U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Muslims

politicallycorrectphotoby JUDICIAL WATCH:

“Documentation and Analysis of Islamist Active Measures and Influence Operations Targeting Anti-terrorism Training” includes detailed chronology, identifies specific propaganda organizations, names top Obama administration “Islamist influence operators” 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a “Special Report: U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Muslims: Documentation and Analysis of Islamist Active Measures and Influence Operations Targeting Anti-terrorism Training.”

The 26-page Special Report includes a detailed chronology, identifies specific Islamic propaganda organizations, and identifies five top “Islamist influence operators” associated with the Obama administration. More than 12 years of Judicial Watch work on national security issues is featured in the Special Report, highlighting information from government documents exclusively obtained by the organization.

If you would like to receive weekly emails updating you about all of our efforts to fight corruption, please sign up here.The heavily footnoted Report centers on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) purge of anti-terrorism training material and curricula deemed “offensive” to Muslims.  The curricula purge – documented through a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in June 2013 – occurred following a February 8, 2012, meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and various Islamic organizations.  According to the Report, the purge was part of a “broader Islamist influence operation” designed to “influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments and the public at-large.” The Report also documents incidents of “Islamic influence operations” at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House.

According to the Report, during the February 8 meeting, FBI Director Mueller assured the Islamic groups in attendance that the agency had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that were deemed “offensive.” One group that met with Mueller – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – had been named by the government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing lawsuit, along with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The Report lists the reasons given by the FBI for purging “offensive” training documents:

  • “Page 13 inaccurately states that AQ [al Qaeda] is responsible for the bombing of the Khobar Towers and that AQ is ‘clearly linked’ to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.”
  •  “The Qur’an is not the teachings of the Prophet, but the revealed word of God.”
  •  “Remove sweeping generality of ‘Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance.’”
  • “[A]uthor seems to conflate ‘Islamic Militancy’ with ‘terrorism’ and needs to define the difference and use it in their analysis.”

Included in the Special Report’s “Chronology of Recent Developments in Influence Operations” are the following incidents:

  • October 2011: 57 Muslim groups send a letter to White House demanding “purge” of all counterterrorism training materials and “re-education” of all FBI agents exposed to “Islamophobic” training.
  • October 2011: DOJ Civil Rights Division meeting with Islamic groups to discuss criminalizing criticism of Islam as “discrimination.”
  • October 2011: Joint Chiefs of Staff issues action directive to screen trainers for military intelligence and psychological operations based solely on Ackerman’s Wired report.
  • November 2011: White House responds to Muslim groups’ “purge” demand letter, agrees to set up inter-agency task force, including extremist Muslim groups, to oversee FBI counterterrorism training development.
  • January 2012:  U.S. Military Academy at West Point cancels an address by a highly decorated founding member of Delta Force and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Jerry Boykin, after complaints from the Hamas front group CAIR.
  • February 2012: Islamic groups meet with FBI to ensure compliance with demanded Islamophobia” purge.
  • July 2012: Top DOJ Civil Rights official refuses to vow to Congress not to push Saudi-style blasphemy laws.
  • September 2012: Obama administration blames attacks on U.S. Embassy Cairo and the “Special Mission Compound” in Benghazi on a YouTube movie trailer.

According to the Report, “The Obama administration has been penetrated by Islamist influence operators, seeking to advance an ideological agenda completely at odds with our constitutional system.  The penetration is, in many cases, by the Obama administration’s invitation.  Some of the more public and controversial figures associated with the Obama administration have included:

  • “Rashad Hussain – U.S. Special Envoy to the OIC … has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • “Huma Abedin – Long-time personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton [whose] late-father, mother and brother are all connected to Muslim Brotherhood organizations or operatives.
  • “Daliah Mogahed – An advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  Mogahed’s 2009 book Who Speaks for Islam? is viewed by many as an apologia for the growing power and influence of radical Islamists.  Mogahed is an unapologetic defender of unindicted terrorist conspirator organizations such as CAIR and ISNA.
  • “Momamed Elibiary – A Texas-based security consultant and Islamic cleric who was named to President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010.  He has close ties to a convicted Hamas fundraiser and other radical Islamist causes ….
  • “Mohamed Magid – … President of the ISNA, an unindicted terrorist conspirator organization. Magid was appointed by President Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. From that position, Magid was key in influencing and directing the purge of training materials and policies in the FBI and other federal agencies.”

