[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H655-H659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          COMBATING TERRORISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Clawson).


                            No Nuclear Iran

  Mr. CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gohmert for yielding to me.
  Already a grave and growing existential threat to Israel, a nuclear 
armed Iran would be a colossal, horrific game changer. It would launch 
a nuclear arms race in what is already the world's most dangerous 
neighborhood. We all know that this must not be allowed to happen.
  The Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear ambitions are made more dire 
when considering that they are the world's most dangerous state 
supporter of Islamic extremist terrorism, with a destabilizing presence 
in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Iraq. And Iran's financial and military 
support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen has led to the collapse of the 
Hadi government.
  Thus, Iran today exerts major influence, not just in rebel 
territories, but in four Middle East capitals--Beirut, Baghdad, 
Damascus and Sana'a.
  The crisis in Yemen threatens to launch yet another civil war in the 
region, and this severely handcuffs U.S. counterterrorism operations 
against AQAP. Islamists in Iran and elsewhere repeatedly threaten to 
slaughter all standing in their way--with their ultimate targets being 
Israel and the United States--us, their great Satan. They must never be 
allowed nuclear weapons capabilities. Does anyone really doubt whether 
they would use these capabilities someday? Well, there must be some 
reason why Iran is developing ICBMs.
  Last week, Iran's Channel 2 broadcast satellite imagery showing 
recently constructed missile-related sites. Those sites included a 
launch pad capable of firing an ICBM, and on that launch pad was a 
never-seen-before missile measuring 27 meters in length. While we 
negotiate, the Iran story gets worse.
  We have been extending deadlines and softening sanctions on Iran, 
while they fail to meet their end of the bargain.

                              {time}  1115

  It is bizarre to me that we are debating with the Iranians the 
numbers of their centrifuges but leaving off the table their support 
for terrorism, their ICBMs, and their continued human rights 
violations.
  Is it the right thing to do to sit across the table, remain silent 
about the costs we and our allies have paid and are paying because of 
their financial and military support of our enemies? Does this make 
sense? Shouldn't we insist on adding to the agenda Iran's destabilizing 
actions in the region and also their ICBM program that puts us all at 
risk?
  Merely delaying some of the potential horror for a decade or so is 
not a good option in my view. A bad deal where we declare victory by 
kicking this can down the road is far worse than no deal at all.
  Iran now threatens to end nuclear talks if Congress increases 
sanctions against their regime. I say we must never yield to threats 
from Iran or any other nation.
  We must stand strong, continue sanctions, and even strengthen them 
until Iran gets the message. I believe that strengthening sanctions 
will get us a better deal. Leverage produces a better deal.
  We must remain unwavering in our support for Israel. We must listen 
carefully to the concerns of Prime Minister Netanyahu on this subject. 
I hope we unite with our Arab partners and do all that is possible to 
prevent Iran from going nuclear.
  We must lead the civilized world in this crucial mission. I think 
this is our destiny.
  We urge President Obama to join with Congress in this resolve.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal going on, and I think 
the first thing that needs to be addressed is the 70th anniversary of 
something that should never have happened in civilized society. This is 
the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz death camp.
  As a schoolboy growing up in east Texas, later attending Texas A&M, 
and especially in my time, my 4 years in the United States Army, as we 
discussed and looked at World War II, things that had occurred then--I 
was a history major and was with the Army for 4 years and majored in 
history.
  It was just always amazing. How could people who said they were 
civilized kill 6 million of any race, gender, national origin? How 
could that happen?
  But it did happen. On learning that Eisenhower required people from 
the surrounding villages to be brought in to help clean up 
concentration camps, death camps--as I understood the reason--was so no 
one could ever deny that the death camps occurred.
  I thought that seemed ridiculous. How could anybody deny the 
Holocaust? There aren't all that many survivors, but there are enough, 
and the evidence is there, and it clearly happened. But just as Hitler 
showed, if any lie is told often enough, people begin to believe it, 
especially if it is even printed.
  Here is something that was in print yesterday from a man named Martin 
Greenfield from foxnews.com, and these are Martin Greenfield's words. 
Mr. Greenfield said:

