Media Continues Gaslighting Somali Refugee’s Stabbing Terror Attack at Minnesota Mall

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Set. 18, 2017:

UPDATED: The Star Tribune reporter responds. See exchange below.

On the one-year anniversary of the terror attack in St. Cloud, Minnesota, where Somali refugee Dahir Adan walked into the Crossroads Center shopping mall and began stabbing shoppers (as he asked his victims if they were Muslim) and shouting “Allah akhbar,” the media is still remarkably unclear about Adan’s motives.

The attack was later claimed by the Islamic State, which declared that Adan was one of their “soldiers”.

But for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, there are still many doubts about Adan’s motive.

“Reporter” Stephen Montemayor tells us:

But one year after Adan’s rampage, newly unsealed court filings detailing the FBI’s early response underline the difficulty that persists in trying to unwrap the young man’s motivation and determine whether he had any guidance from virtual terror planners abroad.

Days after sending more than 20 agents to St. Cloud to interview scores of witnesses, the FBI obtained search warrants for Adan’s social media accounts, the Toyota Camry he was driving when he struck a bicyclist on his way to the mall and four digital devices, according to court filings. But authorities still say they may never know what sparked Adan’s decision to bring two Farberware kitchen knives to the mall that night.

FBI special agent in charge Richard Thornton told reporters last year that the bright young college student may have been radicalized “almost overnight,” growing withdrawn and scolding relatives for not being more devout […]

Authorities have not found contacts between Adan and operatives of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, instead pointing to witness statements that Adan shouted “Allahu akbar,” an Arabic phrase meaning “God is great,” and that he first asked some victims if they were Muslim before stabbing them.

Despite recounting the official claims of the attack by ISIS, testimony of the victims, and acknowledgement of Adan’s increasingly radicalized behavior, there still remains a great mystery to his motive according to the Star Tribune.

It seems what is going on is that the Star Tribune is taking the FBI saying that they can’t find a direct connection between Adan and ISIS and trying to gin that up into a controversy about what his motive was. However, these are not correlated issues.

To our knowledge and based on what has been reported, there is no indication that Adan ever claimed a direct connection to ISIS.

So how does the absence of any evidence of a direct connection, which was never claimed by Adan, suddenly throw into doubt all of the other available evidence? It doesn’t. That’s at the heart of the gaslighting that’s going on in this case.

And for local “activist” organizations quoted by Montemayor, that manufactured doubt about Adan’s motives now allows them to charge that others are able to “just fill in their own truths”:

The opacity of Adan’s case has been difficult for St. Cloud, said Natalie Ringsmuth, who directs #UniteCloud, a nonprofit that has worked to ease cultural tensions. Ringsmuth said the stabbing is still referenced by anti-Muslim activists visiting the city, as recently as last week. Meanwhile, she said not knowing whether Adan was indeed radicalized has curbed the opportunity to discuss preventing a similar episode.

“We don’t know specifically how to talk about it,” she said. “And we find when there are not clear-cut answers or the truth is not available, people just fill in their own truths.”

According to this “activist” we can’t even know if Adan was radicalized as he was stabbing people shouting “Islam, Islam” and “Allah akhbar”!

This is why the Star Tribune‘s gaslighting is so twisted. The facts of this case with respective to Adan’s motive are well established. Then the Star Tribune creates a controversy to now claim that there’s uncertainty and nobody else can take the available evidence at face value. If you don’t remain agnostic as to Adan’s motives, you’re now the one jumping to conclusions.

It must be mentioned that the initial coverage of the attack by the Star Tribune last year was not only deliberately vague (Adan was never named), but written so awkwardly in the passive voice that one could have easily concluded that the attack was committed by someone with anti-Muslim grievances, not a devotee of jihadist ideology:

Read more

HOW CAN WE DEFEAT AN ENEMY WE CAN’T IDENTIFY?

aliven | Getty Images

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, Sept, 11, 2017:

Sixteen years after 9/11, Washington is still afraid to the name the enemy.

It continues to be painfully difficult for our leaders to utter the words “radical Islam” or any substitute meant to connote that there is a religious element to the global jihad being waged upon us. As with Voldemort in the Harry Potter series, presidents since 9/11 have chosen not to name the enemy, instead referring to our jihadi adversaries as “extremists” or “terrorists” and countless other boilerplate terms determined by our representatives in government as politically appropriate.