The Report concludes, “It is fair to say that not a single U.S. government employee goes to work each morning with the mission of identifying and defeating the Islamists’ active measures campaigns.  Large bureaucratic institutions are reluctant to ‘disturb’ operations with examinations for deception and manipulation.  Those same organizations are loath to raise those subjects in congressional appropriations requests and hearings fearing any political criticism. Until there is someone with the job of defeating the Islamist active measures campaign targeting our nation – and resourced to roll back the Islamists and win – the United States and her citizens are in grave peril.”

Read more: Family Security Matters 

SHUTTING DOWN NATIONAL SECURITY

obama-soldiers-afpby FRANK GAFFNEY:

On October 15th, our military personnel will receive their paychecks as usual, thanks to a last-minute act of Congress passed in spite of the government shutdown affecting much of the rest of the government.

But our servicemen and women are being paid to work in a military that is rapidly being hollowed out to the point where it may be incapable of winning the nation’s wars. The federal government will not be shut down for long. The same can’t be said of those we expect to keep us safe and free.

In fact, the “fundamental” transformation promised by candidate Barack Obama in 2008 is arguably manifesting itself most dramatically in the systematic dismantling of our military capabilities. It has lately become so severe that, on September 18th, the nation’s senior officers testified to Congress that the armed services are at risk of being unable to meet even this administration’s sharply scaled-back requirements.

Recall that the President had justified the first nearly half a trillion dollars he cut from the defense budget by claiming that we no longer needed to be able to fight two wars nearly simultaneously. But at least they were supposed to be able to win one.

But now, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if the sequestration process is permitted to continue to reduce Pentagon budgets over the next ten years by another half a trillion dollars, the uniformed leaders of three of the four services say they will not be able to execute even a one-war mission. And the Marine Commandant says his would have difficulty in doing so.

These dire predictions are the predictable – and predicted – results of both the sheer magnitude of the cuts themselves, compounded by the inherent, across-the-board nature of the sequestration mechanism. Insult is added to injury by the fact that the Pentagon has to bear a wildly disproportionate percentage of government-wide sequestration reductions: fifty percent of the total, even though defense represents just twenty percent of federal expenditures.

At present, every aspect of the military budget except for compensation for military personnel – including, in particular, training, operations and maintenance, procurement and research and development – is being ravaged.

What is more, regardless of the outcome of the fights over Obamacare this week, and raising the debt ceiling later this month, the structural damage resulting from the defense budget cuts to the nation’s industrial base is becoming increasingly irreparable.

The production line for the Free World’s only large military air transport aircraft, the C-17, is the latest to be threatened with termination. As with the supply chains associated with other critical weapon systems and components – from fighter aircraft to combatant warships to armored vehicles – we are seeing disruptions and, in some cases, the outright elimination of the required manufacturing capacity, especially among second- and third-tier subcontractors. Over time, such short-sighted behavior will tremendously compound the impact of the other reductions in the military’s resources and make any comeback that much more problematic.

Read more at Breitbart

 

New Centcom underground war room in Amman for US intervention in Syria

Debkafile:

 

images (9)Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Amman this week to inaugurate the Centcom’s Forward Command in Jordan manned by 273 US officers. US media correspondents were permitted to visit the new war room for the first time on condition of non-disclosure of its location and secret facilities. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the installation is bomb- and missile-proof against a possible Syrian attack. The US Air Force command section is in direct communication with the US, Israeli, Jordanian and Saudi Air Force headquarters ready for an order by President Barack Obama to impose a partial no-fly zone over Syrian air space.

Another section is designed to coordinate operations between US and Jordanian special forces, as well as the units trained in commando combat by US instructors in Jordan.  A closed section houses CIA personnel who control the work of US agents going in and out of Syria and also a communications center.
In his briefing to US forces Thursday, Aug. 15, Gen. Dempsey commented: “Jordan lives in a very volatile region and at a very critical time in its history. They can count on us to continue to be their partner.”

He suggested that the operation could continue well into next year or beyond.
Situated atop the underground facility is a large surface structure accommodating the American military and civilian offices dealing with Syrian issues from Jordan. It is guarded by US and Jordanian security units.