       Seventy years ago, I was in a Nazi concentration camp. 
     Since then, I have seen tyrants and dictators enter and exit 
     the global stage; yet as the world prepares to mark the 70th 
     anniversary of the Auschwitz liberation, it is perhaps well 
     and right that we reflect on how the Holocaust shocked the 
     moral imagination on a scale the world could scarcely fathom.
       Why ponder such things? Because for far too many, the 
     Holocaust remains a mystery. A major poll taken last year of 
     53,000 people found that just 54 percent had ever heard of 
     the Holocaust. Knowledge of Auschwitz is likely even more 
     limited, particularly among young people. Past surveys have 
     shown that nearly half of Britons had never heard of 
     Auschwitz. Some schoolchildren even thought Auschwitz was a 
     type of beer.
       Here at home in America, a debate erupted last year when a 
     teenager posted a smiling selfie at Auschwitz. Whatever your 
     opinion on the appropriateness of her actions, I was at least 
     pleased to be reminded that some young Americans still visit 
     the Nazi concentration camp to learn history up close.
       I, too, visited Auschwitz as a teenager. In 1944, my family 
     and I stood in line before Dr. Josef Mengele--the Nazi 
     physician known as the ``Angel of Death''--as my mother, 
     grandparents, two sisters, and baby brother were

[[Page H656]]

     all sent to the left to be burned in Hitler's ovens. My 
     father and I were sent to the right.
       The first night inside Auschwitz, my father said we must 
     separate because, together, we would suffer double.

  He quoted his father, ``On your own, you will survive,'' his father 
told him. ``You are young and strong, and I know you will survive. If 
you survive by yourself, you must honor us by living, by not feeling 
sorry for us. This is what you must do.''

       That was the last time I ever saw my father. I am grateful 
     for my father's words of grace and guidance. They echo in my 
     heart even still. It is a cruel thing, feeling guilty for 
     surviving, but my father erased any future guilt and replaced 
     it with purpose. It was a gift only a father's wisdom could 
     give. It gave me a reason to go forward, a reason to be. It 
     does still.
       Part of heeding my father's words involved replacing the 
     horrors of my Holocaust past with a life spent creating 
     beauty in the form of hand-tailored suits for U.S. 
     Presidents, Hollywood films, and the world's most influential 
     men.
       In fact, my first sewing lesson took place in the Auschwitz 
     concentration camp laundry when I accidentally ripped the 
     collar of a Nazi soldier's shirt. A guard beat me before a 
     kind, older inmate taught me how to sew a simple stitch to 
     repair the torn shirt. It was hardly the ideal tailoring 
     apprenticeship, but it was my first lesson in the skill that 
     became my livelihood.
       But at 86, another part of honoring my father's wishes 
     requires being a voice for the voiceless. Indeed, as parents, 
     educators, and citizens, we must all do our part to help 
     ensure that ``Never Forget'' remains much more than a 
     threadbare catchphrase that gathers dust and loses meaning 
     with each passing year.
       For example, many people are surprised to learn that 
     Auschwitz was actually a complex comprised of three main 
     camps and dozens of satellites. The United States Holocaust 
     Memorial Museum's statistics estimate that between 1940 and 
     1945, at least 1.1 million Jews and 200,000 of Hitler's 
     undesirables were sent to the Auschwitz complex. Of those, 
     1.1 million were murdered.
       As I have noted elsewhere, that number would have been far 
     greater were it not for the courage of the American soldiers, 
     sailors, airmen, and marines who traveled around the world to 
     defeat a moral darkness that consumed at least 6 million 
     Jewish souls.
       That is a lesson worthy of remembrance. The 70th 
     anniversary of the liberation marks that moment when freedom 
     conquered barbarism through sureness of virtue and strength 
     of will. Sadly, as recent events reveal, that remains a 
     lesson humanity must learn and relearn from generation to 
     generation.
       The word ``Holocaust'' means sacrifice by fire. May the 
     memory of the millions who were engulfed in the flames like 
     my family never be forgotten.

  That is Martin Greenfield, 70 years after being liberated from 
Auschwitz death camp.
  There is another article from CBC News. Aleksandra Sagan includes 
this regarding Mordechai Ronen, 82, born with the family name 
Markovits. He would be making a second visit to Auschwitz for the 
commemoration ceremonies.

