Ohio State students can’t say “terrorism”

jihad-denial2The Rebel, by Faith Goldy, December 1, 2016:

Following an Islamist attack at Ohio State University, I asked students and professors on the ground what they thought about jihad in their own back yard.

Will students call the attack, now claimed by ISIS, terrorism?

Is the attacker’s religion relevant?

And is the occasional terrorist attack a necessary trade-off for the perceived benefits of multiculturalism?

Their answers will shock you!

PS: WATCH all my reports on this terror attack and its aftermath.

How James Mattis As Defense Secretary Could Bust Our Deathly Political Correctness About Islam

Photo Wikimedia Commons

Photo Wikimedia Commons

The Federalist, by M. G. Oprea, November 30, 2016:

Is political Islam in America’s best interests? This question should be central to our strategy of fighting ISIS and Islamist terrorism in general. Yet it’s one that many political leaders would rather not answer, because of our politically correct climate. But since Trump’s transition team announced last week that it’s considering retired Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense, this reluctance might fade.

In a speech given at the Heritage Foundation last year, Mattis spoke about America’s position vis à vis political Islam. Rather than equivocating on the matter in order to avoid saying something uncomfortable or politically incorrect, Mattis simply pointed out that America needs to make a decision about its stance toward this ideology.

Recall that political Islam, or Islamism, is a movement within Islam: it works toward the increasing implementation of Islamic law and values in all areas of life—usually via state control—in order to make Islam a dominant force in the world.

Why We Don’t Talk About Islamism

Mattis’ suggestion—which sounds like a basic element of defense strategy—has been surprisingly neglected in the years since 9/11. The U.S. tends to deal with Islamism on a case-by-case basis. And so long as any particular group or political entity doesn’t have a direct and obvious link to terrorism, we tend to give them a pass. Even then, this is sometimes too high of a bar, as is the case with the Muslim Brotherhood and associated groups.

No one wants to delve into the question of Islamism because it has become a politically charged issue, one that often leads to accusations of bigotry and Islamaphobia. As Islam is increasingly treated as a protected class by America’s progressive Left, any scrutiny of any faction within Islam is considered off limits. This is done in the name of tolerance, but is in fact a highly intolerant position. But it’s successfully scared off politicians and military personnel, who tend to make vague and noncommittal statements on the topic.

This makes Mattis’ statements all the more notable. He’s simply urging the U.S. to make a decision. And what’s more, he’s arguing that this decision ought to be based on what we believe is in our best interest:

“Is political Islam in the best interest of the United States?…If we won’t even ask the question then how do we even get to the point of recognizing which is our side in the fight? And if we don’t take our own side in this fight we’re leaving others adrift.”

What Is In The Country’s Best Interests?

This is a surprisingly unpopular question to ask in general, and specifically when it comes to Islam. The concept itself—asking what is in America’s best interest—has largely been ignored as of late. Under Obama, America has pursued a policy of “leading from behind,” and more or less disregarding America’s interests abroad. The Obama administration has done this based on the notion, central to the progressive narrative of history, that America is a de facto colonialist power, whose influence in the world is malign and ought to recede of our own volition.

But if the U.S. can’t identify what is in its best interests, or refuses to pursue those interests out of an oversized sense of political correctness, there’s no way to forge a comprehensive global defense strategy. As Mattis points out, if we won’t even talk about political Islam with a critical eye, how can we figure out which side we’re on, and make decisions from that point? Neglecting the question not only hurts our interests—it leaves our allies unsure of where we stand and how we will proceed when Islamist movements gain traction in their countries.

Mattis also points out that ISIS is counting on Americans not having a debate on whether political Islam is good for America. If we don’t examine this question, we can’t create a cohesive strategy, and our fight against ISIS’s self-proclaimed Caliphate (or other groups like them) will ultimately fail.

This is the opposite of what some Islamist apologists and those on the left insist, which is that ISIS wants us to talk about the connections between Islam and violence, in order to make Muslims feel like the West is at war with their entire religion. Then, so the thinking goes, Muslims will turn on the West.

Mattis Would Change Our Reputation

As it is, ISIS has largely won this battle. Any serious strategic discussion about the relationship between political Islam and American national interests has been deemed illegitimate and offensive by the political Left. See, for example, the scrubbing of terms related to Islam from Department of Homeland Security training materials.

Mattis’ appointment as Defense Secretary would be a marked change not only from the Obama administration, but also from the Bush years. Both administrations were reluctant to substantively engage in a debate on the merits or threats of political Islam.

Since giving this speech at Heritage, ISIS has experienced significant territorial losses. But the question Mattis raises has not lost its relevance. It will be central to many of the Trump administration’s foreign policy challenges. Political Islam remains, and will remain, a problem for the West both in terms of domestic security and global strategy. Whether it’s the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the U.S., or political Islam in a post-Arab Spring Middle East, the U.S. needs to know where it stands on this issue.

Mattis concludes that political Islam is not, in the end, good for America. But he acknowledges that what’s most important is that we have a discussion about it—so that we can develop a broader strategy for how to deal with Islamism in the world. Without a cohesive strategy, there is little hope of checking the destructive influences of political Islam both at home and abroad.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

The Battle of Ohio State

161129ohiostateattack

CHQ, by George Rasley, November 29, 2016:

Yesterday, the war Islam has declared on the West came to America’s heartland when Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an observant Muslim “refugee” from Somalia, rammed his car through a crowd of students and faculty at Ohio State University and then leapt out of the car and began stabbing the stunned onlookers with a butcher knife

In recent months, federal law enforcement officials have raised concerns about online Islamist propaganda that encourages knife and car attacks, which are easier to pull off than bombings.

However, as usual, Republican and Democratic establishment politicians and the establishment media could not bring themselves to confront the reality imposed upon the American people by their support for mass Muslim immigration to the United States.

Establishment Republican Governor of Ohio John Kasich cautioned that “we may never find out” the motivations of the attacker.

Columbus Police Chief Kim Jacobs, whose officers also responded to the attack, said terrorism had not been ruled out. “That’s why our federal partners are here and helping,” she said. “I think we have to consider that it is.”

So, police are investigating whether it was a terrorist attack – no mention of “Islamist terrorist attack” or “radical Islam” or “Muslim extremism” just generic “terrorism.” With no working hypothesis on a motivation attributed to the terrorist what kind of an investigation can they possibly conduct?

He was “upset,” he was “deranged,” he was anything but a motivated Muslim fighter fighting for his cause is where this is undoubtedly headed in Chief Jacobs’ mind, given that under Obama, all references and information about the doctrine of jihad and the Islamic foundations of terrorism have been purged from law enforcement and military training.

“Ohio State University Student Dead After Driving Into Crowd, Stabbing People at OSU Campus” ABC News reported, without mentioning that the attempted mass murder was perpetrated by an outspoken Muslim student and bore a striking similarity to the Muslim terrorist attack in Nice, France.

Columbus, Ohio Mayor Andrew J. Ginther said. “It is important in these difficult times that we come together as a community to support one another, and to resist the temptation to lash out in anger, or to let the actions of one person define an entire community. As an open, diverse and inclusive city, it is especially important to stand with our entire community and work toward productive strategies to stop senseless acts of violence everywhere.”

Ginther made no reference to Artan’s background, but said he is proud that Columbus is “warm and welcoming” to immigrants and refugees. “We welcome people from all over the world,” said the Mayor.

Except Abdul Razak Ali Artan wasn’t a “refugee,” he is part of an invading army, and this act of violence wasn’t “senseless” at all – it was part of a strategy of war Islam has used for 1,700 years to spread terror in the infidel enemy’s heartland.

Rep. Adam Schiff, of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that while the bloodshed is still under investigation, it ‘‘bears all of the hallmarks of a terror attack carried out by someone who may have been self-radicalized.’’