There are today some 1,000 US military personnel in the Hashemite Kingdom, plus a squadron of F-16 fighters and several Patriot anti-missile batteries strung along the Jordanian-Syrian border to shield Jordanian and American bases and the capital, Amman.
This special DEBKAfile video presentation illustrates US, Saudi, and Jordanian preparations for military intervention in the Syrian civil war and its likely repercussions.

Obama’s final decision on US military intervention – consisting of a no fly and a buffer zone in Syria – is expected in the coming two to three weeks, depending on Dempsey’s recommendations upon his return to Washington after checking out preparations in Israel and Jordan. In neither operation will US boots touch Syrian soil.

The buffer zone in the south up to Damascus would be captured by 3,000 rebels trained in special operations tactics and armed by US forces in Jordan. Jordanian special forces are to spearhead the operation under US command.

Assad may take the fight outside his borders by launching missiles against Israel, Jordan and maybe Turkey.
Hizballah may join in with rocket attacks on Israel. Iran will beef up its active military presence in Syria and Jordan. And Russian Rapid Intervention units are on standby for saving Assad at their Black Sea and South Caucasian bases

 

It’s the Ideology, My Friends

20130523_Major_General_Michael_Nagata_largeby CAPT. GARY HARRINGTON, US NAVY (RET.)

Major General Michael Nagata is the Deputy Director for Special Operations/Counterterrorism on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While that position represents many years of distinguished accomplishment in the military for which he should be congratulated, consider these 10 rather undistinguished words, for which he should be chastised, that he offered to the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 16, 2013:

“The United States is not at war with an idea….”

I am very sorry to say that an otherwise splendid warrior who would declare this represents a highly disturbing sign that the Jihadi Salafist strategy has achieved a significant goal: blinding our highest officials to the threat Jihadis pose to our freedoms.

If I were Commander-in-Chief for a day, I would assign the General to KP for that statement.  I’d then order a homework assignment – that he give me a book report, first, on the stellar “Future Jihad – Terrorist Strategies Against America” by Dr. Walid Phares.  I’d also ask for reports on the many excellent seminars presented to CENTCOM, SOCOM; and on the internal analyses and publications made available to US Special Forces and considered as strategic consensus over the past decade. Then, I would require him to explain why the ideas in Chapter 9 of “Future Jihad”, and other similar books by experts who testified to the US Congress over several years, do not leap from their pages with clarity on the origins of Boston foot-dragging, or the scrubbed Benghazi Talking Points, or the misdirection of the video patsy, the tentative Department of Defense response to Islamist violence against Americans at an ill-protected Libyan Potemkin Village or the outrage and horror of the machete attack in London this past Wednesday. The ideas on which we should declare war, or at least strategize our confrontation to the ideology of al Qaeda and its allies and supporters, are the six Jihadi strategic ideas.  They are economic, ideological, political, intelligence, subversive, and diplomatic.

Read more: Family Security Matters

 

Problems in the U.S. Military: Denying Islam’s Role in Terror

The U.S. Army seems to have succumbed to PC-Islamist sensitivities. It has issued a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify jihad as "communal military defense … when [Muslims] are threatened or under attack." In addition, U.S. servicewomen have been urged to don head scarves when interacting with Afghan locals while all soldiers are warned to "respect Islam" in order to prevent violence there.

The U.S. Army seems to have succumbed to PC-Islamist sensitivities. It has issued a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify jihad as “communal military defense … when [Muslims] are threatened or under attack.” In addition, U.S. servicewomen have been urged to don head scarves when interacting with Afghan locals while all soldiers are warned to “respect Islam” in order to prevent violence there.

by David J. Rusin
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2013 (view PDF)

Editors’ note: This article discusses many public figures in the context of the positions they held in December 2012 when the article was submitted. There has been much turnover in government and military posts since then, but the problems caused by political correctness remain despite the changes in personnel.

As U.S. service members risk their lives to combat violent jihadists abroad, military leaders, both uniformed and civilian, capitulate to stealth jihadists at home. By bending to Islamists’ appeals for religious sensitivity, these leaders ignore the most crucial lesson of the Fort Hood massacre: Political correctness can kill.