       At nearly 12, Ronen saw Auschwitz for the first time as a 
     prisoner after soldiers forced all the Jews in his Hungarian 
     town into a ghetto and, 2 weeks later, shipped them in cattle 
     cars to the camp.
       Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazis' Angel of Death, sent Ronen's 
     mother and two sisters to the gas chambers on arrival. Young 
     Ronen made a lifesaving decision when he held on to his 
     father's hand and joined the line of men.
       He spent about 2 weeks at Auschwitz, where he witnessed 
     soldiers using an infant for target practice and slept on 
     piles of corpses to avoid selection for the gas chamber.
       He and his father were moved to a nearby labor camp where 
     the brutality continued. One day, his father told Ronen he 
     could no longer get up to work for the cement brigade. Ronen 
     last saw his father as soldiers took him away. It is the only 
     day he remembers crying and the day he decided to survive.
       Ronen was liberated from a third camp, Gunskirchen, and 
     remembers walking to a nearby town, knocking on a resident's 
     door and asking if he could take a shower.
       Ronen, who prefers to be called a ``victorer'' rather than 
     a survivor, first returned to Auschwitz in 1999, when he 
     guided then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien around the grounds.
       It is important to Ronen to show the world he is alive and 
     to share the history of the Holocaust.
       ``Maybe the world will realize what we went through, and it 
     will be the end, and we are going to have peace and quiet in 
     the world,'' he explains.

  Unfortunately, it is not the end of horrors. Tragically, Christians 
now are being killed, persecuted, and tortured in greater numbers than 
ever in the history of the world.

                              {time}  1130

  Anti-Semitism, hatred against Jews, is growing like I couldn't have 
imagined. In college, when I studied in history, I couldn't have 
imagined the kind of anti-Jewish hatred, the kind of anti-Semitism that 
would be growing as it has, and the United States of America would be 
doing precious little about it instead of standing up for the Jewish 
people and calling out anti-Semitism where it exists and where it grows 
and proliferates, as it does in the United Nations, for example, as it 
has in Europe, as it has in England, as it has right here in America.
  It is unconscionable that at a time in world history when the United 
States is said to be the true superpower of the world--even as that 
power has been seen as diminishing by people around the world, as 
polling indicates around the world, but still to be seen as the great 
superpower--as anti-Jewish hatred grows and we do precious little about 
it, and even at times stoke those flames, even in our universities, who 
are so proud of accepting massive amounts of money from people who are 
part of organizations that hate Jews and fund such courses or seminars 
on things like Islamophobia, not a liberated mental process of 
recognizing anti-Semitism, recognizing Jewish hatred--no, stoking those 
flames against the Jewish people. It is unbelievable that it is 
happening here in America as well.
  And it is even more unbelievable that it is happening among what some 
would refer to as the intelligentsia, those who are supposed to be more 
enlightened than the rest of a nation, who see things as they truly 
are. And yet, in America, some of those supposed enlightened 
intelligentsia are growing to be some of the most anti-Semitic people 
in the country.
  How did all this happen? Money for one thing, political power for 
another. But it has to stop. Money and initially power in Nazi Germany 
stoked the flames of anti-Jewish hatred. But there is anti-Christian 
hatred growing as well. Radical Islam has proliferated around the 
world. Violent radical Islam has grown. They aren't junior varsities. 
These are literal cutthroats who have to be stopped.
  It is not enough for the United States administration to beg radical 
Islamists, Jew- and Christian-hating leaders to sit at the table or 
offer to let their murderers go free if they will just sit down and 
visit with us, reminiscent of what Jimmy Carter wanted to do after an 
act of war was committed against our Embassy, and in the 36 years that 
have followed, what appeared to radical Islamists as a weak, paper 
tiger, toothless America did nothing but beg to sit down and talk and 
try to encourage Iran to let our prisoners go. It was not until Ronald 
Reagan took office they were released. They never wanted to fight the 
United States superpower.
  That has been changed over the years. Since '79, when they committed 
an act of war, attacked our Embassy, around the world people have been 
shown: Oh, you can do that against the United States and get away with 
it. The good thing is they may end up leaving your country and then 
they may offer to give you money. They may offer to release murderers 
from prison so they can come back and help kill more Americans. You 
know, they are not very smart over there in the United States. That has 
been going on since 1979.
  It is tragic when we encourage radical Islamist holocausts, which is 
what they would like to do, they said they were going to do, by letting 
the murderers go. How could this administration for months now think 
that Yemen was a great example of moderate Islam working out? I have 
known since a constituent months ago was in jeopardy, and we were able 
to get special ops people to help get them out.
  According to them, the Embassy was attacked many months ago. Back at 
the time Embassy personnel officially said: ``No, it was a nearby 
attack, but it wasn't us.'' When the Iranian-backed Houthis, the 
radical Islamists in Yemen, were taking over the capital and taking 
over the country--and instead of standing up firmly against them and 
protecting our American interests we were releasing murderers, radical 
Islamic murderers--we were talking about how wonderful things were in 
Yemen. That is exactly how the kind of anti-Jewish, anti-Christian 
sentiment could grow to the point of having a holocaust.

