BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCarthy goes on to point out that documents recovered by the FBI at the home of a Brotherhood operative established the Brotherhood's overarching role in the Hamas support scheme, including bylaws showing the Brotherhood had directed the collection of donations for the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is Hamas.
Also recovered at the time was the internal memorandum in which the Brotherhood's American leadership asserted:
The Ikhwan [i.e., the Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America 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.
And, in fact, you get a copy of the Fifth Circuit's opinion, there are a number of interesting things addressed by the Fifth Circuit with regard to the Holy Land Foundation. The Fifth Circuit said:
We are satisfied that independent evidence also established the existence of a joint venture or combination among the declarants and the defendants to support Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation and the zakat committees. For example, participants at the Philadelphia meeting discussed Hamas and its control of the zakat committees. The participants referenced the importance of the Holy Land Foundation in the Committee's goals, and they identified as ``ours'' various zakat committees to which Holy Land Foundation donated funds. The Government also introduced evidence of numerous financial transactions and personal contact between the defendants and Hamas leader Marzook, who was listed in the Elbarasse and Ashqar documents as chairman of the Palestine Committee. Marzook also had in his personal phone book the contact information for Baker, Elashi, El-Mezain and Elbarasse. Further, Hamas leader Mishal spoke at a meeting attended by Baker, Elashi, El-Mezain and Ashqar about supporting Hamas. According to Shorbagi, who was present, El-Mezain led a break-out group at that meeting to discuss the financial issue of raising money. Moreover, Shorbagi specifically testified from personal knowledge that the Holy Land Foundation was part of Hamas.
Well, the Fifth Circuit, talking about the Holy Land Foundation trial, said the evidence at issue was offered to show the defendant's connection to terrorists and his predisposition to terrorist activities.
It goes on to cite much of the evidence. And the Court says:
The evidence in this case does show a relationship between the defendants and Elbarasse and Ashqar, as well as their connections to Hamas leaders.
It goes on to say:
The record here showed the defendants' joint participation in a shared undertaking involving the Committee--that's the Palestine Committee--and the documents were properly admitted.
The Court goes on, makes numerous findings, discusses the law, but also says:
The defendants here ``are wrong to suggest that it is necessary to know the precise identity of'' the declarants in the Elbarasse and Ashqar documents.
They go on to conclude:
It's ``inescapable'' that the declarants were joint venturers with the defendants in support of Hamas through the Palestine Committee.
It goes on to cite some examples there. The Fifth Circuit did an excellent job of going through reciting the evidence, and they said this:
They were also consistent with security ``guidelines'' found among Holy Land Foundation's materials stored at Infocom, which directed that there should be cover stories agreed upon to explain things like meetings and travel.
Now, if this group that worked through the Holy Land Foundation to send money to Hamas were perfectly innocent, then it seems interesting that the Foundation's policies and guidelines that were found in Virginia in a sub-basement which contained much of the Muslim Brotherhood's archives would say the following--and this is from a footnote on page 84 of the Fifth Circuit's decision. They said:
The document, which was labeled ``The Foundation's Policies & Guidelines,'' included comprehensive policies for ensuring the secrecy of the organization's activity. For example, the policies directed that documents should be arranged at meetings so that they could be easily gotten rid of in an emergency; that measures should be taken before a meeting to be sure there is no hidden surveillance equipment; that an alert signal should be given if the location is monitored or if a member of the committee is followed; and that documents should be hidden when traveling and a pretext should be devised in case they are discovered in a search. The possession of such a document by a purportedly charitable organization was clearly suspicious.
And the Fifth Circuit there is a master of understatement.
It is amazing what was found in the documentation in Virginia, and that's after a couple were arrested as they went across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, photographing construction columns of the bridge. And on further search of their home in Virginia, sub-basement, they found the Muslim Brotherhood archives that gave us so much information.
The trouble is, there were massive numbers of boxes of information. And as we understand it, much of that was provided to the defendants in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
I made the request of the Attorney General last week that, since those documents were provided to defendants who were convicted of funding terrorism, funneling money to Hamas, that surely the Justice Department would now allow Congress to see those boxes of documents. The Attorney General, once again, didn't know what was furnished. He would look into it.