Self-radicalized to what? The Amish version of Anabaptist Christianity? Cornish nationalism? Independence for the Conch Republic? Mr. Schiff cannot say, but he is quick to sever Artan’s actions from Islam by suggesting he was “self-radicalized.”

Leaders of Muslim organizations and mosques in the Columbus area quickly condemned the attacks while cautioning people against jumping to conclusions or blaming a religion or an ethnicity.

This is now a well-rehearsed bit of taqiyya, the doctrine of deception well-defined in the Quran. In Suras 16:106 and 3:28 the Quran allows Muslims to lie in order to protect themselves or to protect the Muslim community.

And so, almost word for word, the same phrases are mouthed before a compliant establishment media after every attack – don’t blame Islam for 9/11, don’t blame Islam for San Bernardino, don’t blame Islam for Chattanooga, don’t blame Islam for Orlando, don’t blame Islam for the Moore, Oklahoma beheading, don’t blame Islam for the attack on Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett, don’t blame Islam for the Mall of America slashings, don’t blame Islam for the bombings in New York and New Jersey, or the shooting at the Cascade Mall Macy’s in Burlington, Washington and certainly don’t blame Islam for the Boston Marathon bombing.

When are America’s establishment elite, the politicians and media personalities who work behind metal detectors and armed guards and who have staff to run to Macy’s, going to recognize and admit that Islam is indeed to blame when Americans going to class, or to the mall or to work are killed or maimed by jihadis?

And it’s not “radical Islam,” it’s the Islam that is practiced by millions of Muslims throughout the world, including those living right here in America.

If you follow the news from Israel, you might have a better sense of the practical reality of how living with a large population of Muslims actually works.

A year or so ago The Wall Street Journal described two weeks of Palestinian assaults that began when Hamas killed a Jewish couple as they were driving with their four children in the northern West Bank. Two days later, a Palestinian teenager stabbed two Israelis to death in Jerusalem’s Old City, and also slashed a woman and a 2-year-old boy. Hours later, another knife-wielding Palestinian was shot and killed by Israeli police after he slashed a 15-year-old Israeli boy in the chest and back.

Other Palestinian attacks include the stabbing of two elderly Israeli men and an assault with a vegetable peeler on a 14-year-old. On Sunday, an Arab-Israeli man ran over a 19-year-old female soldier at a bus stop, then got out of his car, stabbed her, and attacked two men and a 14-year-old girl. Several attacks have been carried out by women, including a failed suicide bombing.

These attacks are not random acts of “self-radicalized” madmen, they are instigated by Muslim imams preaching hate in mosques, which are not so much religious institutions as they are the command centers of a cultural and military invasion.

“Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews,” one Gaza imam said in a recorded address, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, and quoted by The Wall Street Journal. “Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles but to prevent the slitting of their throats.”

Then, brandishing a six-inch knife, he added: “My brother in the West Bank: Stab!”

One of the few politicians to get the Battle of Ohio State right was Ohio’s Republican State Treasurer Josh Mandel, who tweeted: “Looks like Radical Islamic terror came to my alma mater today. So sad what happened at OSU. We must remain vigilant against Radical Islam.” About two hours later, he tweeted the last line again.

Mandel’s tweet came after the student responsible for the attack was identified as a Muslim, a Somali refugee who stayed for a short time in Pakistan, characteristics shared by several other Muslim terrorists.

But here’s what truth-tellers like Josh Mandel and President-elect Donald Trump are up against in trying to win this war.

No sooner had Mandel tweeted his call for vigilance than he was attacked by Michael Premo, chief of staff for Ohio Senate Democrats, who blasted Mandel, tweeting, “Looks like knee-jerk islamophobia came to my state today. So sad what @JoshMandelOhio said. We must remain vigilant against prejudice.”

Vigilance is not Islamophobia. As long as establishment politicians like Governor John Kasich, Mayor Andrew J. Ginther, Michael Premo and Congressman Schiff refuse to recognize and name the Muslim enemy – and use every tool of our national power to fight it – more Americans going to class, to work and to the mall will find themselves in the middle of a battle zone, as they did yesterday at Ohio State.

Schizophrenic – President Obama’s Two Faces on Radical Islam

ob_1By Brian Fairchild, August 3, 2016

President Obama is renowned for his insistence that there is nothing Islamic about the Islamic State, and for his refusal to utter any Islamic religious references when discussing international terrorism. He drove this point home recently when he angrily refused to describe the war against jihadis as a war against “radical Islamic terrorism”. Few realize, however, that the president has definitively and repeatedly contradicted his own statements, and has actually profiled the terrorist enemy with the same words he has criticized others for using – that the enemy attacking the United States is a “violent, radical…interpretation of Islam” and that there is a need for Islam as a whole to challenge that interpretation.

The president has often defended his policy of denying a connection between terrorism and Islam by stating that to do so would bestow legitimacy on the terrorists, insult Islam, and alienate Muslims, but he himself has precisely made this connection in speeches that appear to have been missed by the media and counter terrorism officials and analysts.

In two public statements: one before his Countering Violent Extremism conference, and one before a Muslim audience at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, as well as in statements he made to a journalist from The Atlantic magazine, the president directly contradicted his own statements and actually profiled the enemy as followers of a violent radical interpretation of Islam, an interpretation so ingrained in Islam that there is a need for the whole of Islam to challenge it. Indeed, his description was so accurate, that had it become the foundation of official US counter terrorism policy, the nation’s national security agencies would have been adequately armed to confront the threat.

Note: This paper will use the intelligence analysis format of establishing the relevant facts, in this case, by using only direct quotes from the president that will lead to general findings based on those facts that will lead to a logical conclusion and forecast of future action.

All of the entries in the “FACTS” section are direct quotes from the president taken from two official White House documents: Statement from the President in his closing from the summit on Countering Violent Extremism, February 18, 2015, and Statements by the President at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, February 3, 2016, as well as from his April 2016 one-on-one interviews with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic magazine. As a reference aide, each quote will be highlighted and linked to the proper document by the initials CVE, to denote the Countering Violent Extremism document, ISB, to denote the Islamic Society of Baltimore document, or The Atlantic, to denote the president’s interview with Jeffery Goldberg.

FACTS:

The enemy:

• The Atlantic: “It is very clear what I mean, which is that there is a violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam by a faction—a tiny faction—within the Muslim community that is our enemy, and that has to be defeated. There is also the need for Islam as a whole to challenge that interpretation of Islam, to isolate it, and to undergo a vigorous discussion within their community about how Islam works as part of a peaceful, modern society…”

• ISB: “…it is undeniable that a small fraction of Muslims propagate a perverted interpretation of Islam. This is the truth…We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

The enemy’s justification for its actions and its worldwide acceptance:

• CVE: “Al Qaeda and ISIL do draw, selectively, from the Islamic texts. They do depend upon the misperception around the world that they speak in some fashion for people of the Muslim faith, that Islam is somehow inherently violent, that there is some sort of clash of civilizations.”

How the enemy radicalizes and recruits young Muslims:

• CVE: “Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the “Islamic State.” And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam. That’s how they recruit. That’s how they try to radicalize young people.”

The enemy’s success in the United States:

• ISB: “But, right now, there is a organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror. They combine it with false claims that America and the West are at war with Islam. And this warped thinking that has found adherents around the world — including, as we saw, tragically, in Boston and Chattanooga and San Bernardino — is real. It’s there.”

The enemy’s focus for radicalization and recruitment:

• CVE: “We have to be honest with ourselves. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIL deliberately target their propaganda in the hopes of reaching and brainwashing young Muslims, especially those who may be disillusioned or wrestling with their identity. That’s the truth.”

The Muslim Community’s responsibility:

• CVE: “…we’ve got to discredit these ideologies. We have to tackle them head on. And we can’t shy away from these discussions. And too often, folks are, understandably, sensitive about addressing some of these root issues, but we have to talk about them, honestly and clearly.”

