plotted and carried out other
terrorist attacks against the United States. It's not enough. We've got
to go after those who have supported those efforts at terrorism, have
supported the killing of innocent people around the world. And
particularly, we have to protect Americans. And for those who have
supported terrorism and continue to support terrorism, the United
States must step forward in order to protect itself.
The Justice Department in November of 2008, I believe, got
convictions of the individuals they had prosecuted in the Holy Land
Foundation trial. Not only did they get convictions, they got over 100
different counts in which they got convictions. Through that, there
were names of coconspirators who were named and set forward in the
pleadings, and evidence was introduced, admitted into evidence at trial
that showed there were groups and individuals in the United States that
were supporting terrorism, and there was significant evidence to
support that.
In fact, two of those groups, CAIR and the Islamic Society of North
America, ISNA, had moved that their names be stricken from the
pleadings as named coconspirators in supporting terrorism. At that
time, the acting U.S. Attorney did a very good job not only in the
prosecution, but also in the pleading to the Federal district court
there before Judge Solis, and he established plenty of evidence so that
Judge Solis found there was plenty of evidence to support the
coconspirators continuing to have their names in the pleading, and they
were not satisfied with the ruling of the Federal district court. They
appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals ended up ruling that, yes, there was plenty of evidence to
support the fact that CAIR, ISNA, and others were supporting terrorism,
so their names would not be stricken from the pleadings, they would be
kept in the pleadings as named coconspirators of terrorism.
After that very successful prosecution that was in conformity with
President Bush's promise that if you're not with us, you're with them,
and those who support terrorism would be made to account, that began
the first stage of the prosecution of supporters of terrorism. Those
were people and individual cases, those were organizations right here
in America that were supporting terrorism, funding terrorism. Yes, they
were supporting charities. Yes, they were giving money to good causes.
That acted as a cover for them also funding terrorism, funding known
terrorist organizations who had actually killed people and destroyed
things, committing acts of war.
Then, the Attorney General became Eric Holder. The President, the
Commander in Chief, became Barack Hussein Obama. We know it's okay to
use the President's full name, because he proudly uses it when he goes
to Muslim nations. In fact, the first nations the President went to and
apologized for America's arrogance and divisiveness, dismissiveness
were Muslim nations. In fact, going to Cairo, he snubbed America's
ally, Israel's ally, Mubarak, who is not a fine, upstanding wonderful
man but a man who had managed to keep some peace along the Israel
border, a man who had agreements with this government just as this
government had agreements with Qadhafi, despite the blood on his hands
from terrorist involvement himself. In fact, I've read of reports of
people even from our own Senate who have been over there, one who had
tweeted that he had met with Colonel Qadhafi: ``He was an interesting
man. I met with him at his ranch.'' I understand that Senator now says
that tweet didn't come from him.
But there were Americans from this government negotiating with
Qadhafi, working out agreements, and then they turned their backs on
people with whom they had worked agreements:
[[Page H5701]]
Mubarak, Qadhafi. I don't think we should have worked agreements with
Qadhafi because of the blood on his hands, American blood on his hands.
But it had been done, and yet this Nation turned its back on allies. It
was no surprise to me to read that the King of Jordan--another person
with whom we have a relatively good relationship--had sought an
appointment with Ahmadinejad in Iran once he saw the way this
administration not only turned its back on allies, but also would
contribute to bombing to get them out of office. It's an amazing thing.
Then, being part of the Judiciary Committee here in Washington, some
of us became very troubled that despite all of this substantive
evidence--I've got a stack of it in my office from that Holy Land
Foundation trial--substantiating allegations, at least to the
satisfaction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the district
court, that CAIR and ISNA and others should be named coconspirators,
this Justice Department chose not to prosecute anyone else. Once again,
using the old tactic, Well, the Bush administration didn't prosecute
them. They did stage one, they got the initial prosecutions, and if
those were successful, they intended to continue looking and pursuing
all those who were implicated and could have cases proved, especially
where there was substantial evidence, as there was with CAIR and ISNA.
Instead of prosecuting CAIR and ISNA, this administration--and
there's no question about this--despite the fussing and nay-saying of
some once proud journalists of some once proud journalistic television
networks, once proud newspapers, despite their failure to do their
homework, despite their taking the easy road and simply asking
opinions, Well, what do you think about these terrible accusations, and
getting opinions instead of simply digging and looking at the facts and
presenting the fact, they sought opinions on things that people had not
even read. They asked opinions about letters that people had not read.
They asked opinions about general tenor without actually showing people
the tenor of the letters.
{time} 2010
And, unfortunately, some are always willing to respond without having
read or reviewed the matter before them which they are being questioned
about.
But the facts are the facts. On the White House's own Web site, last
time I checked, there were references to ISNA. There are references to
ISNA's president, Imam Magid, who, as I understand, has now written a
letter wanting condemnation of me and others who simply set out factual
recitations to five different departments and then asked the question,
Would you please investigate to see the extent of Muslim Brotherhood
influence in this administration in this department.
We know there's Muslim Brotherhood influence. The question is how
much influence is there?
When the White House's own Web site was carrying compliments, such as
those spoken by Denis McDonough, the number two person in our National
Security Agency, complimenting Imam Magid for the wonderful prayers he
had given inside the sanctity of the White House itself, for the White
House's iftar celebration during Ramadan. Compliments to Imam Magid,
the president of the main coconspirator, for the wonderful introduction
he gave the number two person in the National Security Agency.
And within the FBI itself--it took until 2009 for the FBI to finally
write a letter saying, Gee, because of all this evidence that came out
about CAIR supporting terrorism in the Holy Land Foundation trial in
2008, we have suspended our relationship with them. At one place in the
letter, they referred to it as a ``partner'' or a ``partnership.''
So there's no question there is Muslim Brotherhood influence in this
administration. Anybody that says otherwise will likely find that they
will end up at the lowest level of Nielsen ratings in their history, or
at least in 20 years or so, because they simply are not doing their
homework. It's much easier to bash the messenger than it is to actually
do homework. And in fairness, I know there have been lots of budget
cuts. It's tough for some entities, some networks to do the research
they once did when they were much more popular. But, nonetheless, the
truth is the truth. Facts are facts.
The question remains: Just how extensive is the influence of the
Muslim Brotherhood in this administration? We know that the ACLU and
CAIR have been demanding documentation of what trainees have been
taught in our Justice Department, in other departments, making FOIA,
Freedom of Information Act, requests trying to get information on what
we are training our undercover agents, if any we have.
Apparently, this administration has no problem outing people we have
undercover in dangerous situations. At least somebody who has
information about the very inner workings of this administration has
leaked classified information. It remains to be found out who it is,
but it is somebody that has access to some of the most important
classified inner workings.
Yet you've got CAIR and the ACLU demanding information about the
information that was used to train these people. And the facts are that
if you ever disclose that--and as I understand, our Justice Department
was preparing to provide all that information to CAIR and to ACLU--and
if they provide all of the information on exactly how people who have
been undercover in radical Islamic situations, it will be easy for
those individuals to be outed and killed because they'll know what
their training is and their approach to radical Islam. They'll know the
methods and means of our undercover, of our intelligence. And yet this
administration continues to cater to such requests to accommodate
complaints about CAIR.
CAIR individuals can call the White House, as apparently was written
up in material in the media after last August. They were complaining
about people who were going to give a seminar to hundreds of law
enforcement individuals. CAIR makes one call, as it was reported at
least, makes a call to the White House. The seminar gets canceled.
Hundreds of law enforcement individuals do not end up being taught
about the inner workings of those who want to kill and destroy our way
of life. And CAIR is happy.
Just how far does the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood go? We know
from the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial that ISNA is the
largest Muslim Brotherhood front organization in America. And President
Obama has had President Imam Magid in the inner sanctum of the State
Department to listen to the speech that he gave, trying to upstage
Prime Minister Netanyahu when he was on his way over here in May of
last year.
The report was that Imam Magid had actually given him advice on what
he should say. Who knows, perhaps what Imam Magid said was, Oh, yes,
Israel has agreed to go back to the 1967 boundary lines, so you can
include that in your speech. Who knows.
We wanted an Inspector General investigation to find out in the State
Department, Defense Department, intelligence department, in these five
departments just how extensive is the Muslim Brotherhood influence. We
know it's there. Most Americans know it's there. There are some that
still drink the Kool-Aid and refuse to acknowledge the facts that have
been proven in court.
There are facts that actually the prosecutor of the 1993 World Trade
Center bombings has pointed out in his article--that's Andrew
McCarthy--he has pointed out, We proved to New York jurors, wonderful
New York jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was this radical
Islamic presence in America; and they did want to take over our
country, that there is a civilization jihad. Some want to do it
radically with violence. Some want to take over from inside our own
governmental and civic organizations, and they're working toward that
goal.
There's no question about so many of these things. The question is,
How far does the influence go? That's what we need to know.
So we asked the question, and we had Attorney General Holder before
our committee last year. And he was asked the question, Did you or did
politics have any consideration in the refusal to prosecute any of the
other named coconspirators about which the Fifth Circuit said there is
plenty of evidence to support their involvement? Was there political
involvement in that decision?
[[Page H5702]]
Well, we didn't know it at the time; but since then, more recently,
in the last couple of months, we've had the Attorney General testify
before our committee that there are political aspects to justice, from
his standpoint, which fly in the face of everything that any good law
school, any legitimate law school has ever taught its law students.
Justice is supposed to be blind. That's why the statue that depicts
justice, holding the scales of justice, is blinded, is wearing a
blindfold. Because justice is blind if it's real justice. And if
justice is not blind, if we're looking to who it is and politically
what the consequences will be, it's not justice. There are no political
aspects to justice--or it's not true justice. And I'm afraid that's
where we've gotten to in this so-called Justice Department.
So we had the Attorney General say, Oh, no, no, no. There is no
political involvement. In fact, I said to my friend Trent Franks, Gee,
in fact, the U.S. Attorney handling that--I believe it was quoted in a
newspaper--I believe it was the Dallas News--he said there was no
politics involved in those dismissals because there was just no case
there. There was no evidence to support it.
{time} 2020
Well, I happened to have read that Dallas Morning News report, and I
happen to have read the quotes from that acting U.S. Attorney. And yes,
he did say it was local; politics weren't involved. But that is not
what he said. He says no, the evidence wasn't there, which is entirely
different since he was not under penalty of potential jail when he
spoke to a reporter, but he was under potential penalty of jail. If you
ever commit a fraud upon a court by not giving all of the information
or misrepresenting to a judge or tricking a judge by not being
truthful, you can be looking at jail time. Lawyers before me knew that.
I didn't care about politics, but I cared about truth.
I cared about it in the Bush administration. So when we found out
there were abuses of the National Security Letter, I was furious. And I
grilled the Bush director of the FBI at that time. I was surprised
there weren't more Democrats that were nearly as outraged as I was
because that was so offensive. It was so improper. It was so unjust. I
don't care who the President is; justice is justice. And for our
Attorney General to act like oh, no, no, there wasn't anything. And
then I know. I read the pleadings of that U.S. Attorney where he said
there's plenty of evidence to support the name of CAIR and others being
in here. And he convinced the Fifth Circuit of the same thing. So he
was either lying to the courts or he was lying to the paper about the
evidence.
And now, after having had the head of civil rights of this Justice
Department, Mr. Perez, testify that gee, there was no political aspect
in the decision not to pursue the New Black Panther Party for what they
did at a polling place in Pennsylvania, and now we have found out this
week, Human Events has a great article, ``Federal judge rules political
appointees interfered with voter intimidation case.'' That's from
August 2, posted at 2:12 p.m.
There's one from the American Spectator about the fact that Thomas
Perez, assistant attorney general, is one of the most destructive
forces against the rule of law in this Nation, including being the man
responsible for the DOJ dropping charges again the New Black Panthers
for voter intimidation in Philadelphia during the last Presidential
election. It goes on to talk about he appeared before the House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Constitution, which is a subcommittee
of the Judiciary Committee, and it goes on to say that he questioned
Assistant Attorney General Perez over the administration's commitment
to First Amendment rights. His questions were prompted by a Daily
Caller article from late last year in which Perez was quoted as warmly
embracing the proposals of Islamist advocates in a meeting at George
Washington University, among them a request for a legal declaration
that U.S. citizens' criticism of Islam constitutes racial
discrimination.
Well, we know that one of the 10-year goals of the Muslim Brotherhood
is to subvert the U.S. Constitution to sharia law. And once they
convince enough people that it should be a crime to burn a Koran or to
criticize Islam, then they can check that box.
I believe in the Bible. My eternity is based on belief of the Bible.
But I also know under the U.S. Constitution, you can burn a Bible. I
took a pledge and was willing to lay down my life, my 4 years in the
Army, for our flag, but I also understand it's constitutional to burn a
flag. And yet we have people in this injustice department saying they
want to make it a crime to criticize Islam. No wonder they're purging
their training materials, eliminating references to Islam.
As one intelligence officer of this government told me, we are
blinding our ability to see our enemy, and that can and will have
dangerous consequences if we don't turn it around.
Mr. Speaker, wrapping up here before we take this August recess that
isn't a recess because we will be in pro forma session, we're willing,
most of us, Republicans are willing to come back. All we have to know
is that the Senate is finally doing something to pass some of the jobs
bills we've sent their way. And in fairness, what we need is Republican
leadership that will say okay, Senate, you want this bill, then you are
going to have to pass some of the economic and jobs bills that will get
this economy going, but we haven't used the leverage Republicans in the
House have. And, unfortunately, with all of the talk about agreeing to
another CR, it just means that we'll have finished out 2 years without
cutting anything significant, as we promised 2 years ago after the
biggest wave election in American history since the 1930s.
It's time for Americans to make clear you want Congress to do what
was promised when the Congressmen got elected. And if we do that, it
doesn't matter how obstructive the Senate is, it will make it even more
clear if we use our leverage and say: Hey, people, the government is
shut down on weekends, you seem to live okay. Let's get back to just
essential needs of the government. Allow a shutdown of other things.
Pass my bill that will make sure our military gets paid during a
shutdown, we know Social Security recipients will still get their
payments in the event of a shutdown, and keep the government shut down
until everybody understands we're going to start living within our
means as a Congress, like all Americans have to do, or declare
bankruptcy. They have to do that. We can't afford to declare
bankruptcy. We must get this government under control. I hope that
constituents across the country during this month will make that clear,
and we'll replace the Senators who are standing in the way of getting
this economy going, that we'll replace the administration who is
creating injustice and allowing radical Islamic jihadists to have any
influence at all.
The Secretary of Homeland Security sat there and told me that it did
absolutely not happen, that a member of a terrorist organization had
been allowed in the White House; 6 days later, she not only admits to
the Senate that it did happen after she told me absolutely not, but she
said: Oh, but it's okay; we vetted him three times.
It's time for a government that is more considerate and concerned
about providing for the common defense, of getting out of the way and
letting the economy grow than they are about playing favorites, playing
to their cronies, and playing against religious freedom.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________