We need an Attorney General that knows what's going on when there are organizations in America who are financing, by millions and millions of dollars, people who are conducting terrorism efforts around the world. Well, the Attorney General said he'd look into it. An official request was made at the hearing. And yet, we're waiting to hear from the Justice Department.
It just seems to make sense to me that if this Justice Department will provide documentation to people who are part of a terrorist network, then surely they'll provide it to Congress. But then again, that remains to be seen.
We had an article here from Fox News on December 7. It reports that Susan Collins, Senator Susan Collins, on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence, and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the Nation's Armed Forces at home.
During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the main Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama Administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam. Thirteen people were killed and dozens more were wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then.
Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since September 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009, during this administration.
Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September and who parenthetically was leading a prayer session of Capitol Hill Muslim staffers just years before here in our Capitol complex.
Continuing with the article, the two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero. Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a direct target of violent Islamic extremism within the United States. Senator Lieberman's words: ``The stark reality is that the American servicemember is increasingly in the terrorist scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,'' Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday hearings.
In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Washington, military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Private Nasar Abdo was accused of planning a second attack at Fort Hood.
With regard to Private Nasar Abdo, it's worth noting that we have people who have been banned now from briefing our justice officials, intelligence officials, State Department officials on the threat of radical Islam. There was even a memo put together provided in this administration which by name pointed to Army Private Nasar Abdo and said this guy has been in uniform on Al-Jazeera basically saying he's going to do what Major Hasan did at Fort Hood. He's going to do it at Fort Hood.
This administration is so interested in protecting radical Islam and not offending radical Islam that that memo was trash-canned, never went anywhere. And the only way this private was stopped was not by our intelligence community, not by our Justice Department, not by our State Department, and not with all of the information they could have. It was stopped by a gun dealer who just believed something was wrong, and he notified law enforcement.
Now we know from the 9/11 Commission, I mean, we've known since the Commission came out with their report, there are hundreds of mentions of things like ``jihad,'' ``Islam,'' not that there is any war on Islam. There is not. Thank God that the vast majority of Muslims know that we're not at war with them and they are not at war with us. But it is insanity not to protect ourselves and educate ourselves on that small group, that small percentage--it's a large group--of radical Islamists who have declared war on us.
Now this administration, though originally after 9/11 the Bush administration, the independent 9/11 Commission that was appointed, came out saying this is a result of radical Islam. Now the Justice Department, the intelligence community, the new lexicon will not allow the usage in training of words like ``Islam,'' ``jihad,'' the very things that led to over 3,000 Americans being killed and brought about wars that killed thousands more.
The war goes on; but as one individual who is fighting for us said, this administration is making us blind ourselves so we cannot see the people we are fighting.
There was a conference at Langley, CIA headquarters, that was canceled by this administration. Why? Because CAIR complained to the White House, and the report is that that's how the conference was stopped. CAIR complained to the administration, and they stopped it; and now the administration has gone through and come out with a new methodology of selecting people who will be allowed to brief our intelligence officials, will be allowed to brief our justice officials, will be allowed to brief our military; and they will not be allowed to use terms like ``radical Islam,'' that those are, in this administration's mind, hateful terminology rather than helping us classify and figure out who it is that is on our side and who it is that is against us.
There's even a report out that this administration now in the last week is going to create a new category on the terrorist watch list which would be called ``former military detainees.'' If that ended up being true, makes you wonder why they'd create a new category now. Are they about to release military detainees and so when they come into the country, or they're in our country trying to fly, we'll know who it is trying to kill us here?
This administration has blinded the people that are trying to fight the war against radical Islam, which is at war with us. We've seen to it that it looks like a procedure in both Libya and in Egypt are going to likely result in radical Islamists controlling those countries. The Middle East has become a powder keg far more so than it ever has. And if you go back and look at the President's speech, back I believe it was in May, recently looked at a transcript where our own President said Israel is going to have to defend itself by itself.
Now, thankfully, as we saw when Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke here in this body, we had both sides of the aisle repeatedly stand in support of the things Prime Minister Netanyahu was saying.
