The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H3102-H3105 on May 5, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
{time} 1510
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do appreciate the recommendations of my friend from Iowa. And I certainly agree, we should be passing a bill that would require no leeway for the Treasury's Secretary, that he should pay our debts as they come due and also make sure the military is paid on time. We know that Social Security is already going to be mandatory spending in the event of a shutdown. And that way we are allowed to pursue the issues that are most critical and that is, really, in the interest of children. That term is used so often. It is really true now. We have got to cut the ridiculous, irresponsible spending to preserve this Union.
But there are two problems out there that are seeking to destroy this country. One is passively to destroy this country, and that is our gross, irresponsible overspending: $2.1 trillion coming in and $3.75 trillion going out. We won't last much longer as a country if that continues.
The other is not passive. It is very active. And our great military and intelligence communities did a fantastic job apparently in taking out the most wanted man last weekend in the world, the man responsible for possibly more murders than anyone currently in existence on the planet, but certainly he had killed more Americans than anyone else alive on the planet today. And that was, of course, Osama bin Laden.
But there has been a great rewriting of history. And since we know--
it has been made very clear that there are radical Islamist jihadists that want to destroy our country--it is ridiculous not to defend ourselves. We took an oath to defend the Constitution.
We are supposed to provide for the common defense. It is the most important responsibility that we as a Federal Government have, because if we do not provide for a common defense, then it matters not what we try to do in the way of Medicare and Medicaid. All kinds of problems occur in the U.S.
If we don't defend ourselves, there are plenty of evil groups who would love to destroy our way of life. In the case of the radical Islamic jihadists, they believe that as much freedom as we have in America leads to decadence and debauchery and that we need one leader, one religious leader, an ahmadi, to preside over one giant, worldwide caliphate.
So for those of us who realize on both sides of the aisle we make a lot of mistakes, people across the country make a lot of mistakes. No one at the current time on Earth is perfect. We realize still that freedom to make our own choices is what the Founders intended, and that is because they believed that the Creator--as they referenced in the Declaration, God referenced in other places, Providence in other places, they believed that that was God's choice for our life, that we have choice.
And even though God knew that we would make bad choices, when people can freely love of their own volition, their own choice, as a father I know that means so much more than if you demand that a child or someone in your care act like they love you.
So thank God. He desires our love and our praise. As a result, we were given freedom of choice. You don't have to look too deeply into founding documents and diaries and journals to realize just how much the Founders, the Continental Congress members, believed that.
So it gets interesting when people try to rewrite history and especially in the process of failing to properly provide for the common defense.
We had the Attorney General of the United States before the Judiciary Committee this week, and of concern to me and many others has been the refusal of this Justice Department to prosecute the unindicted coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
The evidence used in that case had been adduced from back in 1991, 1993. There was a treasure trove of material found, I believe, in 2004 here, just across in Virginia. There was a sub-basement that had tremendous amounts of documents reflecting the plans and intentions and strategy for the effort to bring down the government as we know it, our way of life as we know it, and that was by radical Muslims.
I am also thankful that there are a majority of Muslims who are moderates. They don't believe jihad means to go about destroying those who oppose what you are doing. They believe that jihad means an internal change of life. And when someone has a moderate Muslim for a friend, he has a friend for life. It kind of reminds me of southern hospitality.
But, nonetheless, we do our moderate Muslim friends no favors in failing to oppose the radical Islamic jihadists, because make no mistake, if we do not defend this Nation against the radical Islamic jihadists, then some of the people that would lose their lives, at a minimum lose their freedoms, would be moderate Muslims, because being a moderate is not abided in the world of a radical Muslim. If you don't believe just as they do, then it is okay to take your life.
So that's why I say we are no friend to our moderate Muslim friends if we do not defend this Nation against the radicals, because our moderate Muslim friends will be targeted if we do not do our job in defending the Nation, which brings me back again to the Holy Land Foundation trial.
The Bush administration, acting on information that was obtained through the 1990s through the Clinton administration Justice Department, FBI, and especially since 1993, the efforts made by the FBI, the incredibly professional work that was done, it was amazing how well they put a case together. Unfortunately, when the case was tried the first time, it led to a hung jury. In the pleadings--and I have many of the documents here. Not all of them. There are boxes and boxes of documents, and I understand even now, under Attorney General Holder, the Justice Department has boxes and boxes of evidence, documents, wiretaps that have not even been translated. You would think that would be fairly important before a decision was made on whether or not to pursue the unindicted coconspirators.
Now, it is not always the case, but in this case the unindicted coconspirators were actually listed. If one goes through the list of unindicted coconspirators, you find groups like the Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA; you find the North American Islamic Trust, aka NAIT. It is amazing. You find Founders of CAIR, C-A-I-R.
