[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19646-19649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TERRORISM AND OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there has been so much in the news, and our 
friends here on the floor have been raising questions about 
responsible, reasonable gun control. We want gun control that does not 
violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the purpose of which 
is to allow citizens to protect themselves. It is not just for hunting, 
but to allow citizens to protect themselves.
  The thing that I noticed, Mr. Speaker, in my decade as a judge, the 
criminals that came before me for crimes involving a gun, I can't 
remember any of

[[Page 19647]]

them--I think I handled around 6,000 felony cases that went through our 
court. I can't remember any where they went down to a gun store and 
bought a gun. They stole them or they bought them from other criminals. 
With the 100 million guns that I understand have been purchased in 
recent years, it doesn't look like there will be any chance to remove 
guns from anyone except law-abiding citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting. We inquired, my Republican 
friends, my colleagues here, we inquired over and over, and still 7 
years after President Obama took office, we know that shortly 
thereafter there was a scheme hatched within his administration to sell 
guns to criminals that would get to Mexico and fall into the hands of 
drug cartels. They didn't adequately monitor them. There was nothing 
put on the guns so they could be traced exactly where they were going. 
We know one of them was used to kill one of our own government agents. 
So whether it was intentional, reckless disregard for an American 
Government agent's life who was working for the President to have one 
of the President's subsidiaries or employees provide guns in such a way 
that they would end up killing one American agent and, apparently, 
hundreds of Mexicans--and we don't even know the full extent because we 
can't get answers from this administration.
  Eric Holder intentionally withheld evidence. He refused to provide 
information. I felt like he should have been impeached and thrown out 
of office. We never got answers about Fast and Furious, but we did see 
emails where, within this administration, even after they got caught, 
that this administration had facilitated weapons being provided and 
sold to people who would take them to the drug cartels of Mexico. Even 
after they got caught, they were still wondering if it might be 
possible to use the fact that these guns were being used to create 
violence to justify attacks on the Second Amendment and taking away 
Americans' gun rights.
  Apparently, November was a huge month for the sale of guns; and 
apparently, Black Friday, in the past week, has been a record for--not 
a record, but just a massive number of guns being sold. I believe I saw 
there were 185,000 requests for gun purchases on Friday after 
Thanksgiving. Regardless of what the number was--that is not completely 
accurate--it is staggering. How many people are now in fear for 
themselves and their families because of the policies of this 
administration?
  Now, because of Fast and Furious and how there were people in the 
administration that were contemplating the sale of guns to drug cartels 
that this administration facilitated as a reason to have more gun 
control, it does make you question the motivation of some of the 
administration's policies. We know that, especially in the last 5 years 
of George W. Bush's Presidency, his administration was vigorously 
prosecuting gun violations. But in 7 years, this administration has 
never prosecuted as vigorously as the Bush administration did in those 
times. Then we find out that not only were they not prosecuting as 
vigorously as they did in those last 5 years of the Bush 
administration, but in recent years, they have been cutting back on the 
prosecution of gun violations.
  So we find out that, in 2013, gun violation prosecutions by this 
administration diminished. Then we find out that in 2014, they 
diminished even further by this administration. Then we find out that 
in 2015, this administration set a record for the last 7 years of 
prosecuting fewer gun violation crimes than any administration--well, 
this was the lowest year, this year, any of his last 7 years.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the administration, as they have increased the 
demand for more gun control to take guns away from law-abiding 
citizens, they have been decreasing the number of gun violations they 
have prosecuted. In the wake of this administration's involvement in 
Fast and Furious and trying to use it to promote more gun control on 
law-abiding citizens, it makes you wonder what is the reason this 
administration continues to prosecute fewer and fewer gun crimes?