[[Page H657]]

  It is literally breathtaking for an administration not to understand 
that while it is trying to placate radical Islamic leaders in Iran and 
telling them: ``We just want to talk. As long as you will keep talking 
to us, we will keep Israel from protecting themselves to their own 
detriment. Just keep talking to us and you keep those centrifuges 
spinning, that is fine with us.''
  Now we know, we have been informed, that the administration has taken 
complete dismantlement of the centrifuges and their equipment to help 
them create nuclear weapons off the table. It is not even something 
they are demanding anymore. In other words, the word is out that this 
administration is apparently okay with Iran getting nukes but just 
would prefer that it wait until after this President leaves office. It 
doesn't matter when a President leaves office. If an administration 
gives bloodthirsty zealots the ability to create a holocaust, history 
does not forgive them simply because they had already left office when 
the holocaust actually started.
  Nigeria doesn't need us to send troops to stop the radical Islamists 
there, but they need help. Boko Haram continues to kill, rape, torture. 
There it is about going after Christians. The small-scale holocausts 
that Boko Haram is creating don't get so much as a whimper these days 
from this administration. They may say a few words, but they are hollow 
and they do not affect Boko Haram as they continue to be emboldened.
  Just like when the IRS was caught redhanded being weaponized and used 
as a Democratic political tool, which appears to have violated criminal 
law--yes, we have had hearings, but we haven't held them accountable. 
And, therefore, it seems to have encouraged even more impropriety by 
people within the IRS.
  When people get caught in impropriety and don't pay a cost, then you 
see what we are seeing in Nigeria, you see what we are seeing in 
Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Syria, in Iran, in Iraq, and in Libya.

  Oh, I know the President, his administration, bragged about the Arab 
Spring and about taking out Qadhafi, who had become an ally after he 
gave up any efforts for nuclear weapons, completely opened his defenses 
to the United States. This administration and the prior administration 
had agreements with Qadhafi. But this administration never lets 
agreements get in the way of helping radical Islamists.
  Because this administration did help radical Islam turn Libya into a 
smoking country where people die, where our own people were not 
protected, because of the fantasy of those who thought that somehow the 
name, the United States, would be adequate to keep Chris Stevens and 
the other Americans safe in Benghazi. We didn't need to give them added 
security like they asked for, we didn't even need to respond when Chris 
Stevens called and said they were under attack--never said anything 
about a video because it was not.
  But that smokescreen worked. The President got reelected. He didn't 
have to account for that before the election, still hasn't had to 
account for where he was and why help was not forthcoming.
  I mean, even after 20 hours this administration that had planes--we 
know for sure within 3\1/2\ hours--after 20 hours they get a private 
plane there, that is it. David Ubben, with most of his leg, right leg, 
blown off, no painkillers, no morphine, they don't have a C-130 that 
they land to take him up in on a gurney. They get a private plane from 
somebody who wasn't even American, and they have to knock David up 
against the door, turning the gurney every which way trying to get him 
in, without painkillers, causing more pain, more suffering, because 
this administration, apparently they were thinking that if they sent 
more help than just a private plane like that, a military plane, if 
that were sent, it might look like Libya were not the wonderful country 
that this administration helped create by bombing Qadhafi out of 
existence.
  And, yes, it was not, it is true, it was not a U.S. bomb that took 
Qadhafi out. But our bombs put him on the run, our bombs stopped his 
caravan. Our President wouldn't respond for 3 days after Qadhafi 
offered to leave in exile and avoid any bloodshed before it all 
started. This administration didn't respond. Obviously, they were okay 
with having bloodshed and Qadhafi being wiped out. So they got what 
they were hoping for, obviously.