The War On Training

A key battleground in the war of ideas between Islamists and the West is military training because Islamists seek to suppress knowledge of their beliefs and goals.[1] This campaign hit high gear in 2011 when journalist Spencer Ackerman of Wired launched a series of articles documenting “offensive” training employed by various government agencies. He highlighted, among others, FBI materials stating that Islamic doctrine calls for war against non-Muslims and equating greater religious devotion with the potential for violence.[2]

On October 19, 2011, dozens of Muslim groups, many Islamist in nature, signed a letter to John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, with a copy to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, demanding that the administration “purge … biased materials” and jettison “bigoted trainers.”[3]However, Panetta’s Department of Defense was already on the case. Five days prior, Jose Mayorga, deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, had directed the Joint Staff to compile information on the “current processes used to vet CVE [countering violent extremism] trainers.”[4]

The Islamists’ most notable scalp to date—presented to them by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army general Martin Dempsey—is that of Matthew Dooley, a decorated Army lieutenant colonel who had taught at the Joint Forces Staff College of the National Defense University.[5] At issue was Dooley’s courseon Islam and Islamic radicalism during which he spoke of Islam as an ideology, not just a faith, and war-gamed provocative scenarios in which it would be confronted as such.[6]

A colonel enrolled in the class complained to his superiors, leading to the course’s suspension in April 2012.[7] On May 10, Wired published course materials focusing on a handful of slides conjecturing about “total war” and taking the conflict to civilians, but which also included a disclaimer that the specific counter-jihad model was meant “to generate dynamic discussion and thought” and did not constitute government policy.[8] According to The Washington Times, Dooley’s attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) have maintained that “the discussion about all-out war … was conducted by a guest speaker. It involved theoretical ‘out of the box’ thinking on what happens if Islamic extremists commandeer Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and begin destroying U.S. cities: How does the U.S. respond?”[9]

External lecturers in the class were a major target of Wired, which highlighted their politically incorrect statements such as that the Crusades had been initiated after centuries of Muslim incursions and that Islamists see the fall of Arab regimes as stepping stones to global dominance.[10] Ironically, one maligned guest speaker, Stephen Coughlin, had been fired from his post with the Joint Staff years earlier because of his own controversial work on Islamic warfare.[11]

Though one could debate whether aspects of Dooley’s approach were unbalanced, the military’s reaction surely was. Hours after the Wired exposé appeared, Dempsey condemned the class at a news conference.[12] “It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound,” he said, adding that Dooley, referred to as “the individual,” was no longer teaching. Soon Dooley was ordered removed “for cause,” and his superiors produced a negative officer evaluation report, derailing his career.[13] On November 26, Ackerman relayed that Dooley had been transferred to a “bureaucratic backwater.”[14]

TMLC lawyers argue that the military chose to “throw him under the bus in public” without ever privately instructing Dooley to tweak the course’s content.[15] The center further asserts that Dempsey’s words prejudiced the investigation, that the syllabus had been approved, and that university policies guarantee the right to academic expression “free of limitations, restraints, or coercion by the university or external environment.”[16] Two congressmen also objected to what they saw as excessive punishment;[17] in response, the Pentagon issued a report defending Dooley’s dismissal on the basis that the class “did not meet appropriate academic standards” and was “overtly negative with respect to Islam.”[18] According to a TMLC press release, the military’s primary goal was to appease Islamists and make an example out of Dooley, so others “will refrain from telling the truth about Islam or confronting the difficult strategic challenges facing our nation for fear of jeopardizing their professional careers.”[19]

Read more at Middle East Forum

 

Joint Chiefs Chairman: ‘Arab Spring’ Brought “New Norm of Instability”

mtp-130130-panetta-dempsey-938a_grid-6x2By Patrick Poole:

A surprising exchange yesterday on Meet the Press yesterday with guests departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Chuck Todd asked the Joint Chiefs Chairman if there were any lessons learned from the Benghazi debacle, which elicited a shocking admission:

TODD: And is there anything that could have been done better on the intelligence front, you think that could have given you more time to do something or is this something that, you know, this is– this is what happens in a place like Libya that right now is an unstable state?

GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, we– we’ve learned a lot from the Benghazi incident. And we– as the Secretary said, we work with the State Department and, you know, kind of surveying those parts of the world where– where there’s a new norm, if you will, of– of instability in terms of, you know, discussing the intelligence apparatus. It’s pretty easy to talk about the intelligence failures. We don’t talk much about them many times when we have intelligence and we’re able to stop or prevent, disrupt an attack so, of course, we should continue to learn from these events.

A “new norm of instability”? Wait, what? Why didn’t we hear about this during the presidential campaign? Whatever might have prompted this “new norm of instability”?