                              {time}  1915

  It is as if this administration--and I am not saying, Mr. 
Parliamentarian, through the Speaker, I am not saying a specific person 
or the President. I am not violating the House rules. But I am saying 
this administration in bulk, which doesn't violate the House rules, 
somehow has had this policy of prosecuting fewer and fewer gun crimes 
at the same time they are increasing rhetoric to have more gun control. 
It is as if--and I am not alleging; I am just saying. It is as if they 
wanted gun violence to increase so that they could get more gun 
control, as it appears their motivation was in using what happened with 
gun violence as a result of the 2,000 weapons they forced gun dealers 
to sell to people they shouldn't have.
  Well, when I first heard the proposal, gee, nobody who is on the no-
fly list, can't even fly on a plane, should be able to go buy a gun, 
seemed reasonable. I was talking to my friend, Tom Price from Georgia, 
back here earlier, Mr. Speaker, and he said the same thing, well, that 
seems reasonable, until you start considering how one gets on the no-
fly list, who has been on the no-fly list, the massive abuses of 
individual constitutional rights by this administration, the abuses of 
the IRS of law-abiding citizens that Richard Nixon could have only 
dreamed of abusing the way this administration has.
  But the trouble is there is no due process for someone to be 
adjudicated to put on the no-fly list. There is no due process to get 
off the no-fly list. And, in fact, one of the men I respect as much as 
anybody I know--he is a constituent; he is an Army veteran; he is a 
retired general, lives in east Texas--we have had to help him a number 
of times, once again, to get off the no-fly list.
  And, unfortunately, we never can find out why he is ever put on the 
no-fly list in the first place. The only thing I know, he is a devout 
Christian. He is a supporter of mine. He would never knowingly violate 
the law of the United States.
  So, I don't know. Is it because he is a supporter of mine? I mean, a 
year ago, I was trying to fly back from London and an official there in 
London airport with their security said: Sir, I understand you are very 
sorry, but your homeland security says you are somebody that has to be 
personally, physically searched along with everything that you have.
  Gee, maybe somebody didn't like the way I cross-examined them in the 
judiciary hearing.
  But when you know that this administration has abused its power 
repeatedly and you find out that actually the no-fly list is so 
obscure, it is like something from a Kafka novel. I never really 
enjoyed his novels. But the trial, it makes you think of, wow, you mean 
this obscure government entity can charge you with something, but you 
can't--just like in a trial, you can't find out what you are charged 
with. You can't find out why you are on the no-fly list. You can't find 
out if it is part of an enemies list. You can't find out what is the 
best way to convince the government to get you off.
  Are there mistakes made? Well, gee, Mr. Speaker, could it be that a 
mistake was made when one of my constituent families from Lufkin was 
going to take their dream vacation to Disney World? They felt like the 
kids were old enough to enjoy it now. And when they tried to check 
their bags, they couldn't because, of their five children, their middle 
child was on the no-fly list. He was a potential terrorist.
  Now, I come from a family of four kids, and if I was going to pick 
one of my siblings, including me, to be a terrorist, I would say it is 
probably the young one. Well, this child was 5 years old. He was the 
middle child, not the youngest. They pulled him aside thinking: Well, 
gee, his name is on the no-fly list. He must be a terrorist.
  Well, thankfully, in Houston, they had some common sense and quickly 
figured out this is not a terrorist; this 5-year-old kid. He is not. 
Not so when they tried to leave Orlando to fly back home. He was pulled 
aside, the 5-year-old. He was separated from his parents. His parents 
were fit to be tied. They were threatened. They were not allowed to be 
with their child.

[[Page 19648]]

