A picture of Representative Louie Gohmert
Louie G.
Republican TX 1

About Rep. Louie
  • Coconspirators in Supporting Terrorism

    by Representative Louie Gohmert

    Posted on 2015-12-15

    submit to reddit

    GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this week what Congress will fund through September 30 of next year and what we will not fund, the San Bernardino shooting, the radical Islamist terrorist attack there, has awakened a lot of people across the country.

    There is an article from December 2, 2015, by Ashley Pratte. The question is: Is ISIS contained or covered up? That is the title.

    ``With the recent terrorist attacks in Paris carried out by ISIS, Americans are on high alert--and rightfully so. Just hours prior to the attacks Obama said that ISIS was `contained.' Americans everywhere are baffled by Obama's continued ignorance and lack of strategy when it comes to destroying the Islamic State.

    ``Yesterday, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated on The Lead with Jake Tapper that the White House knowingly ignored a 2012 report about the rise of ISIS because they didn't mesh well with the re-election `narrative.' ``Now it is all starting to make sense. Of course the President believes ISIS is contained, he has been willingly and knowingly ignoring reports about the serious threats that ISIS poses to America and to the world since it wouldn't help him get re-elected.

    ``The scary thing is that these aren't the first reports we have heard from former Obama intelligence officials regarding the White House ignoring their reports on ISIS. This September The Daily Beast published an exclusive story by Shane Harris and Nancy A. Youssef, claiming that over 50 spies say ISIS intelligence was cooked. These 50 intelligence analysts formally filed a complaint that their reports on ISIS were being `inappropriately' altered by senior officials.

    ``These are very powerful words. If there truly is a `cancer' at the highest level of command, Americans have a lot to be concerned about when it comes to national defense and security. According to the Daily Beast, the accusations being made suggest that a significant amount of people tracking the inner workings of ISIS think that their reports are being altered to fit a public narrative--echoing the sentiments of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

    ``It is disturbing to think that our military and intelligence officials aren't being listened to by the Obama administration simply because it doesn't fit their narrative. Just yesterday lawmakers on Capitol Hill heard from the chairman of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, that ISIS is not contained, contradicting President Obama's statements. We now have to question whether or not intelligence reports are still being ignored because of their inconvenience to the administration and because of the looming election year.

    ``Sadly, these reports from top military and intelligence officials aren't surprising. Americans have noticed for a while that Obama's statements on ISIS show how little he knows about the threat they pose or that he is deliberately ignoring the facts. A new CBS poll indicates that only 23% of Americans think Obama has a clear strategy for defeating ISIS, which shows just how little confidence Americans have in their commander-in-chief.

    ``On Monday, just weeks after the Paris attacks, Obama made mind- boggling remarks at a climate change summit in Paris, where he made it a point to mention that he will beat ISIS by fighting climate change.

    ``Let's be honest, ISIS was never a `jayvee' team, it was never `contained,' and it certainly won't be defeated by resolving to end climate change, but it was a good narrative for the Obama administration spin to quell the fear of the American public. However, this narrative stands in stark contrast with the real narrative, the one being told by military and senior intelligence officials--the one being ignored.'' And we have from the Center for Immigration Studies, Mr. Speaker, an ``Analysis of the `Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015,' '' this out December 14, 2015.

    It reviews the House bill drafted to tighten up the Visa Waiver Program, and it has been reported that this may be included in the omnibus--we will find out tonight--2016 spending bill as a kind of political replacement for the bill passed in November to tighten up the refugee screening.

    This article goes on from the Center for Immigration Studies that: ``One key provision makes it out-of-bounds for people who have visited--or who are natives of--Syria or Iraq, or state sponsors of terror to use the VWP. Another major provision tightens up requirements and certifications by countries to live by the conditions of the participation--including use of fraud-resistant passports and strict timeframes for reporting of lost or stolen documents.

    ``Dan Cadman, a Center fellow and author of the analysis, said, `Congress has at least decided to tackle many of the gaps and problems with the VWP, which has represented for some time the `soft underbelly of homeland security'; but there can be no doubt that the U.S. vetting for refugees and asylum seekers still represents a major national security risk, and remains an unaddressed problem.' ``One major problem with the bill is the exception to several requirements that has been carved out for countries in the Schengen visa-free zone, which covers nearly all of northern, western, and central Europe, including hotbeds of terrorist activities in France and Belgium. Cadman writes that `this exception is the caveat that undoes the intent of the rule.' '' So, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we have got a lot more work to do here to prevent this President's administration from continuing to allow people into this country without our ability to actually vet them and check them.