Read more at PJ Media

Benghazi review slams State Department on security

stevensBreitbart:

By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
The leaders of an independent panel that blamed systematic State Department management and leadership failures for gross security lapses in the deadly Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya will explain their findings to Congress on Wednesday.

The two most senior members of the Accountability Review Board are set to testify behind closed doors before the House and Senate foreign affairs committees on the classified findings of their harshly critical report.

An unclassified version released late Tuesday said serious bureaucratic mismanagement was responsible for the inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed.

“Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the panel said.

Despite those deficiencies, the board determined that no individual officials ignored or violated their duties and recommended no disciplinary action. But it also said poor performance by senior managers should be grounds for disciplinary recommendations in the future.

Wednesday’s classified testimony from the review board _ retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen _ will set the stage for open hearings the next day with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who is in charge of policy, and Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, who is in charge of management.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was to have appeared at Thursday’s hearing but canceled after fainting and sustaining a concussion last week while recovering from a stomach virus that dehydrated her. Clinton is under doctors’ orders to rest.

In a letter that accompanied the transmission of the report to Capitol Hill, Clinton thanked the board for its “clear-eyed, serious look at serious systemic challenges” and said she accepted all of its 29 recommendations to improve security at high-threat embassies and consulates.

She said the department had already begun to implement some of the recommendations. They include increasing by several hundred the number of Marine guards stationed at diplomatic missions throughout the world; relying less on local security forces for protection at embassies, consulates and other offices; and increasing hiring and deployment of highly trained Diplomatic Security agents at at-risk posts.

Clinton agreed with the panel’s finding that Congress must fully fund the State Department’s security initiatives. The panel found that budget constraints in the past had led some management officials to emphasize savings over security, including rejecting numerous requests from the Benghazi mission and the embassy in Tripoli for enhanced protection.

It singled out the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs for criticism, saying there appeared to be a lack of cooperation and confusion over protection at the mission in Benghazi, a city in Eastern Libya that was relatively lawless after the revolution that toppled Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

But it appeared to break little new ground about the timeline of the Benghazi attack during which Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, information specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods _ who were contractors working for the CIA _ were killed. Stevens’ slaying was the first of a U.S. ambassador since 1988.

The board determined that there had been no immediate, specific tactical warning of a potential attack on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. However, the report said there had been several worrisome incidents in the run-up to the attack that should have set off warning bells.

It did confirm, though, that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate. It said responsibility for the incident rested entirely with the terrorists who attacked the mission.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials linked the attack to the spreading protests that had begun in Cairo earlier that day over an American-made, anti-Islamic film. Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack.

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on numerous TV talk shows the Sunday after the attack and used the administration talking points linking it to the film. An ensuing brouhaha in the heat of the presidential campaign eventually led her to withdraw her name from consideration to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state in President Barack Obama’s second term.

While criticizing State Department management in Washington along with the local militia force and contract guards that the mission depended on for protection, the report said U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi “performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues in a near-impossible situation.”

It said the response by Diplomatic Security agents on the scene and CIA operatives at a nearby compound that later came under attack itself had been “timely and appropriate” and absolved the military from any blame. “There was simply not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference,” it said.

The report also discounted speculation that officials in Washington had refused appeals for additional help after the attack had begun.

“The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders,” it said. To the contrary, the report said the evacuation of the dead and wounded 12 hours after the initial attack was due to “exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response” that helped save the lives of two seriously wounded Americans.

The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’

By Janet Levy:

For the past 25 years, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America has been pursuing a comprehensive strategy to control what non-Muslims know about Islam.  This multi-pronged threat doctrine seeks to prohibit open discussion and to abridge free speech.  It also seeks to curtail education and training given to the military, law enforcement, intelligence, and government about the true nature of Islam.  Overall, the Brotherhood’s agenda seeks to block a fair and critical appraisal of Islamic doctrine, pursue a stealth civilizational jihad against the West, and, ultimately, render us impotent to defend ourselves.

A review of the Brotherhood’s progress in this effort over the past two decades presents a chilling picture of the extent to which our safety and way of life have been compromised.  It serves as a wake-up call for action now.

Background

The General Strategic Plan for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, written and adopted in 1987, established the grand mission for Muslims as a mandatory civilizational jihad against the West, led and directed by the Brotherhood.  The stated goal was to establish Islam as “victorious over all other religions.”  Specific steps were laid out in the document to bring about a global Islamic state under sharia, or Islamic doctrine.