So it was intriguing, after having five convictions on all 108 allegations in the Holy Land Foundation trial that went on in Dallas, that this Justice Department would ultimately decide we are not going to pursue any of those other coconspirators or joint venturers, who the evidence shows clearly provided financing for a known terrorist group, Hamas. The documentation is substantial.
{time} 1520
And this is only a tiny thimbleful of the evidence that was in the case.
But when I look here at the Islamic Society of North America, at some of the evidence that came out, we have journal voucher after journal voucher showing the money that was taken out and used to ultimately assist in terrorism or to fund a terrorist group. You see all these journal entries. There are deposit slips in here making clear all kinds of things in the way of money. All kinds of amounts were transferred to assist in the funding of terrorism.
In fact, at the conclusion of the first part of the case with the five defendants, some of the unindicted coconspirators filed a motion to require the Federal District Judge in Dallas to strike or eliminate all of the names of the unindicted coconspirators, or at least their own, and an assistant U.S. Attorney in Dallas named James Jacks did a very good job in rebutting that and laying out in his brief before the Federal District Court how there were significant amounts, tremendous amounts of evidence that showed that the unindicted coconspirators' names should not be stricken from the record. And the judge in his memo order on the case came back and said basically there is a prima facie case.
In fact, the judge said here--this is in his memo decision, and this is Judge Solis, a Federal judge in Dallas--``The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, C-A-I-R, ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, and NAIT, the North American Islamic''--I have it here, what the T stands for--``with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine and with Hamas. While the court recognizes that evidence produced by the government largely predates the HLF designation date, its evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with HLF, IAP and Hamas,'' and being conjunctive together and not disjunctive. The judge goes on to say, ``Thus maintaining the names of the entity on the list is appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the government.''
He goes further in his opinion and says, ``The explanatory memorandum includes a section entitled `Understanding the Role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America,' which states that the work of the Ikhwan in the United States is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.''
Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood's
``organizations and the organizations of our friends,'' which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund, which was HLF's former name, and the United Association for Studies and Research. During the early years of the OLF and HLF operation, OLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account that it held with ISNA and NAIT.
Indeed, OLF operated from within ISNA in Plainfield, Indiana, where defendant Baker was employed. The Muslim Brotherhood supervised the creation of a ``Palestine Committee,'' which was put in charge of other organizations such as HLF, IAP, UASR, and ISNA. The July 30, 1994, meeting agenda for the Palestine Committee lists IAP, HLF, UASR, and CAIR as working organizations for the Palestine Committee.
The order is pretty extraordinary in following the pleadings as filed by a quite capable assistant U.S. Attorney at that time, now interim U.S. Attorney in Dallas, and stating basically there is a prima facie case here. In fact, this has come to the attention of a number of us, not insignificantly, what to do with Patrick Poole and his research, Andrew McCarthy and his research, and other individuals who have been prosecutors, people who are familiar with the system, how the system works.
Pete King, himself, has a very pointed letter that was sent to the Attorney General, asking for answers, and yet he really didn't get much of an answer. In fact, his letter reads this way. It was dated April 15.
``Dear Attorney General Holder, I write to inquire about your decision not to prosecute the 246 individuals and organizations named as unindicted coconspirators in a Hamas terror finance case.''
Actually, it is the largest terror finance case in American history. If you don't cut off the money, the terrorism will continue, and if the terrorists have tremendous amounts of money, it is a lot tougher to defeat them as our enemy, our sworn enemy, sworn to destroy our way of life. If you cut off their funding, it is a lot easier to be at war with someone in a tent, riding a camel, than it is someone who has jets, RPGs and the most sophisticated weaponry and the ability to build million dollar compounds to hide in.
Of course, money also opens the possibility for bribes, which makes it a whole lot easier to hide in plain sight, because people are willing to look the other way. We don't know if that was occurring in Pakistan. There is a lot still to be learned in that situation.
But Chairman King, Pete King, goes on and says, ``I have been reliably informed that the decision not to seek indictments of the Council on American Islamic Relations and its cofounder, Omar Ahmad, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust was usurped by high-ranking decisions at the Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the FBI, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case. Their opposition to this decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.''
Chairman King goes on and says, ``I request you provide answers to the following questions:
``What are the reasons for the Department's decision not to prosecute CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, and Mr. Ahmad, who is a CAIR cofounder and former head of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?
``Who made the final decision not to prosecute?
``Who, if anyone, from the Executive Office of the President consulted with, advised or otherwise communicated with the Department of Justice in electronic, oral or written form regarding the Department's decision to not seek indictments of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, and Mr. Ahmad?
``How does and will the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation address the potential for CAIR, ISNA, NAIT to engage in terrorism financing?
``What policies with regard to those organizations have you implemented to address that threat?
``The answers to these questions should provide some explanation for declining a prosecution that is strongly supported by the record from the Holy Land Foundation trial.''
Then the chairman goes through and cites some of the information from that case, and he goes on and says, ``Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the Department of State since October 9, 1997, and its status was reconfirmed by the most recent annual report of the National Counterterrorism Center, issued April 30, 2010.