Israel has been our friend; they've been our ally. Muslims are allowed to worship Islam in Israel just as Muslims are allowed to do here in the U.S. It would be nice if Christians were allowed to worship in Muslim countries, but their definition of freedom does not allow people to freely worship whom they wish. It only allows them the freedom to worship under Islam.
Even in Afghanistan, the last Christian church has now closed. The kind of freedom that American lives and treasure brought to Afghanistan now means you can't have an open Christian church in Afghanistan.
Then we find out this administration was indirectly negotiating with terrorists, with the Taliban, with regard to Afghanistan about a year and a half ago. There were a few of us that met with leaders of the Northern Alliance a year and a half or so ago, and they're the first ones that told us your administration is indirectly meeting and negotiating with terrorists, with the Taliban, the people we fought with you to defeat.
After we defeated them in 3 or 4 months, then we started putting in tens of thousands of soldiers--military--into Afghanistan. We went from being embedded to being occupiers, and we oversaw the creation of a constitution in Afghanistan that says sharia law will reign, which means there will be no Christian churches in Afghanistan when true sharia law is in charge.
One of the things that was found in the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood is a 10-year goal that began in 2005. For one thing, anybody who raises any issue about the small, tiny percentage of Muslims who are at war with us, the radical Islamists, is to be called an ``Islamaphobe.'' That term originated with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 57 states. They're the ones who came up with that. They came up with the notion of branding anyone an Islamaphobe who says anything negative about radical Islam's trying to destroy America.
So any time people see the term Islamaphobe or Islamaphobia, they should know exactly where it originated. It originated with the OIC, the 57 states of the OIC, which are also helping fund through other entities and individuals courses at some of our Nation's formerly best schools that have shown they're for sale, that their souls are for sale, in that if someone will give them enough money, then they will put on seminars and put on classes that will also call people Islamaphobes and talk about Islamaphobia--about anyone who raises any issue about radical Islam's trying to destroy our way of life.
The goal mentioned from 2005 is part of a 10-year goal, by 2015, to have subverted our U.S. Constitution to sharia law; and the method for doing that--we've been seeing it take place--is to subvert America's First Amendment rights to sharia.
One of the ways that that is being effectuated is when some nut burns a Koran in Florida, then people get killed in some riot in Afghanistan. Then even fine, upstanding Americans say, See, we probably need a law that prohibits the burning of a Koran, that prohibits saying anything bad about the Koran or radical Islam because that's going to get Americans killed. So let's have a law banning people from saying anything negative or from burning a Koran.
Never mind the fact that, in our country's history, we find out it's not against the Constitution to burn an American flag, that it's not against the Constitution to burn a Bible, that it's not against the Constitution to take a cross, symbolizing that thing on which Jesus was crucified, and put it in a beaker of urine. In fact, the Federal Government will even give money to have that done. But if anybody says anything negative about the Koran, let's make that a crime.
There are well-intentioned people in this Capitol who are thinking maybe we need a law like that; and when people push that kind of law, they are moving to subvert our United States First Amendment rights under the Constitution to sharia law. Once that happens, then that goal can be checked off of the goals that were established by the Muslim Brotherhood in 2005. They're hoping to get that done by 2015.
A great way to do that is to brand people like me or people in the Justice Department or trainers who would teach people about the ideas of radical Islam as Islamaphobes and continue to have courses they fund to encourage laws to prevent Islamaphobia so that they have laws that prevent anybody from saying anything negative about sharia.
Never mind, even on a television program today, an atheist called Christianity a hate religion. He said it's hateful, basically, in effect, because Jesus, he said, created a hell and that that's why we shouldn't admire Christmas. Well, some of us know that Jesus was not likely born in December, but more likely in the springtime, when shepherds are on the hills.
But to declare what our Founders knew would be an important core building block of this country, when they knew that the best things that ever happened to this country would come as a result of the reliance on the teachings of Jesus and the teachings in the Bible, you had comments like George Washington in his resignation, saying--and I'll close with this:
He prayed that Americans would follow the teaching of the Divine Author of our blessed religion without a humble limitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy Nation.
He was right.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.