The Brotherhood’s strategic plan is buttressed by the Islamic doctrine of al wala wa al bara, which requires Muslims to feel enmity toward non-Muslims (upheld by taqiyya, or deception) and exhibit loyalty to the umma, or the Muslim community.  It embodies the stealth principles of Sun Tzu’s ancient Chinese war doctrine: “[s]ubduing an enemy without force is best” and “[a]ll warfare is based on deception.”

Stopping military and government training

To control what is known about Islam and to block education and training to law enforcement and government, the Muslim Brotherhood has developed well-placed inside-influence operators who wield considerable power with high-level officials and can set policy.

For example, in 2008, Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and top expert on Islamic doctrine, was cashiered as a government contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.  Coughlin had lectured at the Navy War College and the Marine Corp War College, as well as briefed members of Congress, senior staff at the Department of Defense, government officials, and law enforcement and intelligence officers.  His departure was an orchestrated campaign undertaken by an Egyptian-American Muslim, Hesham Islam, who, after 20 years in the U.S. Navy, had become a senior adviser and admired confidant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

Islam was welcomed into England’s inner circle despite his close ties to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terrorist funding trial.  Islam regularly attended ISNA events and hosted the organization at the Pentagon.  From his position as a well-placed insider, Islam was able to use his relationship with the deputy secretary to label Coughlin “extreme” and “a Christian zealot with a poison pen,” even though the veracity and scholarship of Coughlin’s lectures were deemed impeccable throughout his chain of command.  Eventually, Islam succeeded in having Coughlin removed, effectively silencing him and removing the benefit of Coughlin’s expertise for military personnel.

A more recent instance of blocking military and government officials from learning the truth about Islamic doctrine was the removal from training responsibilities of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley from the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA.  Although Dooley’s course materials on radical Islam had been previously approved, they were recast as “offensive to Muslims” and critical of Islam after complaints came to the White House from various Islamic influence groups.

The complaining groups included two unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas funding trial — ISNA, again, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Dooley was publicly excoriated, fired as an instructor, and given a negative evaluation, placing the future of his military career in jeopardy.  Finally, all materials critical of Islam were scrubbed from military training, even though much of the training materials referenced Islamic texts themselves,  as well as commentary from highly esteemed Muslim clerics.

In this way, for lack of adequate training and education, our military officers and other government employees are ultimately rendered impotent to fight the enemy, unaware of the threat to national security posed by Islam.

Invoking “Islamophobia” and “Blasphemy”

Another key tactic cited in the Brotherhood’s strategic plan is to prevent infidels from learning the truth about Islam by controlling how Islamic doctrine is discussed and the language used to describe Islam and Muslims.  This method is effectively aided by the West’s culture of multiculturalism, in which charges of prejudice and racism — like “Islamophobia” — trump all offenses.

The all too convenient charge of “Islamophobia” has been proclaimed when non-Muslims have critically evaluated the tenets of Islam, denounced terrorist activities, called attention to inappropriate or threatening behavior, denied requests for accommodations beyond what is customary and normal, depicted Mohammed in unflattering ways, or even quoted directly from Islamic scriptures.  This dissembling or disingenuous focus on “Islamophobia,” when none exists in the U.S. (according to an FBI study on religious hate crimes), obfuscates the real danger of jihad and Islamic supremacism.  It lulls the general populace and renders it helpless to defend itself against the real Islamic threat.

A parallel move, used when actual Islamic terrorist actions have been taken, is to shift the blame for those actions onto non-Muslims.  Thus, those who have expressed negative views of Islam and Muslims and who have cast suspicions about Muslims’ activities are deemed culpable for Islamic terrorism.  Further, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA issue veiled threats that the targeting and misrepresentation of Muslims will lead to distrust within Muslim communities and foster an unwillingness to cooperate with authorities to strengthen homeland security.

A related diversionary tactic is to blame jihadist acts on social or economic problems such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and bias against Muslims.  In effect, the argument goes, Islamic terrorism is being manufactured by Islamophobia or poverty and has nothing to do with Islam.  The West is blamed for its insensitivity to Islam, and the need for formalized measures or legislation is advanced to ensure that infidels aren’t harmed further by violent reactions when Muslims legitimately feel disrespected.  Legislation such as the Istanbul Process, the collection of anti-blasphemy laws passed by the U.N., is presented as a necessary option under the guise of condemning insults to religion in general.  Yet the real intent is to eliminate any criticism of Islam, as is made obvious by the regular and public condemnation of Christians and Jews by Muslims who populate the internet with videos calling for jihad against infidels.