    There are indications that members of the Visa Waiver Program may only check one in three documents that are provided to them because they just don't have time.

    Well, just when Americans thought we were unsafe, unsecure, that this administration won't face up to the threat that radical Islam is, that most all of the country understands we are up against except the administration--they won't mention the words radical Islam--and just when people think they are starting to maybe make the point and get the point across to this administration, we have the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security who stands up for the terrorists.

    {time} 1930 He stands up for people who want to come into this country and do us harm.

    This is an article from Politico, of all places, and the title reads: ``DHS chief: `Legal limits' on scrutinizing immigrants' Web postings.'' The article reads: `` `We are dealing with private communications and things for which there is an expectation of privacy,' Jeh Johnson says in an interview.'' Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. I am glad that the Secretary of Homeland Security understands that the Supreme Court says there is a right to privacy somewhere within the shadow of the penumbra of the Constitution--that is, the Bill of Rights. Yet he doesn't understand those constitutional protections are not afforded to people who want to come into the United States. They are in another country. I can't imagine this in anybody's definition of our U.S. Constitution. No Americans in other countries [[Page H9325]] are entitled to U.S. constitutional protections over there, and they are people who are applying to come in.

    There is social media out there, and there are really sharp folks in Homeland Security and in the Justice Department who are not under the direct thumb of the administration who know how to access it; they know how to check things; they can use search engines and can check to see what contacts and what pictures are out there. Are they pictured with a terrorist somewhere? Of course, that might get our friend Senator McCain in trouble; but, nonetheless, there is a lot of social media that can be checked.

    Here we have an article today, December 15, by Seung Min Kim: ``Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Tuesday there are `certain legal limits' that constrain federal officials from scrutinizing the social media histories of foreigners trying to enter the United States--a new debate that has flared in the aftermath of the San Bernardino, California terrorist attack.

    ``His comments, in an interview with POLITICO, mark the first time the Homeland Security chief weighed in on the merits of reviewing social media in immigration cases. According to recent news reports, Tashfeen Malik, the female shooter in the California massacre, had posted extremist views yet still obtained a visa to the United States.

    `` `You have to keep in mind--and this is again, not a comment on any particular case--that social media, Facebook, and the like can involve public statements, public postings, it can involve friending, and it can involve private communications,' Johnson said from his office at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in northwest Washington.

    `` `We are dealing with private communications and things for which there is an expectation of privacy, and you're dealing with U.S. persons,' Johnson continued. `There are certain legal limits to what we can do.' '' Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that people who are trying to come into this country are not U.S. persons and that social media ought to be used by Homeland Security to find out what kind of lengths people will take who want to come into this country.

    If they had not marginalized one of the best people working for Homeland Security and had not gone after him and attacked him, they would have learned--and I am talking about my friend Phil Haney, who was very adept at using social media to see if they had questions about somebody--what kind of contacts are out there on the Internet? What pictures were made with whom? What is posted where about this person? It is also important to have somebody like him who has spent time in the Middle East, who knows the language, who knows and understands moderate Islam, who understands radical Islam, who understands who the players are and who the imams are who are teaching radical Islam, who knows the groups that are teaching radical Islam.

    If Phil Haney had been allowed to continue the investigation into Tablighi Jamaat, then he would have seen the ties that these shooters had. He would have found Ms. Malik's social posting. One of the things he says would have tipped him off right away is that ``Tashfeen Malik'' is a boy's name, and he is a bit of a hero in radical Islamic circles. If you know that, which I didn't and he does, then you pull that person aside for additional screening. You pull that application and ask, ``Why do you have a boy's name? You certainly weren't given that.'' His example is it would be like a woman from America who was trying to get into another country with the name ``George Washington.'' Really? That is your real name? It would raise flags and questions and would cause you to do further checking.

    People at Homeland Security have seen, if you become a whistleblower and if you blow the whistle on the Obama administration's and Homeland Security's deleting of documents and on their refusing to investigate radical Islam, then they will convene a grand jury to make your life a living hell until you retire, and that is only if they can't find some little ``something'' to indict you of after they have looked everywhere and through everything.