  They take him off to interrogate him, a 5-year-old child; but he is 
on the no-fly list, and they couldn't figure this out. They think he is 
a terrorist. They ask him his date of birth. He is freaking out. He is 
separated from his parents and his other siblings. He knows the month 
and day. He can't tell them the year. So now they think he is 
withholding information.
  They endured a lot of counseling and nightmares because of the abuses 
of this administration's policies. And yes, mistakes are made like 
that; and sometimes when people's names get put on the no-fly list, you 
don't know what it is for.
  Here is an article, and I sure don't read from these folks very 
often, but the Los Angeles Times says:
  ``It seems simple enough: If the Federal Government, based on 
intelligence or policing, puts a person on its watch list of suspected 
terrorists or decrees that he or she is too dangerous to be allowed on 
an airplane, then surely it would also be foolish to let that person 
buy a firearm in the United States. Makes sense, doesn't it?''
  That was the thrust of a proposed law by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
  It goes on down:
  ``One problem is that the people on the no-fly list, as well as the 
broader terror watch list from which it is drawn, have not been 
convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having 
terror connections.''
  I thought it was outrageous that Senator Ted Kennedy was on the no-
fly list. I don't know. Maybe Homeland Security knew something the rest 
of America didn't know, but it seemed silly to me. Senator Ted Stevens, 
the late Senator's wife, Catherine Stevens, her name was on the no-fly 
list. She had those problems.
  So it could be that you are guilty of only having a name similar to 
somebody that was put on the list for who knows why. But that is not a 
good way to take people's guns away, to say: Yes, we want to pass a law 
so that this administration, behind closed doors, with the lowest 
learners of this administration, can put people's name on the list that 
can never buy a gun, can never fly on a plane. That is a scary 
proposition.
  And how about the 72 Department of Homeland Security employees that 
are on the no-fly list? And then we find out also, thanks to Senator 
Jeff Sessions, that we have had two--two--refugees in this country who, 
this year, have been either charged or convicted of terrorist 
activities. One worked around O'Hare airport and another one worked 
around here, I believe, as a cab driver working around Reagan airport. 
How about we take care of the people that we know for sure are a threat 
to America?
  Anyway, the article from The Washington Times says: ``According to 
the technology website TechDirt.com, 40 percent of those on the FBI's 
watch list--about 280,000 people--are considered to have no affiliation 
with recognized terrorist groups. All it takes is for the government to 
declare it has 'reasonable suspicion' that someone could be a 
terrorist. There is no hard evidence required, and the standard is 
notoriously vague and elastic.''
  An article from Adam Kredo, from Free Beacon, about the 72 employees. 
A tip of the hat to Congressman Stephen Lynch for finding that 
information.
  This article from Neil Munro, Breitbart, ``California Shooting Shows 
Jihad Risk From Muslim Migrants' U.S.-Born Children'':
  ``The San Bernardino shooter who killed 14 Americans is yet another 
name on the growing list of U.S.-born children of Muslim migrants who 
grew up to embrace violent jihad.''
  It seems like somebody has talked about that before.
  ``Before Syed Rizwan Farook, the most notorious example was Anwar al 
Awlaki, born in New Mexico in 1971 to accomplished, professional-class 
Yemeni parents. He subsequently embraced the violent commandments of 
Islam, complete with its many calls for attacks on kaffirs, or non-
Muslims. His career as a jihadi adviser, recruiter cheerleader ended 
when he was killed by a U.S. missile strike in Yemen in September 2011.
  ``Another example is Nidal Malik Hasan, the Virginia-born son of Arab 
migrants, who murdered 13 Americans in Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. That 
attack was downplayed by Federal officials as `workplace violence,' 
even though Hasan had described himself as a `Soldier of Allah' on his 
U.S. Army business cards . . . The problem is worse among Muslims, 
because Muslim culture and religion is hostile to integration, Spencer 
says. `Islamic law announces itself as a superior model for society and 
government so you've got no community-driven reason for Muslims to 
integrate or adopt American values, because their way is better,' he 
said.''
  Now, that is what Spencer says.
  But I do know Muslims here in the United States that don't believe 
that they should adopt sharia law. I have got Muslim friends in 
Afghanistan and all over North Africa and the Middle East. They don't 
want radical Islam. And, in fact, in Egypt--so proud of the people of 
Egypt--they rose up and said: We don't want radical Islam. Of course, 
this President, this administration, wants to punish them for throwing 
out the Muslim Brother president.
  But this article--back to Neil Munro's article--he says:
  ``In August 2015, the FBI arrested the U.S.-born son of a supposedly 
moderate Imam as he began his journey to join ISIS in Syria. Mohammad 
Oda Dakhlalla was accompanied by his young, university-educated 
American wife, who was a convert to Islam. `That is the quintessential 
example of the risks involved because the father is supposed to be a 
moderate and we're supposed to think the son subscribes to a violent 
Islam completely different from the father . . . but there is no 
evidence of a rift between father and son,' Spencer said.
  ``In October 2014, two U.S.-born teenage girls were nabbed by the FBI 
as they began their journey to Syria.
  ``The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center lists at least five 
additional U.S.-born jihadis, or would-be jihadis, at its site, 
including James Elshafay who tried to detonate a bomb in 2004, Ehsanul 
Sadequee, Tarek Mehanna, Walli Mujahidh--his family name comes from the 
Arab term for `Holy Warrior'--and Naser Jason Abdo, who planned to 
attack Fort Hood in 2011.''
  So I also would like a tip of the hat, Mr. Speaker, to Secretary Jeh 
Johnson that went back out to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, ADAMS 
for short. I am sure John Adams appreciates that very much. I don't 
know if the President's friend, Imam Magid--oh, wait. Let's see. Well, 
this article mentions him.
  ``One of the `most meaningful discussions' on his `tour'''--talking 
about Jeh Johnson--``he called it, was in June with the ADAMS Center 
imam, which began with a Boy Scout Troop leading meeting participants 
in the Pledge of Allegiance. That imam, Mohamed Magid, is a past 
president of the Islamic Society of North America, an organization 
linked to the Holy Land Foundation in its terror-financing trial and to 
the Muslim Brotherhood.''
  And, by the way, it was listed as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land 
Foundation trial for supporting terrorism. And once they got the 
convictions of the five main people being prosecuted, ISNA, CAIR, and 
some other folks tried to get their names withdrawn from the pleadings 
being specifically named as co-conspirators in support of terrorism. 
But the Federal district judge and also the U.S. Federal Court of 
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, said: No, there is plenty of evidence to 
support that you are co-conspirators in supporting terrorism.