Advancing false theories

Another arrow in the quiver of Muslim tactics is to seize control of the education of military and government employees about Islamic doctrine.  Muslim Brotherhood organizations do this by arguing that non-Muslims are unequipped to teach Islam and that it must properly be taught by Muslims.  As a result, CAIR has provided Muslim sensitivity training for the FBI, U.S. Armed Forces, state and local law enforcement agencies, and others, all of it under the guise of fostering a “better relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim community.”  Yet at the same time, the Brotherhood’s New York chapter distributed posters declaring, “Build a Wall of Resistance, Don’t Talk to the F.B.I.” and advised Muslims that they are the victims of anti-Muslim bias.

Incredibly, Muslim Brotherhood operatives, such as Louay Safi, have even taught the tenets of Islam to American troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, including a course on the “Theology of Islam” at Fort Hood in Texas.  Following Major Nidal Hasan’s 2009 attack on Fort Hood in which he murdered 13 people, Safi blamed the violent outburst on the “demonization of marginalized groups,” meaning Muslims.

Another Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Magid, president of ISNA, was appointed in 2011 by Obama to serve at the Department of Homeland Security.  His responsibilities have included the training and advising of personnel affiliated with the FBI and other government agencies.  Magid has characterized any criticism of Islam as “religious bigotry and hate” and been responsible for purging government-training materials critical of Islam.

Read more at American Thinker

Muslim Influence in Pentagon Prevails; Material on Radical Islam “Purged”

 

U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center announced today that it is representing U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, a 1994 Graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point.  In April 2012, LTC Dooley, a highly decorated combat veteran, was publically condemned by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relieved of his teaching assignment because of the negative way Islam was portrayed in an elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

The actions against LTC Dooley, an instructor involved with this elective, follow a letter to the Department of Defense dated October 19, 2011 and signed by 57 Muslim organizations, demanding that all training materials that they judge to be offensive to Islam be “purged” and instructors “are effectively disciplined.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “We are privileged to represent Lieutenant Colonel Dooley.   He has honorably served his Nation for 18 years and effectively carried out every assigned mission with distinction.  He served as Aide-de-Camp to three different General Officers and deployed to Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq for a total of six operational and combat tours.  During that time he received numerous awards and decorations. Now after a lifetime of service to his country, he is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and expediency by the Army he so loyally served . . . and loves.”

Thompson observed, “In order to appease Muslims and the White House, General Dempsey and the Department of Defense rushed to punish LTC Dooley.  In the process, they violated not only our Nation’s core principles of free speech and academic freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, but also, a number of the military’s own regulations dealing with academic freedom and non- attribution policies of the National Defense University (NDU)  to which LTC Dooley was assigned.  They violated the right to due process of law and even by-passed the University’s Provost, who under NDU’s own rules has primary responsibility for adjudication of this matter.”

Click here for a Summary of NDU regulations on Free Speech and Academic Freedom

Click here to read DOD Directive 5.00 Non –Attribution/Academic Freedom

While serving as an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) , a branch of the National Defense University established by Congress, LTC Dooley took on the herculean task of guiding students through one of its most vibrant but controversial elective courses.  In grappling with the most dangerous aspects of radical Islamist ideology, students in the elective were encouraged to debate and affirm or dismiss a number of notions regarding Radical Islam as well as confront what strategic U.S. actions were feasible or infeasible.    Dooley assumed his instructor position within the National Defense University with an understanding that years of prior-approved course content, established guest speakers, and doctrinal teaching methodologies were still safe to discuss.

The Thomas More Law Center played a pivotal role in defending LtCol. Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, another loyal military officer, who was ordered to face a court martial to appease the Iraqi government and anti-war politicians, especially Congressman John Murtha (D-PA).   A military judge dismissed the charges against Chessani on the grounds of undue command influence.

Parroting the FBI’s reason, namely, “political sensitivity” as the reason for not thoroughly investigating Army Major Nidal Hasan, which  ultimately led to the Ft. Hood Massacre, General Dempsey on 24 April 2012 ordered a review of instruction that was “disrespectful of the Islamic religion” to ensure “cultural sensitivity.”