                              {time}  1145

  But what do we have now?
  We have a country in Libya that is in absolute turmoil. By the way, 
because Libya is in turmoil due to this administration, they are 
helping turn Egypt into as much turmoil as they can. Thank God for 
President el-Sisi. In having met with him on more than one occasion, I 
was impressed by the man. Before he was President, he asked that we 
bring back a message to this administration since this administration--
this President--froze the helicopters that were being sent, the 
Apaches. The question was: Does this administration--does this 
President--not understand that we use the Apache helicopters to keep 
the Suez Canal open?
  Although there were some that bought Morsi's lies that he was 
deweaponizing the Sinai--supposedly to diminish the threat to Israel 
from the Sinai--and after Morsi was removed for his unconstitutional 
actions, not in a coup but in an uprising, which was a peaceful 
revolution by reportedly over 30 million of their 90 million people, 
they found that the Sinai had been dramatically weaponized and had been 
contributing weapons equipment to Gaza to help threaten and cause 
terror to Israel.
  Once again, whether it is the Sinai, Gaza, northern Israel that was 
given to Lebanon, it seems going back to the very inception of Israel--
back when Israel was first brought, according to the Bible, into the 
Promised Land--we know of Canaan. The Canaanites no longer exist, so 
other people claim it who are not Canaanites. Actually, the Israelis 
had claim to it after the Canaanites. Others who occupied the land back 
over 3,000 years ago don't exist. This land, according to the Bible, 
was given to the children of Israel. It seems to be true that there has 
never been a time when Israel gave away land when trying to buy peace 
that that land that they gave away was not used as a staging area from 
which to attack it.
  Gaza, what a noble thing to do by the Israelis. They took an area 
that was prosperous, self-sustaining, with greenhouses growing 
vegetables that would feed the people who lived there. An amazing place 
was the Gaza Strip. Then some noble Israeli leaders thought, Do you 
know what? It is not required. We are getting absolutely nothing in 
return, but we are going to do the unilateral act that will be so 
noble, that will be so full of grace that the world, even those who 
don't like us, will go, Wow. Those Israelis, they are okay. They are 
nice folks.
  Look, they didn't get anything in return; yet they still gave away 
the Gaza Strip. What a wonderful group of people. I mean, that just 
doesn't happen. The United States never gave back its land to England 
or to Spain or to France or to other countries that initially had 
claims here. Other countries don't do that, but Israel did. They gave 
away the Gaza Strip. Previous to that, they had given away what 
northern Israel now calls southern Lebanon. Southern Lebanon, people 
will recall, has been the site of attacks on Israelis--war.
  So how was this grace, this beneficence of Israel's giving the Gaza 
Strip to the Palestinians, rewarded? It has been rewarded by their 
giving back to Israel thousands upon thousands upon thousands of 
rockets. Some kill. All terrorize. All cost money to Israel.
  The most important problem they have created is the threat to life, 
the threat to their existence; and we still have people in this country 
who say, Well, if you just keep giving away land, eventually, they will 
be satisfied, when the very materials that are being promoted by the 
people this administration supports among the Islamists--they made very 
clear the reason we name holidays, streets, areas, parks after suicide 
bombers who kill innocent children, women, men is that we, ultimately, 
are going to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. We hate Jews that 
much; and this administration thinks, somehow, they will bring radical 
Islam around to really being this group of peace.
  Now, there is a document that was an exhibit in the United States v. 
the Holy Land Foundation in which there were many individuals and 
groups named as coconspirators. They were