    The people at Homeland Security have seen what happens to people who are honest, who are honorable, who are trying to warn of contacts this administration has with people who have ties to radical Islam. I know there are people out there who say, ``I wish you would use names.'' Why doesn't somebody in the mainstream media go get the pleadings from the Holy Land Foundation trial in the Federal court of the Northern District of Texas, and you will see a list of names. If there were somebody who were worthy of a Pulitzer anymore, he would take those names and compare them against the people who have access to the White House and the groups that have access to the White House and to the State Department and to the Justice Department and to intelligence agencies.

    They would find that CAIR, just blocks away from here--I can see their building from my window, and they can see mine--is on the list. Yet, it is CAIR that has--I don't know if they have got a red phone or what they have got over to the White House; but when they get bothered or when, maybe, they don't like a Koranic scripture or something that is being quoted in training material, they can just call the White House and tell them to get rid of it, and they do. They can call the Justice Department, for, after all, CAIR and the FBI were outreach partners. Finally, in 2009, after they were implicated as partners, coconspirators in funding terrorism, the FBI finally, in 2009, had to send them a letter, saying, basically, We had better suspend our relationship as partners, because there was all this evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial that, actually, you are a supporter, and you are a coconspirator; so we are going to have to put that on hold for a bit. But this administration picked right back up. CAIR was certainly heard from out in California immediately after the shootings.

    Anyway, this article goes on. It reads: ``Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have seized on reports that Malik passed a trio of background checks during her fiancee visa application process in 2014 despite publishing social media posts that were openly supportive of violent jihadism.'' Anyway, congratulations to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Americans can sleep well because Secretary Johnson is setting us up to have another Tashfeen Malik shoot more people because we are not going to, under this administration, check their social media to see if they have pledged allegiance to ISIS.

    This is from Todd Bensman, December 10, PJ Media: ``America is Talking About the Wrong Refugee Problem.'' I would submit it is a legitimate problem we have been talking about, but this article points out a problem that, certainly, I and many of my Republican friends have been pointing to.

    The article reads: ``A few weeks ago, the fangs came out when news broke that the Paris attackers were `refugees' who had entered the European continent among thousands of immigrants. Elected Republicans and conservative pundits challenged the American plan to resettle Syrian refugees, and still are.

    ``But their bite is off mark.

    ``As many as six of the Paris attackers and their leader were not resettled refugees of the sort President Obama wants to import into the country (three attackers still have not been publicly identified).

    ``These terrorists entered Europe with illegal immigrant asylum seekers, of the sort who routinely show up at the U.S.-Mexico border.'' Mr. Speaker, I am still hearing from friends on the U.S.-Mexico border who know and who say we are continuing to have people from countries where radical Islam is a major problem--in the Middle East and in North Africa--show up at the U.S.-Mexico border. Some of them are caught.

    The article points out: ``Illegal immigrant asylum seekers don't give the host nation a choice. They show up uninvited, smuggled, and often unknowable. They insist on being taken in anyway, pointing to our generous laws and traditions.

    ``At least three of the Paris terrorists--including main attack planner Abdelhamid Abaaoud--were what we would call Special Interest Aliens (SIAs). They infiltrated over the common European external . . . border at [[Page H9326]] Greece, just like Syrians show up at the U.S.-Mexico border, camouflaged among many other illegal immigrants. Europe's SIAs from Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, and many other Islamic nations are moved along their land and sea routes with the ubiquitous aid of human smugglers, just as they are to the U.S.-Mexico border.

    ``This is perhaps the world's deadliest known case of terrorist border infiltration by SIAs. Abaaoud was a Belgium citizen before he went to Syria and became a notorious Islamic State operative. He knew he was on the radar of intelligence services, and couldn't come home the legal way unnoticed. So he traveled home as an illegal migrant under the cover of thousands of legitimate ones.'' Mr. Speaker, I know I have got people out there who have belittled me in the past when I have quoted from the FBI Director that we have people from radical Islamic areas who have camouflaged themselves. He had said that some of them actually changed their names to have Hispanic-sounding names and that they tried to blend in. That is what the FBI Director says. People can belittle me all day long, but when the FBI Director--in this case, the former FBI Director--said that while he was Director, then, when those points are made, somebody needs to talk about them whether the country is going to make fun of one or not.