The result is certain.  Officers and instructors see what has happened to LTC Dooley, and will refrain from telling the truth about Islam or confronting the difficult strategic challenges facing our nation for fear of jeopardizing their professional careers.  The Pentagon has still apparently not learned from the politically correct policies that led to the Ft. Hood massacre.

Our military, while conducting the difficult task of threat analysis, does not have the luxury of hiding from potentially offending those who would do us harm.  It is precisely our refusal to consider the often irrational, volatile nature of those who do not think with our western world view that has led us to this crisis of conscience.   Those people who subscribe and enforce the current environment of political correctness are the ones most often surprised by incidents like the terrorism at Ft. Hood and the uncivilized behavior currently roiling North Africa and the Middle East.

Rather than thinking and acting bravely, PC’er’s strike at our cherished First Amendment in a vain hope of buying friendship with a force we still do not understand that neither respects us nor appreciates civility.   Despite the military’s decade long effort to come to a more sophisticated level of cultural awareness, we have missed the most critical and basic lesson of this war: weakness itself is a provocation.

This is a threat to our National Security.  In effect, our own government is applying Islamic Sharia law to prevent any criticism of Islam.  The chill on instruction is already happening at the Joint Forces Command College of the National Defense University, to which LTC Dooley is assigned.

Claire M. Lopez, a former CIA agent and strategic policy and intelligence expert, recently commented on General Dempsey’s order:

“The final bastion of America’s defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012, with the issuance of a letter from General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, re-issuing his earlier order that all Department of Defense (DoD) course content be scrubbed to ensure no lingering remnant of disrespect to Islam.

All U.S. military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau and Joint Staff are under Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated orders to ensure that henceforth, no U.S. military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative). To all intents and purposes, DoD Secretary Leon E. Panetta likewise has acquiesced to a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of U.S. military education.”

In an astonishing and unprecedented Pentagon News Conference on May 10, 2012 carried nationally on C-SPAN, General Dempsey, with Secretary of Defense Panetta sitting at his side, personally attacked  LTC Dooley, a subordinate Army officer who honorably served our Nation, and was subsequently prohibited from publicly defending himself.

Once LTC Dooley’s name was publicly revealed, immediate threats to him and his family prompted security measures to be taken for their protection.

The administrative disciplinary procedures against LTC Dooley included removal from his teaching assignment and withdrawal of an outstanding Officer Evaluation Report (OER) concerning the elective course he had been teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism. However, the course content critical of Islam as an ideology, the guest speakers and their methods of instruction were all pre-approved by the JFSC years ago.

All of that changed when a student outside of his elective complained directly to the Secretary of Defense and touched off a media firestorm full of inaccuracies and political “blame-storming.”

LTC Dooley had received only top marks as an instructor from both students and the faculty chain of command.   He carried the highest student evaluations over the previous 18 months and the highest faculty rating among all active military instructors.  In fact, his senior rater in 2011, Brigadier General Marvin Smoot, went so far as to exclusively point out LTC Dooley as the best of his new instructors, specifically mentioning his positive contribution to the Islam elective now under attack by General Dempsey.

On April 25, 2012, a Defense Department News Release referring to LTC Dooley’s course claimed that General Dempsey felt unprofessional things are being taught to students and that the course material was not “simply objectionable” but “inflammable.” The release went on to say that such content would be scrubbed from the curriculum. Moreover, the release claimed that Defense Secretary Panetta shared General Dempsey’s concern.

Less than a month later, on May 10, 2012, during a Pentagon press conference with Defense Secretary Panetta seated next to him, General Martin Dempsey expressed negative opinions regarding the Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism elective course content, characterizing it as “totally objectionable” and “against our values.”

In this same press conference, General Dempsey personally committed to removing any similar curriculum from military professional education within the JFSC and elsewhere.  Despite a preliminary inquiry that confirmed the purely notional, conceptual, and theoretical nature of LTC Dooley’s class, General Dempsey’s implication, before the inquiry was complete, that Dooley formally advocated actions outside of U.S. policy was both premature and inaccurate.

Read more

The same thing happened to Steve Coughlin: The Implications of the Dismissal of Stephen Coughlin, Joint Staff, Pentagon (jihadwatch.org)