• ISB: “Muslims around the world have a responsibility to reject extremist ideologies that are trying to penetrate within Muslim communities…Muslim political leaders have to push back on the lie that the West oppresses Muslims, and against conspiracy theories that says America is the cause of every ill in the Middle East.”

• CVE: “Faith leaders may notice that someone is beginning to espouse violent interpretations of religion, and that’s a moment for possible intervention
Anti-American elements with the Muslim Community:

• CVE: But if we are going to effectively isolate terrorists, if we’re going to address the challenge of their efforts to recruit our young people, if we’re going to lift up the voices of tolerance and pluralism within the Muslim community, then we’ve got to acknowledge that their job is made harder by a broader narrative that does exist in many Muslim communities around the world that suggests the West is at odds with Islam in some fashion. The reality…is that there’s a strain of thought that doesn’t embrace ISIL’s tactics, doesn’t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historical grievances…does buy into the belief that so many of the ills in the Middle East flow from a history of colonialism or conspiracy; does buy into the idea that Islam is incompatible with modernity or tolerance, or that it’s been polluted by Western values…So those beliefs exist. In some communities around the world they are widespread. And so it makes individuals — especially young people who already may be disaffected or alienated — more ripe for radicalization.

FINDINGS:

Based on the facts above, it is clear that that:

• Despite his years-long insistence that Islamist terrorism is not Islamic, the president’s statements demonstrate, quite to the contrary, that he full-well understands that the ideology of the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and other jihad groups is inextricably connected to Islam. This is nowhere more apparent than when he stated that this violent and radical interpretation requires intervention by the entire religion. Such a requirement reveals just how extensively it permeates the religion, which quite different from the notion the president espouses that describes the Islamic State and other jihad groups as illegitimate Islamic impostors who “portray” themselves as religious leaders. Similarly, when the president told the audience at the Islamic Society of Baltimore that “a small fraction of Muslims propagate” this interpretation, he was admitting to a Muslim audience that the followers of these movements are not outsiders or impostors, but are legitimate followers of Islam – Muslims.

• The president did not name the particular “interpretation of Islam” he described, but it is likely he was referring to Salafi-jihadism, which is how all Sunni jihad groups self-identify. Salafism is a legitimate ultraconservative strain of Sunni Islam. It is not a creation of any Islamist terrorist organization. Quite the opposite is true. Al Qaeda and all Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations emerged from a Salafi religious foundation. Salafis insist that the only sources of Islamic authority are a literal acceptance of Allah’s commands in the Qur’an, and a strict literal acceptance and emulation of the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Compared to the world population of 1.6 billion Muslims, Salafism is comprised a small percentage of the total number of Muslims, but this minority is estimated to be in the millions.

• The president’s statements definitively contradict the Countering Violent Extremism initiative because he profiles the enemy as belonging to one particular group – Muslims – and not as separate individuals who for unforeseeable reasons become radicalized and commit random acts of violence. Moreover, he places the responsibility for discrediting and countering this radical Islamist ideology squarely on the shoulders of Muslim communities.

• The president’s admission that there is an anti-American “strain of thought” widespread in many Muslim communities around the world that proselytizes that Islam is incompatible with modernism and tolerance and “makes individuals — especially young people who already may be disaffected or alienated — more ripe for radicalization”, contradicts his general message that young Muslims are primarily radicalized over the Internet, and brings to the fore the role that radical imams, mosques, organizations, and radical speakers play in supporting radical Islamist networks. Again, this places the Muslim community front and center as a locus for Islamist behavior. Although he did not name this anti-American “strain of thought”, it is likely he was referring to the ideology of the worldwide Islamist movement propagated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

CONCLUSION/FORECAST:

The president’s two-faced stance regarding radical Islam is hypocritical at best, and schizophrenic at worst and is best understood by viewing two of the president’s quotes back-to-back.

In the first statement given on June 14, 2016, the president is reacting angrily to Donald Trump’s call for him to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism”. In response, he rhetorically asked the following questions in order to deride Trump’s demand:

• “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?

The second statement appeared in The Atlantic interview in April 2016, two months prior to his rhetorical derision of Trump, so while the president rhetorically lambasted Trump for his naïve and outlandish demands, he knew Trump was correct. In fact, in his April statement he had described the enemy by using the exact adjective Trump had demanded – “radical”, and he had already answered his own question as to whether there was a strategy that would benefit by using the term “radical Islamic terrorism”:

• “…there is a violent, radical, fanatical, nihilistic interpretation of Islam by a faction—a tiny faction—within the Muslim community that is our enemy, and that has to be defeated. There is also the need for Islam as a whole to challenge that interpretation of Islam, to isolate it, and to undergo a vigorous discussion within their community about how Islam works as part of a peaceful, modern society…”

For reasons yet unclear and beyond the scope of this analysis, the president ignored all the facts that he marshaled above and created the generic Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative to deal with terrorism instead. The program assiduously avoids all of the issues so far discussed, and is the antithesis and a negation of all of the president’s personal beliefs and his understanding of the jihadi threat as elucidated above. Here, the president, once again demonstrating schizophrenic tendencies, explains why all he has said above should be discounted:

• “We all know there is no one profile of a violent extremist or terrorist, so there’s no way to predict who will become radicalized. Around the world, and here in the United States, inexcusable acts of violence have been committed against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths — which is, of course, a betrayal of all our faiths. It’s not unique to one group, or to one geography, or one period of time.”

This self-defeating initiative, based on no sound research or intelligence, and with no foundation in reality, has undermined the national security and safety of the country.
The most likely forecast based on all of the above is that with roughly four months to go until the end of his administration, is that the president will not reverse himself and inaugurate a new counter terrorism policy targeted against the very ideology and threats he says must be discredited and defeated.

Brian Fairchild was a career officer in CIA’s Clandestine Service. He has served in Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe, the Arabian Peninsula, and Afghanistan. Mr. Fairchild writes periodic intelligence analyses on topics of strategic importance.

Two members of Congress accused of Muslim Brotherhood ties

tedcruzAmerican Thinker, by Carol Brown, June 29, 2016:

Covering the Senate hearings on Islamic terror, Tuesday’s HuffPo headline read: “Witness At Ted Cruz Hearing Accuses Congress’ Two Muslim Members Of Muslim Brotherhood Ties.” The teaser read: “This doesn’t normally happen on the Hill.” The teaser should have been: It’s about time.

I rarely venture over to the HuffPo, but I couldn’t resist reading their coverage:

In explosive testimony Tuesday, a witness before a Senate panel about Islamic terrorism accused the two Muslim members of Congress of having attended an event organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The charge was leveled by Chris Gaubatz, a “national security consultant” who has moonlighted as an undercover agitator of Muslim groups that he accuses of being terrorist outfits, and it was directed at Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). At the heart of his accusation is the attendance by those two members at a 2008 convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America — a Muslim umbrella group, which Gaubatz claims is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

HuffPo was eager to smear Chris Gaubatz, whose impressive undercover work inside CAIR is chronicled in his book Muslim Mafia. (To learn more about him, The Clarion Project has a short interview, here.)  The Huffpo continues:

“I attended a convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008, organized by Muslim Brotherhood group, ISNA, and both the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons had recruitment and outreach booths,” Gaubatz said in his testimony. “Both Congressman Keith Ellison, MN, and Andre Carson, IN, spoke at the Muslim Brotherhood event.”

Allegations that Ellison and Carson are secret Muslim agents with extremist leanings are usually found among fringe groups online, often discussed in dire tones on poorly designed websites. Rarely, if ever, do such sentiments get read into congressional testimony, with the imprimatur that offers.