    {time} 1945 In an article, dated December 10, 2015, by Andrew McCarthy, titled, ``After Jihadist Mass Murder, the CAIR's Sharia Agenda Rolls On,'' he points out just how CAIR continues with their agenda and what those who have studied CAIR, its contacts, its relations, what they intend is civilization jihad. That is our civilization they care to take over.

    Now, my friend from the Department of Homeland Security, now retired so he can talk about things that aren't classified, discussed some of these things on Megan Kelly's show. He was actually investigating Tablighi Jamaat, which is one of many organizations that are under the overall radical Islamic movement. As he has pointed out, Tablighi Jamaat means ``society for spreading faith.'' It is an Islamic global proselytizing movement with followers in over 200 countries.

    Now, not everybody in Tablighi Jamaat is a terrorist. Not everybody in Tablighi Jamaat is a radical Islamist, but it should set off bells and whistles to wake people up when a relationship is seen.

    From the Middle East Quarterly in 2005, it states: ``After joining Tablighi Jamaat, groups at a local mosque or Islamic center and doing a few local dawa (proselytism) missions, Tablighi officials invite star recruits to the Tablighi center in Raiwind, Pakistan, for four months of additional missionary training. Representatives of terrorist organizations approach the students at the Raiwind center and invite them to undertake military training.'' Tablighi Jamaat links to terror include: 1995, Benazir Bhutto coup attempt; 2001, John Walker Lindh; 2001, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; 2002, Jose Padilla; 2002, Portland Seven; 2002, Lackawanna Six; 2005, London Underground Bombing; 2006, airline bombing plot; 2008, Barcelona plot.

    Those are just some of the ties that Tablighi Jamaat has had with terrorism.

    Now, the al-Huda Institute is a global network of Islamist religious schools, with branches in Pakistan, Canada, and the United States. USA Today reported on December 12, 2015: ``Nosheen Ali Irfan, 54, who lives in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, said she sent both of her daughters to study in Al-Huda during summer 2014 but within five weeks became disgruntled by the teachings and discontinued the lessons.

    ``Irfan said her family has a religious background but the teachings at Al-Huda were `too radical' even for them . . . `If there is an environment Jihadis (Islamic warriors) would come to recruit, it would be these kinds of institutions,' she said.'' Al-Huda links to terror include Ali Asad Chandia, an al-Huda teacher in College Park, Maryland, who provided material support to a Pakistani terror group; 2012, four former students join ISIS in Syria; and in 2015, Tashfeen Malik, who was engaged in the San Bernardino attack.

    In San Bernardino, the investigation into groups affiliated with the Deobandi Islamic movement was stopped before it could have connected the dots, and that is where Phil Haney was going in. He was finding all these ties that Tablighi Jamaat individuals had with other known terrorists. In fact, he got a letter of commendation before Homeland Security realized, wow, he is finding people that have ties to this administration so we have got to stop him cold.

    Before they realized that, June 8, 2012, he was given a letter that said: ``On behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), I commend your outstanding contributions while assigned to the National Training Center-Passenger (NTC-P). Your display of dedication and effort in the fight against terrorism has been exemplary.

    ``Your talents and professionalism have contributed to the continued achievements of the NTC-P. You played a key role by providing support to the CBP mission and the NTC-P lead role in defending and protecting our nation's borders.'' On further down, it says: ``Additionally, your expertise and experience has been invaluable while assigned to the Advanced Targeting Team (ATT). Your research on the Tablighi Jamaat Initiative has assisted in the identification of over 300 persons with possible connections to terrorism. The assistance you have provided in the development of this initiative has been key to the future success of the project.'' See, that was before they pulled him off and said no more looking into Tablighi Jamaat. You can't do it because you are messing with people you can't be messing with. Apparently, ties would come back to this administration. It is not hard to figure out. Just look at the Holy Land Foundation pleadings, look at who are listed as coconspirators in supporting terrorism, and look at whom this administration takes advice from.

    Tommy Nelson, a minister back in Denton, Texas, I have never met once, said: Yeah, God is in control, but just because he is in control doesn't mean he wants us to lean on our shovel and pray for a hole.

    Well, when this headline came out, Mr. Speaker, God isn't fixing this, despite prayers that God would fix it. I feel sure God is saying: Use what I have given you, and you can stop it yourself.

    I yield back the balance of my time.


  • submit to reddit
  • Register your constituent account to respond

    Constituent Register