The whitewashing of the very Islamic nature of jihadi terror not only misleads the public, but makes it impossible for government and military officials to focus on what is motivating our enemies and how to stop them from continuing to threaten us. What is it that connects the ISIS leader in Raqqa to the hate-preaching U.S.-born Imam in California to the Uighur militants in western China? To our 21st century leadership, it’s not radical Islamic doctrine, but some kind of widespread mental disorder without a name.

From Presidents Bush 43 to Obama and now President Trump, the leader of the free world since 9/11 has pointedly refused to name the enemy that seeks our demise.

And although Osama bin Laden justified the killings of Americans in the name of Islam (through religious declarations known as fatwas), discussion about the radical Islamic component of 9/11 were immediately quashed. We were told there are no issues with Islam whatsoever, even as millions and millions took up arms against the West, citing Islam’s call for war against infidels.

Everyone had their excuses for failing to define the enemy.

To Presidents Bush and Obama, groups like al-Qaeda and other jihadist entities were merely a bunch of deranged, bloodthirsty maniacs who were not linked by any particular doctrine.

President Bush took pains to ignore the dangerous components of Islam and define it wholly as a “religion of peace.”

Just six days after the attacks, Bush remarked at the Islamic Center of Washington: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”

Bush 43’s gross abdication of responsibility in defining our enemies continued into the Obama era.

President Obama became famously known for making sure to censor language that could possibly be interpreted as connecting our Islamic enemies (such as the terror state in Iran and the Islamic State terror group) to the Muslim faith.

“ISIL is not Islamic … ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple, and it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way, ” President Obama said in a 2014 speech.

To both Obama and Bush, jihadist groups killed for the sake of killing, and nothing more, at least according to their public messaging.

“There is no doubt, and I’ve said repeatedly, where we see terrorist organizations like al Qaeda or ISIL — They have perverted and distorted and tried to claim the mantle of Islam for an excuse for basically barbarism and death,” Obama said in a 2016 town hall.

And then came President Trump.

On the campaign trail, Trump ran as a candidate who had no issue with defining our enemy as “radical Islamic terrorists.” But since becoming president, he has fallen prey to the D.C. Swamp’s way of thinking on the issue.

Comparable to his predecessors, Trump has largely refrained from addressing the ideology that motivated the 9/11 hijackers. In his most recent speech on Afghanistan, Trump did not once discuss radical Islam, but only the “evil ideology” of our enemies. Like Bush and Obama, Trump has taken to understanding global jihadists as just a bunch of random lowlives.

“Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators and — that’s right — losers,” Trump said in his Afghanistan speech.

We must never forget that the 9/11 hijackers were not poor, delusional individuals, as previous administrations tried to frame them. They were motivated by a specific doctrine. It wasn’t a coincidence that they used the Islamic war cry “Allahu Akbar” as they carried out by far the deadliest terror attack in American history.

But you can’t begin to defeat an enemy when you refuse to identify what it stands for. Even our Arab Muslim partners have come to determine and point out that there is a branch of Islamic doctrine that is growing at an exponential rate. Now is the time for our leaders to stand with them and take on this ideological enemy.

Sixteen years after 9/11, our leaders continue to pretend that there is no interconnectedness to the global threat of radical Islamic terror. If the politically correct policies of shielding Islam from the implications of terror continue, America’s long war will become its forever war.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Vehicular Jihad Comes to Barcelona

Meanwhile, on CNN, the denial and willful ignorance continue.

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Aug. 18, 2017:

In Spain Thursday, a man drove a truck into a crowd at Barcelona’s popular Costa Dorada area, killing at least 13 and injuring 100. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer asked, “There will be questions about copycats. Questions, if what happened in Barcelona, was at all, at all, a copycat version of what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.”

No, Wolf, it was a phenomenon with which you and your CNN colleagues have only a glancing familiarity: Islamic jihad. Of course Wolf Blitzer immediately reached for a connection with Charlottesville, because he most likely doesn’t believe that there are Islamic jihadis at all, just mentally ill lone wolves driven to violence by “Islamophobia.” Jihad doesn’t fit his network’s narrative. And vehicular jihad? Wolf has never heard of such a thing.

Last June, the Islamic State published a poster depicting an SUV driving over a heap of skulls and bearing the legend “Run Over Them Without Mercy.”