{time} 1530
``Hamas shamefully conducts cowardly suicide bombings against civilian targets inside Israel.'' He goes on and sets out some further information there.
It also should be noted that Chairman Lamar Smith, when it was brought to the attention by some of us on the committee, also sent a letter to the Attorney General, requesting information about these very same things. In fact, there was a memo that was involved, and Chairman Smith on behalf of the Judiciary Committee requested a copy of the March 31, 2010, memo entitled: ``Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad'' from Assistant Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler.
As I understand it, Chairman King got a response; very unsatisfactory. Basically, they're not telling him anything. If they follow that tradition, Chairman Smith is not likely to get much of an answer. But it causes great concern because we have the Attorney General, who has testified before the committee this week that no one in his Department was involved in advising or consulting over that. Yet we have information about a memo which may contradict the Attorney General directly. If that's the case, he would have given false information before a committee not once but a number of times during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. I hope and pray that's not true, but there's one way to find out.
Instead of providing the memo that was requested, he referred Mr. Trent Franks, when he asked, to a Dallas Morning News article that quotes Mr. Jacks as saying there were no political factors involved in that decision. Well, I have a copy of that article as well. I also have a copy of Mr. Jacks' pleadings where he did a very nice job of setting out that there was a strong case--in essence, a prima facie case--
against these people wanting to have their names eliminated as coconspirators in the pleading. He also filed a pleading with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now, I know as a former judge and chief justice that lawyers are not supposed to file pleadings and try to persuade based on facts that they believe or know not to be true. It's called fraud upon the court, and there's punitive action that lies in that case. But the information that U.S. Attorney Jacks provided to the district court and to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be very authentic and very well done. Obviously, a very capable lawyer. There are no punitive actions that can be taken for misleading a newspaper. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't know what was in the memo that was requested from March of last year.
But we're now getting into some very serious grounds when the Attorney General of the United States will not be forthcoming, changes his answers a number of times about who consulted or didn't consult; who's in his department, who's not in his department; who participated. So we've got a lot of explaining to get to. I hope there are legitimate explanations. But one thing is very clear, Mr. Speaker, and that is when the Attorney General is holding evidence that will answer the questions that were asked and prove if anyone is lying and who is lying and when they lied, it is not at all comforting to say, We're not giving you evidence that might contradict something that's been said by the Justice Department, but we will refer you to a newspaper article that an interim U.S. Attorney gave, who serves at the will of the United States President. So then, again, as a former judge, you're not looking for evidence which may support or not.
Could there be politics at play in this kind of decision? Well, about this Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, it's interesting. I got a transcript of the speech, because I got it off of the White House Web site today, made by the Deputy National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, his being Denis McDonough. This was actually, it says, for immediate release March 6, 2011. This is printed, like I say, from the Web site. These are the remarks of the Deputy National Security Adviser to the President, Barack Hussein Obama, in which he starts his remarks like this:
Thank you, Imam Majid, for your very kind introduction and welcome.
By the way, these are remarks to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, ADAMS, ironically.
Thank you, Imam Majid, for your very kind introduction, and welcome. I know that President Obama was very grateful that you led the prayer at last summer's iftar dinner at the White House, which, as the President noted, is a tradition stretching back more than two centuries to when Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar dinner at the White House.
Well, ``iftar'' refers to the evening meal when Muslims break their fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan. Iftar is one of the religious observances of Ramadan, and is often done as a community with people gathering to break their fast together. Iftar is done right after sunset time. Traditionally, a date is the first thing to be consumed when the fast is broken.
But if you look at the true history of the country, Thomas Jefferson did invite a leader from Tunis to break bread with him at the White House, and it was at the conclusion of Ramadan, but there's no evidence to indicate whatsoever that this was a traditional iftar dinner.
You get back to the facts. In the second paragraph, he says--and this is Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Adviser--Our Founders understood the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act, establishing religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion.
He goes on in his remarks, and he says, Thank you also for being one of our Nation's leading voices for the values that make America so strong, especially religious freedom and tolerance.
Parenthetically, I'm not sure if tolerance includes funding terrorist activities against Israel and the United States, but that's a parenthetical question on my part.
Back to Mr. McDonough, Whether it's here at the ADAMS Center or as president of the Islamic Society of North America, you've spoken with passion and eloquence not only about your own Islamic faith but for the need to build bridges of understanding and trust between faiths.
This is incredible. The Deputy National Security Adviser is thanking the president of a coconspirator--named, at least, as a coconspirator, joint venturer in the Holy Land Foundation trial. He was not merely introducing him at this proceeding, but was also thanking him for being a confidant who led the White House in prayer in their iftar proceeding in the White House. The president of a coconspirator to fund terrorist activities is leading Muslim prayers in the White House.
I realize my time has expired. I just know we need to work hard so that this country's time will not expire.
____________________