[[Page H658]]

not indicted, but they were named as coconspirators. It includes the 
Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, which has a nice office 
building just up the street here, and the Islamic Society of North 
America, ISNA, the leader of which is Imam Magid, who goes to the White 
House, who goes to the State Department, who advises the President and 
let's him know when somebody is criticizing Islam, so the 
administration steps in and goes after him.
  In this exhibit from the Holy Land Foundation trial--it was the 
biggest funding of terrorism case ever in U.S. history, and people who 
were involved originally had indicated the goal was to convict these 
first five, to name all of these coconspirators, and if we get 
convictions of those first five, like we think we should, then we 
proceed and go after the remainder. They were convicted in late 2008. 
President Obama took office a month or two later, and this 
administration would under no circumstances go after these people who 
had been alleged in the documents of funding radical Islamic terrorism 
even after the U.S. District Court in Dallas and the U.S. Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals in New Orleans confirmed that there was plenty of 
evidence to support that someone like ISNA or CAIR was a legitimate 
coconspirator named in the indictment and that their names would not be 
removed.
  I have asked for years now of the Justice Department to make 
available the documents that were provided to the convicted 
terrorists--those funding terrorism or terrorists--and this 
administration now, for years, has drug their feet and has refused to 
provide all of the documents that were provided to the terrorists.
  On one occasion, the Attorney General basically said there are issues 
here of privilege, and my point was--and is--you gave them to the 
terrorists; surely, you can give them to Members of Congress. But the 
answer is, no, they can't. They are going to keep obfuscating. They 
don't want us to see all of the documents that they had in their 
possession that they gave to the terrorists. I have a feeling, if we 
saw all of the documents, it would be very, very clear in the purging 
that this administration has done of our training materials of the 
FBI's, of the intelligence agency's, of the State Department's, and the 
Justice Department's that, if there is anything that might bother a 
radical Islamist who wants to kill us, then it has to be removed. They 
removed it.

  In the document from a 1991 meeting, in what is called an 
``Explanatory Memorandum,'' it spells out their goals. It was written 
in 1991 by a member of the board of directors of the Muslim Brotherhood 
in North America and by a senior Hamas leader named Mohamed Akram. It 
had been approved by the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council and 
Organizational Conference, and it was meant for internal review by the 
Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Egypt. It was not intended for public 
consumption. These are the words from the introduction that is part of 
this document from the Center for Security Policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the document, itself, prepared by 
the Muslim Brotherhood in 1991, setting their goals for America:

       One: The Memorandum is Derived from:
       One, the general strategic goal of the group in America, 
     which was approved by the Shura Council and the 
     Organizational Conference for the year 1987, is: ``Enablement 
     of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective 
     and stable Islamic movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood 
     which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally and 
     which works to expand the observant Muslim base; aims at 
     unifying and directing Muslims' efforts; presents Islam as a 
     civilization alternative; and supports the global Islamic 
     state--if that name sounds familiar--wherever it is.''
       Two, the priority that is approved by the Shura Council for 
     the work of the group in its current and former session, 
     which is ``settlement.''

  Skipping down to ``Two: An Introduction to the Explanatory 
Memorandum,'' it says:

       The question we are facing is: ``How do you like to see the 
     Islam movement in North America in 10 years?'' or ``taking 
     along'' the following sentence when planning and working 
     ``Islamic Work in North America in the year 2000: A strategic 
     vision.''

  It goes on:

       Also, we must summon and take along elements of the general 
     strategic goal of the group in North America.

  For those large numbers of people in college who may not realize, 
North America is where we live.
  The document says:

       I will intentionally repeat them in numbers. They are:
       One, establishing an effective and stable Islamic movement 
     led by the Muslim Brotherhood.
       Two, adopting Muslims' causes domestically and globally.
       Three, expanding the observant Muslim base.
       Four, unifying and directing Muslim efforts.
       Five, presenting Islam as a civilization alternative.
       Six, supporting the establishment of the global Islamic 
     state, wherever it is.