Wow, this is why, as a rule, I don’t read the HuffPo. But seriously, the excerpt noted above highlights how behind the curve we are regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB should have been declared a terrorist organization ions ago. Instead, they have been operating through countless front groups that are legitimized and lauded by leftist politicians and the media. As a result, no red flags are raised about anyone affiliated with these groups.

Responsibility for this rare instance lies with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who oversaw the hearing as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts and whose staff likely saw the testimonies of the witnesses.

Oh, well. Leave it to Ted Cruz to invite someone associated with “fringe groups” that operate online using “dire” tones on “poorly designed websites.”

An aide to Ellison confirmed that he did attend the 2008 ISNA convention. He’s gone to a few of the group’s conventions, in fact. Carson’s office didn’t return a request for comment. But news reports show that both he and Carson led a discussion at the 2008 convention on how to mobilize Muslims politically. President Barack Obama has addressed the group as well, though only via a video recording.

Mobilizing Muslims politically. Hmm. I’m sure that’s perfectly innocent, right? And who can forget Obama’s video recording where he praised ISNA, Muslims, the fabulous halal food in his hometown of Chicago? (Warning: Don’t look in his eyes for too long.)

Critics of ISNA have insisted that these politicians have either turned a blind eye to — or explicitly embraced — the group’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, an affiliation that is based on ties some of the founding ISNA members have allegedly had to the hard-line religious organization. ISNA has long insisted that no such connection has ever existed.

“I can definitely tell you we are not Muslim Brotherhood. We are not affiliated with them at all and never were,” said Faryal Khatri, an official with ISNA. “That much I can reassure you.”

Well if an ISNA official has gone on record to assure everyone that the organization is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in any way, that’s good enough for me! Mr. Khatri wouldn’t lie, would he?

ISNA is not the only group targeted by Gaubatz. In 2009, he told Talking Points Memo that he obtained an internship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations as part of an effort to secretly collect evidence against the group to be used in a book written by his father. The book, “Muslim Mafia,” alleged that CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group that works to combat Islamophobia, was a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

In case there is any confusion, CAIR is a front group for the MB. Now if we could all stay focused on facts such as these, we might actually get somewhere.

And to those who think I might be a “fringe” person using a “dire” tone (surely AT isn’t one of those “poorly designed websites” to which HuffPo referred), I’m not just making this up. The MB told us who their front groups were in their Explanatory Memorandum during the Holy Land Foundation trial. Here’s the list. ISNA’s right on top.

Cruz’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Gaubatz’s allegations against Ellison and Carson or whether it had given either member a chance to respond. But the senator has displayed a tolerance for these kinds of conspiracy theories in the past.

Oh my goodness! I am kicking myself for reading through the entire HuffPo piece. “Conspiracy theories?” Anyone who thinks any of this is a conspiracy theory is on the fringe of reality. Dire, desperate, and dumb. (Whether they are affiliated with a poorly designed web site, or not, I couldn’t say.)

Before he suspended his presidential campaign, Cruz appointed known Islamophobe Frank Gaffney to his team of national security advisers. Gaffney, now head of the Center for Security Policy, has objected to Ellison and Carson serving on the House Intelligence Committee because he believes their Muslim faith could compel them to leak information to the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also accused Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and conservative heavyweights Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan of being closeted Muslim Brotherhood members.

When asked about his controversial selection, Cruz defended Gaffney as a “serious thinker” focused on “fighting jihadism across the globe.”

Frank Gaffney is a tireless warrior trying to inform the idiot masses on the looming threat before us. His work, and the work of his colleagues who sound the alarm day in and day out might one day save the lives of those who smear him as aall that they do n “Islamaphobe” (a fabricated word that has no actual meaning).

God bless Ted Cruz, Frank Gaffney, and everyone on the front lines of this fight of the ages.

***

And God bless David Reaboi and the folks at CounterJihad.com and centerforsecuritypolicy.org for all that they do to defend freedom! Everyone should go back and see the updates in their masterful coverage of Ted Cruz’s Willful Blindness hearing featuring running commentary and video clips!

The Senate Judiciary Committee is questioning Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson right now – Livestream

David Reaboi rips into the Huff Po’s propaganda:

Robert Spencer: Should we censor ourselves to avoid offending Muslims?

Published on Jun 29, 2016 by JihadWatchVideo

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses recent recommendations by David Petraeus and Larry Summers that Americans should censor themselves in order to avoid offending Muslims, and explains why these suggestions are wrongheaded and dangerous for free societies.

offending muslims

Analysis: Political Correctness is the Handmaiden of Terrorism

maxresdefault_39 (1)

Truth Revolt, by Scott Powell, June 29, 2016:

If Americans were shocked by the recent terrorist massacre in Orlando committed by Omar Mateen in the name of ISIS and other Islamist jihadis, they should be even more alarmed by the Obama administration’s response, which once again sought to obfuscate the role of Islamist ideology in motivating that terrorist attack — the largest on U.S. soil since 9/11.

In spite of Islamists having established an unparalleled record of terrorism — some 20,000 assaults globally in the name of Islam since 9/11 – U.S. law enforcement, intelligence and national armed forces have for many years been operating partially blindfolded and with one hand tied behind their backs by the politically correct posture of protecting Islam and Muslims.

The tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood, with its myriad front groups, was established in the U.S. long before 9/11. We know this from the successful trial of the Holy Land Foundation in 2008. Uncovered in the discovery treasure-trove for the HLF trial was a 1991 strategy plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the U.S. Constitution via stealth “civilization jihad” and to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” the precondition to establishing a Sharia-ruled Caliphate.

The extent of penetration of Muslim influence in the Bush administration can be understood by way of a cursory comparative analysis. The lexicon found in the 2004 9/11 Commission Report, which contained hundreds of instances of the use of words like “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam,” was basically eliminated by the end of the Bush administration. In 2008 when the FBI published its unclassified Counterterrorism Lexicon, those words were entirely missing. It marked a major step in the post-9/11 world of disconnecting radical Islamist ideology from terrorism and limiting the U.S. in its investigative tools, intelligence collection, law enforcement, and war-fighting capabilities.

The process of separating terrorism from its radical Islamist roots took on new momentum in the first year of the Obama administration, simultaneous with the president’s Middle East apology tour in the spring of 2009. According to Philip Haney — a founder of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, established in response to 9/11 — DHS superiors brought in by the Obama administration ordered him in November 2009 to scrub and delete hundreds of records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Hamas, from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System database.

These records are of course the basis for Immigration Control and Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Terrorist Screening Center to “connect the dots” and identify individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations who should be denied entry to the U.S., be put on the terrorist watch list, or the no-fly list.

When self-described “soldier of Allah” Nidal Hassan killed 13 in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree, many were dumbfounded that the Defense Department recorded and has since maintained this incident as “workplace violence.” What most don’t know is that the DOD bureaucracy had no other choice, as it was then in the midst of a politically-correct purge at West Point and the Naval War College of all “vital references to Islamist ideology driving terrorism or conflating terrorism with Islam.”

The 2013 Islamist Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had a high-risk profile due to six months of travel to a known Islamist terrorist training center in the Dagestan-Chechnya area in Islamic Russia. But the FBI suspended its investigation of Tsarnaev in 2011 because of insufficient evidence of terrorist activity but also because Bureau leadership was accommodating and encouraging leniency toward Muslims, being then in the midst of the final stages of purging some 900 pages of FBI counterterrorism training manuals that were considered offensive to Muslims. So Tsarnaev could take his time and pick his spot to strike.

The December 2, 2015 ISIS-inspired San Bernardino killing spree, committed by the Islamist terrorist married couple Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, might also have been prevented. Former DHS official Haney points out that the San Bernardino terror attack might have been averted if Farook’s ties to the terror group Tablighi Jamaat had been known. Unfortunately, those records were among the sixty-seven deleted from the key federal database — the Treasury Enforcement Communications System — in the politically-correct purge of 2009. Those ties would have put Farook on the “no-fly list,” and would have prevented him from traveling to Saudi Arabia. Additionally, his pending fiancée, Malik, would have been denied a visa to enter the U.S. Thus, the dynamics and circumstances that led to their coordinated attack in San Bernardino would not have developed.