And the Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Many Muslims in the West have heeded this call. The man who rented the van used in the Barcelona attack was a Muslim from Morocco named Driss Oukabier, who was arrested, while one of his apparent accomplices was killed in a gun battle with police. This could have been just one part of a much larger jihad plot, as Spanish police now believe that a massive explosion in a house in Alcanar, 120 miles south of Barcelona, was also linked to the Barcelona jihad plotters.

There have been many other vehicular jihad attacks. Just last week in France, a Muslim named Hamou Bachirhit six French soldiers with his car in Levallois-Perret, where the headquarters of the DGSI (General Directorate for Internal Security), the country’s primary counter-terrorism intelligence agency, are located. In June, a Muslim drove his car into a crowd on the London Bridge and then jumped out and started stabbing people. We have seen several other vehicular jihadis get out of the car after they plowed into pedestrians, and start stabbing people. In June 2015, a Muslim in Austria drove his car into a crowd, killing three, and then got out and stabbed passersby. Then in November 2016, a Muslim student at Ohio State University named Abdul Razak Ali Artan drove his car into a crowd, then got out and stabbed several others.

There have been many others in 2016 and this year: in Nice, in Berlin, in Jerusalem, in Paris, and elsewhere. Yet on CNN and elsewhere in the establishment media, no analysts have connected the dots between these jihad attacks, which have an obvious connection with one another in sharing the same motivating ideology and the same goal. But Wolf Blitzer readily sees a wholly imaginary connection between Charlottesville (in which a neo-Nazi was imitating jihadis, not the other way around) and Barcelona, because he wishes to exaggerate the importance and influence of white supremacists, while minimizing the magnitude of the jihad threat.

And so it goes in the daily news of the contemporary West: another jihad massacre, and another reason to turn off CNN.

Also see:

Denmark Hails ‘Hug a Terrorist’ Scheme, Jihadists Given Homes and Jobs

HAIDAR HAMDANI/AFP/Getty

Breitbart. by Liam Deacon, Aug. 11, 2017:

Denmark’s second largest city is attempting to tackle terrorism by offering jihadists “empathy” in a programme dubbed “hug a terrorist”.

Whilst Danes who have fought against Islamic State have been threatened with jail on their return from Syria, terrorists are being offered enormous privileges, including apartments, education, and jobs, to encourage them to rejoin society.

Proponents of the police-run scheme in Aarhus say that jihadists are “isolated” and struggling to integrate, and claim that offering them kindness and forgiveness will deter them from their murderous ideology.

However, Danish politician Naser Khader, a Muslim born in Syria, says it sends the wrong message and rewards terrorists who have effectively made war on the West and its values.

He told Australian news programme Dateline the “hug a terrorist” model tells young Muslims: “Go out and do something criminal, be jihadis, you will get a lot of privilege from the society. That’s wrong in my opinion.”

However, members of the police are in favour.

“We had a number of options,” Superintendent Allan Aarslev told Dateline. “We could prosecute them all if we can find evidence, however those we couldn’t prosecute, what should we do about them?”

He claimed “most” of those returning from Syria are now “very well integrated and most of them are very happy to have had a second chance”.

Adding: “These are men who have been to Syria and we don’t know what they have been doing down there and that’s the choice we have to make – between helping them and leaving them alone.

“From my point of view, it would be much more safe for the local community here to help these young men to have a normal life after they have returned than to leave them alone.”

He added: “If we did not integrate them into the local community again they would be a safety hazard for us.”

In contrast to the treatment of Islamists, a Danish woman who fought Islamic State in Syria claims she has been demonised and forced into hiding since returning to Europe.

Joanna Palani fought with Kurdish peshmerga and YPG forces and claims to have killed up to 100 terrorists and freed female sex slaves and children.

She was handed a 12-month travel ban to prevent her from travelling back to the conflict zone in September 2015 and was threatened with jail when she flew to Qatar.

Speaking last year, her lawyer, Erbil Kaya, noted the irony of seeking to prosecute someone who fought on the same side as Danish troops whilst the government seeks to rehabilitate returning Islamic State fighters.

“It’s a shame. We are the first country in the world to punish a person who has been fighting on the same side as the international coalition,” she told The Guardian.

“It’s hypocritical to punish her. Why don’t we punish the people who fight for Isis instead of people who are fighting on the same side as Denmark?… I don’t think it makes sense.”

Also see:

Robert Spencer: Do Islamic Jihadis Really Lack A Basic Understanding of Islam?