                              {time}  1200

  The document says:

       It must be stressed that it has become clear and 
     emphatically known that all is in agreement that we must 
     ``settle'' or ``enable'' Islam and its movement in this part 
     of the world.
       Three: The Concept of Settlement:
       The term was mentioned in the group's ``dictionary'' and 
     documents with various meanings in spite of the fact that 
     everyone meant one thing with it. We believe that the 
     understanding of the essence is the same, and we will attempt 
     here to give the word and its ``meanings'' a practical 
     explanation with a practical movement tone and not a 
     philosophical linguistic explanation, while stressing that 
     this explanation of ours is not complete until our 
     explanation of ``the process'' of settlement itself is 
     understood which is mentioned in the following paragraph. We 
     briefly say the following:
       Settlement: ``That Islam and its movement become a part of 
     the homeland it lives in.''
       Establishment: ``That Islam turns into firmly rooted 
     organizations on whose bases civilization, structure, and 
     testimony are built.''

  Further down, it goes on, ``That Islam is stable in the land.''

       Rooting: ``That Islam is resident and not a passing thing 
     or rooted `entrenched' in the soil of the spot where it moves 
     and not a strange plant to it.''
       Four: The Process of Settlement:
       In order for Islam and its movement to become ``a part of 
     the homeland'' in which it lives--

  Talking about North America.

       --``stable'' in its land, ``rooted'' in the spirits and 
     minds of its people, ``enabled'' in the life of its society 
     and has firmly established ``organizations'' on which the 
     Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of 
     civilization is achieved, the movement must plan and struggle 
     to obtain ``the keys'' and the tools of this process in 
     carrying out this grand mission as a ``civilization 
     jihadist'' responsibility which lies on the shoulders of 
     Muslims and--on top of them--the Muslim Brotherhood in this 
     country.

  Talking about here in the United States, North America.
  ``Among these keys and tools are the following.'' It goes on to talk 
about the settlement concept and the fundamental shift toward 
settlement of this country.
  Number four:

       Understanding the Role of the Muslim Brother in North 
     America:
       The process of settlement is a ``civilization jihadist 
     process,'' with all the word means.

  Anyway, it goes on.
  Another place here, it says:

       There is a conviction--with which this memorandum 
     disagrees--that our focus in attempting to settle Islam in 
     this country will lead to negligence in our duty towards the 
     global Islamic movement in supporting its project to 
     establish the state.
       We believe that the reply is in two segments. One, the 
     success of the movement in America--

  Talking about the United States of America.

       One, the success of the movement in America in establishing 
     an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will 
     be the best support and aid to the global movement project.
       And the second is the global movement has not succeeded yet 
     in ``distributing roles'' to its branches, stating what is 
     the needed from them as one of the participants or 
     contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic 
     state. The day this happens, the children of the American 
     Ikhwani branch will have far-reaching impact and positions 
     that make the ancestors proud.

  It is a great document goal for taking over the United States, which 
brings another story to the surface. It is from Bob Price from 
breitbart.com. ``Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas; Attorney Claims 
'It's Voluntary,''' and it talks about the new Islamic tribunal in 
Texas that has been confirmed now by Breitbart Texas.
  The tribunal is operating as a nonprofit organization in Dallas. 
Because when you understand the goals, if there is a major defeat or a 
major success,

[[Page H659]]

Muslim Brotherhood requires a mosque be built there and a presence 
there.
  Naturally, they would want one at Ground Zero in New York; further, 
they would want a mosque and a strong presence in Dallas which was, 
they believe, the place of their big defeat when the Holy Land 
Foundation principals were convicted and sent to prison.
  I did want to point out, as we finish up here today, that the 
President was giving an excellent speech in India about the importance 
of stopping the global war on women. He didn't call it that. He only 
calls it that for Republicans, but there is a war on women, and it is 
not by Republicans. It is radical Islam and even some moderate 
Islamists.
  He is giving this talk about the importance of recognizing the 
importance and the equality of women--or some of us might say they are 
more equal than we are--but as he was doing that, this picture was on 
Saudi television.
  We have our United States President depicted here, and this is the 
First Lady of the United States of America being blurred out by this 
country's allies because she wasn't covered. Michelle Obama should 
never need to be covered if she doesn't want to be; yet at the very 
time our President is talking about equality of women, he fails to 
notice that people that he considers allies are treating his own wife 
like this.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we stand up against radical Islam or 
any Islam that wants a settlement civilization jihad in America. 
Anything and anybody who disagrees with the United States Constitution 
and wants to destroy it, tear it down, is an enemy to the United States 
and needs to be recognized as such and not welcomed with open arms at 
the State Department and the White House.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________