Then there was also the neighbor of Farook and Malik, who disclosed that in the weeks before the terrorist couple’s killings, there had been a flurry of activity at their home — with a multitude of package deliveries and Middle Eastern individuals coming and going at all hours. Yet that neighbor chose not to alert the police for fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic.

There can be no doubt now, in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, that political correctness puts the United States in grave danger, and it is a wonder that PC has been accepted for as long as it has.

After the orchestrated deception of blaming the September 11, 2012 killing of Ambassador Stevens and three others in Benghazi on a “blasphemous” internet video rather than the pre-planned terrorist attack that it was, it was contemptible that the Obama Justice Department would initially attempt a deception replay with regard to the Orlando nightclub massacre — the worst since 9/11. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s initial censorship of the record of Omar Mateen’s many statements of solidarity with ISIS and the cause of radical Islam brought on such widespread criticism, that Obama tactically reversed course within 24 hours and decided to release a good portion of Mateen’s transcripts uncensored.

However, the strategy of maintaining the hegemony of political correctness to frame the Islamist terrorist threat shows no sign of being abandoned or diminished and is likely to continue through the balance of the Obama administration.

And the black flags will surely keep coming under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Having learned nothing from the spate of Islamist terrorist attacks, Clinton has recently stated she plans to massively increase immigration from the Middle East even without a screening plan, including a 500% increase in Syrian refugees.

It may be an irony of history, perhaps a blessing in disguise, that an unconventional presidential candidate has been raised up to break the shackles of political correctness and shock the American people into facing reality. Donald Trump’s candidacy for president raises uncertainties of various kinds in the minds of many voters. But there should be considerable certainty that Mr. Trump won’t be easily snookered on the causes of terrorism and other challenges facing the United States, nor will his resolve to win in the cause of patriotism be easily shaken.

Scott Powell is senior fellow at Seattle-based Discovery Institute and managing partner at Remington Rand LLC. Reach him at scottp@discovery.org

Rhodes: ISIS Fight ‘Will Be More Effective’ Not Calling Them ‘Religious Organization’

President Obama works on his speech to AIPAC with Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes on March, 3, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Obama works on his speech to AIPAC with Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes on March, 3, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, June 15, 2016:

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told PBS that President Obama doesn’t use the term “radical Islam” because “we will be more effective in combating that ideology” of ISIS “if we don’t describe them as a religious organization.”

Rhodes said the concern after the Orlando nightclub attack, in which shooter Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, is “how are we going to pursue a strategy that both defeats ISIL overseas, but also tries to combat an ideology that could prey upon a deeply disturbed individual like this, and lead them to do something as tragic as what we saw in Orlando.”

He said the point Obama was trying to make in his Tuesday speech outside of a National Security Council meeting “is that if we are engaging in policies or rhetoric that stigmatizes the entire Muslim-American community, that blames an entire faith for this terrible act of violence, that suggests in any way that we are at war with Islam we’re going to make that job much harder because, essentially, ISIL depends upon a narrative of a war between the United States and Islam to recruit.”

Host Charlie Rose asked if Obama “does believe that there is something happening called fundamental radical Islamic terrorism.”

“We believe that there is clearly a perversion of Islam from groups like ISIL. So, yes, they take Islam and they pervert it to their twisted ideology,” Rhodes replied. “They used it to justify the slaughter of innocents, including Muslims as well. And we have to combat both the organization of ISIL and that ideology.”

“We’ve had these debates about labels for some time, and we’ve been clear that we did not want to define ISIL, or al-Qaeda, or any other extremist group as speaking for Islam in any way. And we’ve avoid that terminology. The problem is, when you see that terminology taken to its logical end, if this is defined as a conflict that is inherently about religion that leads to policies like not allowing Muslims to enter the United States or policies of more excessive surveillance and denial of civil liberties to Muslim-Americans, as the president said today,” he continued.

“And that is what is so deserving is that ultimately, if we make decisions guided by fear, or by painting a very broad brush on our fellow Americans who happens to be Muslim, they will make the wrong decisions and do things that ultimately harmful to both our national fabric and to our national security.”

Rhodes added that even if you call it “radical Islam,” the “sun will come up the next day, ISIL will still there.”

“People may use different terminology, but the fact is, when you’re talking about who we’re at war with, we believe that we should define that as a war against terrorist networks, or against ISIL, or against al-Qaeda, not as war against a certain type of religious terminology because that has the potential to be interpreted and utilize by groups like ISIL as a means of saying, we are indeed at war with Islam, and they use that as a means of recruitment,” he said. “So we avoid that terminology and make it clear that we’re at war with terrorists.”

***

An Israeli Rabbi’s Response to Obama’s Speech on Radical Islam

thelandofisrael h/t Christopher Holton

After your HISSY fit yesterday Mr. President, I need to school you on something…

angry oWritten by Allen West on June 15, 2016

President Obama evidenced just how rattled he was yesterday in a press statement that was supposed to be about “progress” against ISIS…of course he still says ISIL — we explained why here. Obama seemed rather bored as he read the “statistics” on ISIS. Then his demeanor shifted as Obama showed deep anger and disdain — not towards the Islamic jihadist murderer, but rather toward his regular foe, Republicans, and his new nemesis, Donald Trump.

Barack Obama became literally unhinged and went into full lecture mode to the American people, and attack mode on Trump. It would appear that being called weak and having your dismissal of Islamic jihadism called out has indeed struck a nerve.

As reported by Fox News, “After years of brushing off criticism for avoiding the term “radical Islam,” President Obama fired a point-blank broadside Tuesday at his critics, calling the debate a “political distraction” that will do nothing to combat terrorism.

Speaking from the White House during what was expected to be an update for the public on the fight against the Islamic State, Obama lit into his critics and specifically presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Their criticism has mounted in the wake of the Orlando terror attack, which Obama declined to publicly link to radical Islam. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” Obama countered Tuesday. “It’s a political talking point.”

No Mr. President, once again you’ve got it dead wrong. Defining an enemy and understanding its goals and objectives enables you to defeat it. A political talking point is the left’s incessant rant about a “war on women.” The real war on women is being waged by militant Islamic jihadists — you know those cheeky fellas enslaving and raping young girls while you throw a hissy fit.

There’s magic in understanding the enemy — just ask Thomas Jefferson who took the enemy for its word back in the 1790s when he and John Adams met with the Dey of Algiers. As President Jefferson, he clearly realized, even though he was perceived a pacifist, that he had to make the enemy — and its threat that was seizing American shipping and goods while enslaving its citizen — go away. Jefferson built up and deployed the Navy and the Marines. Jefferson did not throw a hissy fit when Islamic jihadists were attacking and killing Americans – but he did make the problem go away.

So President Obama, the problem is, after all your “talking points” and lack of strategic direction, ISIS still occupies the battle space, the caliphate. They have expanded and expertly exported their depraved vision across the globe, all on your watch, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize (for what mindless chuckleheads believed you “would do.”)

What you’ve done is enable a proliferation of the most vile and savage enemy we have seen since Nazi Germany. And oh by the way sir, there is a reason why we fought WW II. It was against Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese Imperialism. Yes, we defined the threat and understood their ideological objectives – that’s what enabled us to strategically defeat them — something you’ve so horribly failed to do after some three years with the crew you called a jayvee team.

Mr. President, here’s a little history lesson. Since you’re so into giving lectures, take a listen. We, the American people, are smart enough to know we’re not endeavoring to declare a war against “Islam.”

However, you should know what Islam has been since Mohammed migrated, in the Al Hijra, from Mecca to Medina circa 622 AD. From that point on, Islam has been based on violent combat, jihad, and conquest As a matter of fact sir, Mohammed led some 33 combat raids himself, culminating with his triumphant return to Mecca after violating the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah — a tradition Iran seems to be following — and attacked Mecca and ordered the beheading of some 3,000 of the Banu Qurayza tribe — all males from puberty up.

Mr. President, we understand the centuries — almost 1,400 years — of violence at the hands of a post 622 AD Islam. No, we’re not condemning ALL Muslims, but we’re smart enough to be able to read and understand the savage and violent nature of militant Islam. It’s not “radical” because these concepts and precepts are part of its book and the traditions of its leader.

There’s no need Mr. President to throw a hissy fit about gun control, and you must understand we’re not about to be disarmed so this enemy will find us even easier targets. You sir, have had several of the most deadly Islamic jihadist attacks occur on your watch, after 9-11.

Let me school you on something, along with your progressive socialist acolytes.

After 9-11 when Islamic terrorists used airplanes, we did not discuss airplane control and force people to take Greyhound. After the Boston Tsarnaev Islamic terrorist bombing, why didn’t we speak of pressure cooker control?

After the beheading of a woman and the near beheading of another at a chicken processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma why didn’t we institute knife control? Just yesterday we have several Parisians killed by an Islamic jihadist using a knife — should we have an international ban on knives?

Sir, I know you’re concerned about your “legacy.” Let me advise you that right now, your legacy is somewhere below whale dung at the bottom of the ocean.

Ideologies matter, and defining them enables one to defeat the enemy’s strategic objective. Now, here’s the problem you fail to realize: your reticence and recalcitrance in confronting this enemy leads many to certain speculations. Folks begin to wonder, on whose side are you? Your misplaced rage yesterday is cause for grave concern. This is Ramadan Mr. President, let’s be honest with the American people and tell them what that means to Islamic jihadists and whatshaheed status is. Mr. President, you only have a few months to go; stop deflecting from the issue.

Know that your conduct yesterday was unbecoming of an American president, especially after the biggest Islamic terror attack in our history after 9-11. The American people wanted your rage to be cast towards the enemy, the jihadists — not your favorite political adversaries.

Our America has been attacked, viciously, and here we are three days afterwards and your response was to rant against Republicans and Donald Trump. No wonder ISIS is emboldened. They kill Americans and you want to disarm us and yell at other Americans. How utterly unconscionable that at a time such as this you continue to demonstrate a protectionism and sympathy towards Islamists — and not our country.

FUBAR.

Frank Gaffney: Obama’s Failure to ‘Grapple with the Reality’ of Sharia and Jihad is ‘Getting People Killed in America’

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 15, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, responded to President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s complaints about being forced to use the phrase “radical Islam” on Wednesday morning’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon.

Gaffney said that for all of Obama and Clinton’s efforts to minimize the importance of using the correct terminology for the enemy we face, the bigger problem is that “they don’t want to go anywhere near the underlying reality, which is that inherent in the sort of DNA of Islam, its adherence called sharia, is the root of this problem.”

“It’s the root of the problem with respect to killing homosexuals, it’s the root of the problem with respect to oppressing women, it’s the root of the problem with respect to genocide against Christians, killing Jews wherever they can, and apostates, on and on,” Gaffney said.

“And that is this idea that a brutally repressive, totalitarian doctrine has to rule the whole world, and jihad – which is another term they don’t want to use, and in fact they’ve got a new report out of their advisory group at the Department of Homeland Security that says, you know, you can’t use words like ‘sharia.’ You can’t use words like ‘jihad.’ You gotta focus on those ‘right-wing violent extremists. They’re the real problem,” he said.

“That’s what’s getting people killed in America – a failure to grapple with this reality. And I’m afraid Donald Trump is right that the President has exhibited, if not sympathy for the terrorists, certainly for the Islamic supremacists. And the documentation for that is certainly all over SecureFreedom.org, as well as what we talk about, day in and day out,” Gaffney declared, referring to the Center for Security Policy’s website.

On the matter of Islamic supremacism, Bannon asked Gaffney about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s call for a congressional investigation into the threat.

“He referred, unfortunately, to a particular model that the anti-anti-communists managed to irradiate, the House Un-American Affairs Committee,” Gaffney said of Gingrich’s proposal. “I do think congressional oversight, congressional investigation, congressional efforts to hold the executive accountable, is absolutely essential.”

He said one of the reasons we’ve seen Obama and Clinton “responding so viciously to Donald Trump’s criticisms” is because “they are hugely vulnerable in this area, and a decent investigation by the Congress, accountability by the Congress, would expose this – and, I think, make it clear you don’t want, you can’t afford four more years of this stuff under a President Hillary Clinton.”

Bannon lamented that current House Speaker Paul Ryan undercut the points Trump and Gingrich sought to make. “What you guys want, and holding people accountable for this Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacism, the imposition of sharia law here in the United States of America – Paul Ryan says, ‘Nope, that’s not American values. You guys are haters, you guys are nativists.’” He asked Gaffney what his advice to Ryan would be.

“I had the chance to speak to one of his senior people last week, and I would say the same thing: you’ve got to get this right,” Gaffney responded. “It’s not just Paul Ryan. I’m sorry to say, a whole bunch of other people on the Republican side of the aisle, for most of the past fifteen years, have been getting this wrong too, I’d say starting with President George W. Bush.”

He said Bush made his famous “Religion of Peace” declaration after being subjected to “an intensive, highly successful political influence operation, and I believe it screwed up American foreign and national security policy, from his time to the present one.”

“Look, there are peaceful Muslims, no question about it. There are Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia any more than the rest of us do,” Gaffney declared. “I believe they can be our natural allies. But mistaking either their number, or their importance, or their standing against the authorities of Islam who say, ‘wait a minute, sharia is Islam, sharia is the way this has to be practiced’ is the height of folly, not just professional malfeasance.”

“This is a moment when we’ve got to understand that hundreds of millions of Muslims believe Islamic supremacism is God’s will, and they will engage in jihad – not just of the violent kind, Steve. They’ll do hijra, this migration, to expand the faith. They will use zakat, funding, material support if you will, for terrorism, to enrich and enable the jihad,” Gaffney warned.

“And, of course, they will do what the Muslim Brotherhood has been all about – we don’t even know they’re here for fifty years! They’ve been running what they call ‘civilization jihad’ against America, and it’s working. Part of why President Obama got it wrong, part of why President Bush got it wrong, why Republicans and Democrats in office have gotten it wrong, is the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in running influence operations that have obscure the true nature of sharia, and the jihad that it calls for,” he argued.

Gaffney declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is “absolutely a terrorist organization.”

“Its franchise Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. It aspires to use violence in the way of Allah, as its creed calls for. The federal government of the United States, under Republicans and Democrats, has repeatedly found it to be a terrorist organization. We need to designate it as such,” he urged, noting that Senator Ted Cruz – who Gaffney served as a national security adviser during his 2016 presidential campaign –  has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.

Bannon asked why only 80 Republicans in the House have signed on to the effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and asked why the other 252 Republicans were reluctant to do so.

“The bigger question is, why isn’t the State Department doing this right now?” Gaffney replied, pointing out that no new legislation would be required for them to do so.

As for the recalcitrant House Republicans, Gaffney said it goes back to Speaker Ryan: “If he doesn’t get what we’re up against, he’s not going to be supporting this legislation. One of the first things he could do, to show that he does get it, I believe would be to schedule this legislation that has been offered up, and has been now approved by the House Judiciary Committee, it is ready to go to the floor, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.”

“Get that floor time, get that vote. Demonstrate that Republicans do have a clue about the danger we’re facing, and are preparing to take responsible action,” Gaffney urged Ryan. “It’s what the public expects them to do. Look, we all, Republicans and Democrats, need them to do.”

Bannon rephrased that advice in somewhat stronger terms, saying Ryan should bring Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey before Congress to “keel-haul” them for security lapses that grow more obvious as each new detail of jihadi Omar Mateen leaks out through the media. He wondered how Ryan and his caucus could leave it up to media outlets like Breitbart News to hold the Administration accountable, when oversight is a clear duty of Congress.

“We need a serious investigation,” Gaffney agreed. “Those guys would claim, hey, wait a minute, we’re in the middle of an ongoing one with regard to this. The thing that needs to be investigated is how we got here.”

As a starting point for such an investigation, he recommended a book he co-authored with Center for Security Policy Vice-President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense.

He also recommended See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad  by Philip Haney, also a recent guest on Breitbart News Daily.

“There’s plenty of evidence that what we’ve been doing is willful blindness to a threat that has been metastasizing by the day. That ought to be the object of these investigations. You’ll find, if you ask the FBI – certainly the agents, if not the leadership – have you been handcuffed by this willful blindness, have you been kept from doing your job? They have. So has the military. So has the intelligence community. So have the DHS law enforcement guys,” Gaffney said.

“It’s going to get more of us killed, if we don’t get this corrected,” he warned.

“Republicans ought to be in the lead, because this is one of their strong suits, or at least has been historically, national security. They’re not measuring up. They’re not stepping up. We need them to do it, and I think Donald Trump is – you know, with all of his faults, and there are some – he’s got this right,” he said. “We don’t need to import more jihadists. The American people understand that. We need to  stop the ones that are here as well – even, and most especially, really, those that are doing business as the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “stealthily, covertly subverting us from within,” and “creating the infrastructure that jihadists are using around the world, to do the violent jihad as well. It’s both that we need to address.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Five Ways Political Correctness Kills Americans

OmarMateen2-640x480

Daily Caller, by Mark Tapson, June  15, 2016:

Political correctness in the federal government protected radical Islamic terrorist Omar Mateen in at least five ways during the months leading up to his deadly assault on a gay nightclub in Orlando, according to a national security expert.

“The fact is that the FBI did recognize Omar Mateen, twice in fact, but as a matter of official policy under the Obama administration’s politically correct ‘countering violent extremism’ policies, the institutional rules of our national security agencies as a matter of intentional design ensure that investigative clues are obscured,” Patrick Poole told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Poole is co-founder of Unconstrained Analytics, non-profit group dedicated to analyzing “evidence unconstrained by preconceptions and biases” concerning international terrorism. He has been a guest lecturer on counter-terrorism issues at the U.S. Army War College and a speaker at the Army Provost Marshal’s annual Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection conference.

  • PC blinds homeland defenders: Among the most controversial of the five factors Poole cited was a 2011 decision by FBI officials to remove from its counter-terrorism training materials references to all terms found objectionable by a team of Muslim experts retained by the Department of Justice. Despite congressional protests, the material was never restored.

As a result, “violent extremist” effectively became the official federal designation for individuals like Mateen, San Bernadino attackers Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook, Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, despite their shared devotion to radical Islamic movements, including ISIS and al Qaeda.

Political correctness in the federal government protected radical Islamic terrorist Omar Mateen in at least five ways during the months leading up to his deadly assault on a gay nightclub in Orlando, according to a national security expert.

“The fact is that the FBI did recognize Omar Mateen, twice in fact, but as a matter of official policy under the Obama administration’s politically correct ‘countering violent extremism’ policies, the institutional rules of our national security agencies as a matter of intentional design ensure that investigative clues are obscured,” Patrick Poole told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Poole is co-founder of Unconstrained Analytics, non-profit group dedicated to analyzing “evidence unconstrained by preconceptions and biases” concerning international terrorism. He has been a guest lecturer on counter-terrorism issues at the U.S. Army War College and a speaker at the Army Provost Marshal’s annual Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection conference.

  • PC blinds homeland defenders: Among the most controversial of the five factors Poole cited was a 2011 decision by FBI officials to remove from its counter-terrorism training materials references to all terms found objectionable by a team of Muslim experts retained by the Department of Justice. Despite congressional protests, the material was never restored.

As a result, “violent extremist” effectively became the official federal designation for individuals like Mateen, San Bernadino attackers Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook, Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, despite their shared devotion to radical Islamic movements, including ISIS and al Qaeda.

  • PC perverts religious tolerance: The FBI’s head-in-the-sand approach is also seen in a recently completed Department of Homeland Security report that directs federal officials there “not to use any language that might be ‘disrespectful’ to Muslims, including (but not limited to) the words ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia’ and ‘takfir.’” Poole said the policies recommended by the report are in effect throughout the federal government.

Among the federal agencies in DHS are the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration.

  • PC discourages witnesses: The refusal of federal officials to describe terrorist attacks by radical Islamic terrorists accurately also discourages citizens with important information that might prevent deaths and injuries from telling authorities what they know before it’s too late, according to Poole.

The refusal turns “suspicion around on anyone who recognizes the warning signs. When Mateen’s coworkers expressed concern about his extremist statements, the FBI dropped the case because they believed the coworkers, not the future killer, were the problem. The coworkers were deemed racist Islamophobes by the FBI, and Mateen’s behavior and statements were excused,” he told TheDCNF.

“We now have two terrorism cases with dead Americans six months apart, namely San Bernardino and Orlando, where potential witnesses did not report suspicious activity because they were afraid of being called racists and bigots,” Poole added.

  • PC gives cover to terrorist allies: Too often “dialogue” between federal officials and Muslim advocacy groups make it possible for organizations with confirmed terrorist links to influence government policy. Poole pointed to multiple meetings between Department of Justice officials and representatives of the Council for American-Islamic Relations in 2012.

Poole noted that “the FBI and DOJ responded by officially cutting ties with CAIR, but these same agencies regularly disregarded their own rules about engaging these extremist groups with a wink and a nod by the White House.”

  • PC hamstrings Congress: Poole pointed to controversial hearings convened in 2011 by Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican, focused radical Islamization among young American Muslims. King was subjected to relentless and often savage criticism in the media, often based on comments from individuals and groups with links to terrorist ties.

“The politicians on the Hill and elsewhere saw exactly what happened to Peter King when he tried tackle this issue head-on,” Poole told TheDCNF, adding that “these counter-terrorism failures will continue to occur” as long as long as Congress avoids taking decisive budget and legislative actions to end PC-based policies.

Follow Mark on Twitter

On ‘Radical Islam,’ Obama Contradicts Eight Years of Obama

President Obama speaks at the Treasury Department in Washington on June 14, 2016, following a meeting with his National Security Council. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

President Obama speaks at the Treasury Department in Washington on June 14, 2016, following a meeting with his National Security Council. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

National Review, by Andrew McCarthy, June 14, 2016:

In today’s meandering remarks on the Orlando jihadist attack, President Obama rebuked detractors who criticize him for failing to use the term “radical Islam” and be clear about the enemy waging war against the United States. “There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” the president declared. “It’s a political talking point, not a strategy.” Calling the enemy by a different name, he insisted, would not change the enemy’s behavior – would not “make it go away.”

When Obama speaks about our Islamist enemies, it is always tough to decide whether he is (a) arrogantly clueless (because he always thinks he knows more about this subject than anyone else), or (b) cynically well-aware that what he’s saying is nonsense.

It has been Obama who has maintained for the entirety of his presidency that we have to be careful about the language we use to describe our enemies because our words affect their self-perception and their behavior. Calling jihadists “jihadists,” we were told, gives them too much credit and esteem in their culture. We should, we were lectured, resist applying Islamic terms to them because that affirms their self-image: warriors in a great cause, rather than the perverters of a great religion.

This theory has always been absolute, unmitigated, one-hundred percent BS.

As I’ve argued about a million times, our enemies despise us and do not judge themselves by how we talk about them. At best, they are indifferent to our language; otherwise, they are so hostile that they mock our “progressive” obsession over it. Sharia supremacists have their own civilization and cultural norms by which they judge themselves. They couldn’t care less what we think.

I often use the example of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood honcho who is about as influential a Sunni sharia jurist as there is in the world. Sheikh Qaradawihas a lot to say about Christianity and Judaism. Do you care what he thinks? Has it even occurred to you to find out what he has said? Of course not. And why not? Because you don’t care. You are not going to do or refrain from doing something because of what Qaradawi might say. We have our own norms against which we judge ourselves. We don’t give a thought, never mind a second thought, to the language some high-profile sharia supremacist uses to describe us.

So why on earth would we think radical Muslims, or Muslims in general, are hanging on our every word? They’re not.

The point Obama detractors have made about his failure to name our enemies has to do with our mindset, not the enemy’s. The question is whether we understand what we are fighting.

Obama was indignant on this subject, simple-mindedly contending that because we’ve killed a lot of terrorists we must know what we’re doing and why. But the terrorists are the easy part. Do we understand that terrorists are fighting to impose sharia? Do we understand that lots of other Muslims are also pushing to impose sharia, though they are not necessarily using or endorsing violence? Do we understand that there is a sharia-supremacist movement seeking to sabotage us from within, seeking to integrate into our society without assimilating, seeking to become a viable fifth-column that advances the sharia agenda while radicalizing young Muslims?

Calling the enemy “radical Islam” – and better, discussing their sharia-supremacism – conveys that we understand that our enemies are not just the terrorists; they also include other radicals who want to spread sharia and supplant our Constitution with it. It further conveys that our Muslim friends and allies are the non-radicals who support and embrace Western liberalism.

January 20, 2017, cannot get here fast enough.

***

Bolton Rips ‘Narcissistic’ Obama: ‘A Small Man Who’s Never Been Qualified’

Also see:

Homeland Security Instructed To Combat Violent Extremism With Political Correctness

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testifies before a House Judiciary committee hearing on the 'Oversight of the US Department of Homeland Security' on Capitol Hill in Washington July 14, 2015. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testifies before a House Judiciary committee hearing on the ‘Oversight of the US Department of Homeland Security’ on Capitol Hill in Washington July 14, 2015. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

Daily Caller, by Peter Hassan, June 13 2016:

Less than a week before Omar Mateen walked into an Orlando gay club and killed or wounded more than 100 people, the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) submitted its Countering Violent Extremism report to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson. The report instructs the DHS not to use any language that might be “disrespectful” to Muslims, including (but not limited to) the words “jihad,” “sharia” and “takfir.”

The report was crafted by an HSAC subcommittee that Secretary Johnson created in November 2015. The head of that subcommittee, Farah Pandith, was appointed by Johnson in May 2015. The subcommittee published the report on June 9.

In addition to combatting violent extremism by reaching out to “gender diverse” Americans and teaching youth “appropriate online etiquette,” the report recommends that the DHS “avoid stigmatizing specific communities.”

The report urges DHS officials to “Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

For example, the report says the DHS should be “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma.’”

The report acknowledges that, “There is a disagreement among scholars, government officials, and activists about the right lexicon to use around the issues of violent extremism.”

Nevertheless, the report states, “Under no circumstance should we be using language that will alienate or be disrespectful of fellow Americans.”

“We must speak with honor and respect about all communities within the United States. We should give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation and advocate for a consistent whole of government approach that utilizes agreed terms and words. Tone and word choice matter,” the report states.

The report includes other recommendations for countering violent extremism, such as: “Focus on gender diversity of youth through careful attention to the range of push and pull factors that attract individuals of differing gender.”

The report also recommends countering extremism by teaching youth “appropriate online etiquette.”

The report instructs the DHS to “Develop a curriculum in partnership with the Department of Education and education experts and non-profits to disseminate to schools, teaching children appropriate online etiquette to mitigate online hate.”

The DHS website states that HSAC, “Provides organizationally independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary, including the creation and implementation of critical and actionable policies for the security of the homeland.”

Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

See also:

University Spikes Lecture Due to ‘Hateful’ Chalk Messages Criticizing Terrorists

Nonie-Darwish-facebook-photo-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 21, 2016:

It’s yet another story of politically-correct lunacy involving a university losing its collective cookies over chalk writings, but this time the “hateful” speech isn’t Donald Trump’s name.

It’s the question: “Why do terrorists hate America?”

That message, repeated in chalk advertisements and flyers, is the reason Wingate University in North Carolina cited when revoking the funding for a lecture by Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim of Egyptian descent. She is the author of several books, including Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad For America, Israel, and the War on Terror, and most recently The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East.

An administrator for Wingate University emailed Young Americans for Freedom, organizers of the event, to say that chalk advertisements for the lecture were of “extreme concern.”

“Concerns have also come to my attention regarding ‘flyers’ that have been posted around campus and although I have not seen them personally, this in conjunction with the concern of a number of individuals that have reached out to me is yet again concerning,” the administrator added.

Evidently not a matter of concern was the administrator’s admission that she hadn’t even seen the concerning messages that made her concerned enough to pull the plug on the concerning lecture this uncertain number of unnamed individuals expressed their concerns about.

The flyers and chalk drawings in question included the title of Darwish’s lecture: “Why Terrorists Hate America and the West.”

“We do not promote and/or associate hate with a Faith Lyceum event,” the administrator declared — an interesting standard, given that the Lyceum program compares itself to Aristotle’s lectures, boasts of airing “big ideas,” and claims to be a program “designed to expose students to ideas and opportunities they don’t have in the classroom.”

“I am requesting that you immediately remove all flyers that promote this event as a Lyceum and would ask that you remove all chalk advertisements as well,” the administrator told the YAF. “With this no longer being a Lyceum, I also am no longer able to fund this event and ask that you please plan accordingly.”

The Wingate YAF denounced the administrator’s decision as “cowardly” and “stepped in to pay the additional cost in order to ensure that students at Wingate University will have the opportunity to hear Nonie Darwish speak.”

“There are constant attempts to silence us by many Islamic organizations. We are the No. 1 target of jihadists and ISIS sympathizers who are now in all fifty states,” Darwish told Fox News just a few weeks ago, when discussing the fatwa (Islamic religious edict) that has been issued for her death.

She said “we” because the Fox report discussed five other women sentenced to death by Islamist edicts. One of them, cartoonist Molly Norris, was literally erased from society by a tidal wave of death threats, and a fatwa from Al-Qaeda guru Anwar al-Awlaki, because she drew unpublished images of Mohammed that were leaked onto the Internet. “There is no more Molly,” her erstwhile publisher Seattle Weekly wrote, by way of bidding her farewell when she went into hiding.

Apparently the jihad sympathizers Darwish spoke of are active at Wingate University, and their “concerns” are taken very seriously by the administration.

Hate Can Be a Virtue

de9a474abe02de62159350e76987d4e9
Published on Apr 7, 2016 by Political Islam

Progressives talk a lot about the evil of hate. We are told that if we object to Sharia law and jihad, then we are intolerant haters. But what about hating what harms people?

I hate wife-beating, yet the Sharia, Koran and Sunna support it.

I am intolerant of child abuse, including child marriage, but the Sunna and Sharia support it.

I hate the jihadist killings of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and apostates.

I am intolerant of religious leaders, such as the Pope and Dai Lama, who will not condemn the jihadic killing of their groups.

I hate dualistic ethics, which lack integrity.

I am intolerant of face coverings, since it cuts off open communication.

As a society, we have lost the ability to become morally outraged and are incapable of anger about the Islamic harm of innocents. I hate that.