                              {time}  1930

  I was told by a lawyer that the plan was, once they got those first 
five convictions, they would go after ISNA, Imam Magid, and all of 
these other people. Fortunately, for Imam Magid and ISNA and CAIR and 
all of these groups, President Obama got elected, and Eric Holder 
immediately made clear that nobody was going to prosecute the rest of 
those named coconspirators in supporting terrorism.
  There was also a headline in the news today from The Washington Times 
that

[[Page 19649]]

reads: ``Huma Abedin taunts Donald Trump: `I'm a proud Muslim.'''
  ``Huma Abedin, the longtime confident to Democratic Presidential 
front runner Hillary Clinton, took aim at Donald Trump's proposal to 
ban Muslims from entering the United States in an email with the 
subject line: `I'm a proud Muslim.'
  ```Donald Trump is leading in every national poll to be the 
Republican nominee for President; and earlier today, he released his 
latest policy proposal: to ban all Muslims from entering our country,' 
wrote Ms. Abedin--'' or Ms. Weiner, anyway ``--in an email Monday 
evening to Mrs. Clinton's supporters. `I'm a proud Muslim, but you 
don't have to share my faith to share my disgust. Trump wants to 
literally write racism into our law books. His Islamophobia doesn't 
reflect our Nation's values.'''
  Here is an article from July 27, 2012, by Andrew McCarthy in which he 
talks about Senator John McCain's claim that concerns about Huma Abedin 
are smear-based on a few unspecified, unsubstantiated associations.
  Actually, Michele Bachmann and I and three others signed letters in 
which we just said, Here are some things we know. Would you do an 
investigation to see the extent of the Muslim Brotherhood's influence 
in your department? There were five different departments that had five 
different specific letters, and there were not any vague allegations. 
We just said, We know these things are true. Would you investigate?
  We come to find out a lot in this article, which reads:
  ``The letter averred that Abedin `has three family members: her late 
father, her mother, and her brother, connected to Muslim Brotherhood 
operatives and/or organizations.'
  ``It turns out, however, that Abedin, herself, is directly connected 
to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure.''
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Muslim Brotherhood has been named as a 
terrorist organization by both Egypt and the UAE. They have asked 
officials in both of those countries when I have been over there: Why 
do you not recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood has been at war with 
you since 1979? You keep helping them. You have got people advising the 
President. They are all Muslim Brothers. Why do you keep doing that? I 
don't have an answer for them.
  The article goes on:
  ``It turns out Abedin, herself, is directly connected to Abdullah 
Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the 
financing of al Qaeda. Abedin worked for a number of years at the 
Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its 
journal. The IMMA was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for 
decades, overlapping for several years with Abedin. Naseef was also 
secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps 
the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. In 
that connection, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally 
designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due 
to its support of al Qaeda.
  ``You ought to be able to stop right there,'' but he doesn't. It goes 
on. Further down, it reads:
  ``In this instance, however, before you even start probing the 
extensive, disturbing Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma 
Abedin should have been ineligible for any significant government 
position based on her own personal and longstanding connection to 
Naseef's organization.
  ``Specifically, Ms. Abedin was affiliated with the Institute of 
Muslim Minority Affairs, where she was assistant editor of the Journal 
of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the IMMA's raison d'etre. 
Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008, 
from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House 
until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff.''
  Again, this article was written in 2012.
  ``The IMMA was founded in the late 1970s by Abdullah Omar Naseef, who 
was then the vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz 
University in Saudi Arabia.''
  It goes on to talk about all of his ties with civilization jihad and 
with the Muslim World League, over which he presided and with whom Huma 
Abedin had this relationship in this publication for all of those years 
that she worked with Hillary Clinton.
  ``The Muslim World League manages the `civilization jihad'--the 
Brotherhood's commitment to destroy the West from within and to 
`conquer' it by sharia proselytism, or dawa, as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, 
the Brotherhood's top sharia jurist, puts it.
  ``Nevertheless, the Muslim World League has a long history of deep 
involvement in violent jihad as well.''
  Then we have this article today: ```Spinning up as we speak': Email 
shows Pentagon was ready to roll as Benghazi attack occurred.''
  We still don't know who stopped the military. The email shows they 
were ready to go help our people in Benghazi. Somebody stopped them. 
Was that advice Huma Abedin gave to Secretary Clinton? We don't know. 
Was this advice that reached the President? We don't know. We don't 
know whether he went to bed and said, ``You take care of it,'' or 
whether he went next-door, like was reported, until Osama bin Laden was 
taken out. He went in the next room and didn't watch and played cards. 
We don't know what they were doing.
  This report from Robert Windrem: ``The ISIS Trail of Death'' goes on 
to point out all that ISIS is doing. We know there are 1,000 cases 
being investigated right here.
  Look, I am not advocating we get rid of all Muslims in the United 
States, we have got Muslim friends here in the House, but we do need to 
take a look to see whether people want to replace our U.S. Constitution 
with sharia law. We need to take a harder look at who we allow to come 
into this country and have a child who they will take back to Yemen, or 
wherever, to teach their child to hate America.
  People can make fun of me still, but we know Americans have died 
because we have allowed this to happen. They come back as American 
citizens whenever they want, and it gets so bad that even President 
Obama has to take out an American citizen, who was born here, to 
parents who trained him to hate America after they went back to Yemen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________