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Aug. 9, 2017:

My latest over at the Geller Report:

Pope Francis and H. R. McMaster and John Kerry and so many other learned imams have assured us over the years that Islamic terrorism has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and now there is proof, or what purports to be proof, in the form of a study from no less august an authority than the United Nations.

The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism has released a new study claiming that Islamic State jihadis “have low levels of education and ‘lack any basic understanding of the true meaning of jihad or even the Islamic faith.’”

The study found that most of these jihadis “saw their religion in terms of justice and injustice rather than in terms of piety and spirituality,” and that the typical jihad warrior “is most likely to be male, young and disadvantaged economically, educationally, and in terms of the labour market. He is also more likely than not to come from a marginalised background, both socially and politically. Most were unemployed, or underemployed, and/or said that their life lacked meaning.”

This study directly contradicts the results of another new study that was conducted in Germany, which found that “the widespread view that radical Muslims know little about Islam is wrong.”

Which study are we to believe? Well, this one reinforces the common view that a typical jihadi “is most likely to be male, young and disadvantaged economically, educationally, and in terms of the labour market.”

Yet study after study (of a more honest variety) has shown that poverty and lack of opportunity don’t really cause terrorism at all. The Economist reported in 2010: “Social scientists have collected a large amount of data on the socioeconomic background of terrorists. According to a 2008 survey of such studies by Alan Krueger of Princeton University, they have found little evidence that the typical terrorist is unusually poor or badly schooled.”

In the same vein, CNS News noted in September 2013: “According to a Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009, ‘Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.’ One of the authors of the RAND report, Darcy Noricks, also found that according to a number of academic studies, “Terrorists turn out to be more rather than less educated than the general population.”

The Times Online reported the following as far back as April 2005: “Three-quarters of the Al-Qaeda members were from upper middle-class homes and many were married with children; 60% were college educated, often in Europe or the United States.”

There are innumerable examples of affluent Muslims becoming jihad terrorists. One was Maher “Mike” Hawash of Portland, Oregon, a well-regarded Intel executive who made $360,000 a year at the crest of a highly successful career. Around the year 2000, Hawash began to become more religious, growing his beard long, rejecting the nickname “Mike,” and attending the supremacist Islamic Center of Portland. Ultimately he served a seven-year prison term for conspiring to aid the Taliban.

What’s more, there is plenty of evidence that Islamic State jihadis know the Qur’an well. One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an. An Islamic State propagandist’s parents said of him: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.” A Muslim politician from Jordan said that the Islamic State’s “doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.” There are innumerable other examples of this.

So this UN study appears to be simply an advertisement for the failed policies that the West is already implementing regarding the jihad threat. They have to keep pumping out propaganda such as this, because their policies are such obvious failures, they can only be shored up by lies.

State Department Officials Quitting Over “Complete and Utter Disdain for our Expertise”

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Aug. 3, 2017:

The New York Times reported last Friday that “an exodus is underway” in the State Department. The Times didn’t think this was good news; it gave space to one career diplomat who lamented that there was “complete and utter disdain for our expertise.”

This could be the best news to come out of Washington since the Trump administration took office.

We can only hope that with the departure of these failed State Department officials, their failed policies will be swept out along with them. Chief among these is the almost universally held idea that poverty causes terrorism. The United States has wasted uncounted (literally, because a great deal of it was in untraceable bags full of cash) billions of dollars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries in the wrongheaded assumption that Muslims turn to jihad because they lack economic opportunities and education. American officials built schools and hospitals, thinking that they were winning over the hearts and minds of the locals.

Fifteen years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later, no significant number of hearts and minds have been won. This is partly because the premise is wrong. The New York Times reported in March that “not long after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…Alan B. Krueger, the Princeton economist, tested the widespread assumption that poverty was a key factor in the making of a terrorist. Mr. Krueger’s analysis of economic figures, polls, and data on suicide bombers and hate groups found no link between economic distress and terrorism.”

CNS News noted in September 2013 that “according to a Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009, ‘Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.’ One of the authors of the RAND report, Darcy Noricks, also found that according to a number of academic studies, ‘Terrorists turn out to be more rather than less educated than the general population.’”

Yet the analysis that poverty causes terrorism has been applied and reapplied and reapplied again. The swamp is in dire need of draining, and in other ways as well. From 2011 on, it was official Obama administration policy to deny any connection between Islam and terrorism. This came as a result of an October 19, 2011 letter from Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, and later served in the Obama administration as head of the CIA. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups demanded that the task force “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and moreto ensure that all that law enforcement officials would learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn.

Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were removed from coounterterror training. Today, even with Trump as President, this entrenched policy of the U.S. government remains, and ensures that all too many jihadists simply cannot be identified as risks, since the officials are bound as a matter of policy to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Trump and Tillerson must reverse this. Trump has spoken often about the threat from “radical Islamic terrorism”; he must follow through and remove the prohibitions on allowing agents to study and understand the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat.

The swamp needs draining indeed. This news from the State Department, and the New York Times’ grief over it, are good signs that the U.S. is on its way back on dry land.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

U.S. House rejects plan to identify the enemy

WND, by Art Moore, July 17, 2017:

With more than 20 Republicans joining Democrats, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment that would identify the “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups.

The amendment, drafted by House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was defeated Friday by a 208 to 217 vote.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. (WND photo)

It called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views, Politico reported.

Robert Spencer, the author of numerous books on Islam and the director of Jihad Watch, wrotethat the bill’s defeat was a demonstration of the unwillingness of Congress to confront the issue honestly.

He said “choosing denial and willful ignorance instead of knowledge of the motivating ideology of the jihadis who have vowed to destroy us” is “just asking to be defeated.”

Spencer pointed to the complaint of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress, that the bill would put “extra scrutiny” on Islam.

Spencer agreed that would be the case. But he argued there’s a reason for it: “30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001.”

“No one religion has anything approaching that kind of record of death and destruction,” he said. “So why shouldn’t we put extra scrutiny on that religion?”

Ellison said: “If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion.”

Ellison also contended the law would abridge the free exercise of a particular religion.

But Spencer argued that “the free exercise of any religion is not a license to break existing laws.”

“The free exercise of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion or sedition,” he said.

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.

The amendment would have required the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

“There is nothing ‘unorthodox’ about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine,” Spencer said. “But even this tepid recommendation was too much for the short-sighted 217 cowards of the House, who have passed up an opportunity to strengthen our defense against the global jihad.”

Along with Muslim interest groups, the proposal was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it would unfairly target Muslims.

Ellison tweeted after the amendment’s defeat: “Good happens – even in Congress! Franks Amendment singling out Muslims rejected; Congress declines to ‘abridge free exercise’ of religion.”

Politico reported Franks said he would work with his colleagues to try to modify the amendment so it will pass eventually.

“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”

The congressman said he and his colleagues have “worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody.” he said.

“But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad,” he said.

The amendment, Politico said, would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”

‘Corrupted’ Islam

WND reported last month that despite signs that the new Trump administration intends to reform a politically correct national security policy, euphemistically called Countering Violent Extremism, and begin naming the enemy, the rhetoric of Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly suggests the government’s fundamental assumptions about the threat haven’t changed.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly

Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee in June 22 that the perpetrators of attacks during the Islamic month of Ramadan have “corrupted” Islam, and he suggested Christian and Jewish beliefs are also causing terrorism, Breitbart reported.

“As far as Ramadan goes, you know, first of all, the uptick in violence and activities is done by a very, very small percentage of people who have just corrupted the whole concept of Islam as a religion; but it is what it is,” Kelly told the chairman of the committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

Similarly, President Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, told his staff in February that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are “perverting their religion,” the New York Times reported, citing people at the meeting.

McMaster said the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic.”

The Times quote William McCants, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, saying there is “a deep hunger for McMaster’s view in the interagency,” referring to the process by which the State Department, Pentagon and other agencies funnel recommendations through the National Security Council.

In his speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last month to Muslim political leaders, President Trump appeared to distance himself from campaign rhetoric that suggested Islam itself is the problem.

“This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it,” the president said.

DHS denies funding to Islamic group

There are indications, however, that DHS policy is changing. The department recently ruled the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council – a group founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood – will not receive the $393,800 Countering Violent Extremism grant approved by Obama’s DHS secretary, Jeh Johnson, on Jan. 13, days before Johnson left office, reported the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The change came after “DHS utilized its discretion to consider other factors and information when reviewing applicants,” a spokeswoman said in an email to IPT.

“The Department considered whether applicants for CVE awards would partner with law enforcement, had a strong basis of prior experience in countering violent extremism, had a history of prior efforts to implement prevention programs targeting violent extremism, and were viable to continue after the end of the award period.”

Also see: