Cruz Tears Into DHS Chief Over ‘Systematic Scrubbing’ of Radical Islam During Contentious Exchange

C-SPAN 2 Screengrab

C-SPAN 2 Screengrab

The Blaze, by Jason Howerton, June 30, 2016:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Thursday over the “systematic scrubbing of law enforcement and intelligence materials,” connecting the issue to the 2014 Fort Hood shooting and other attacks.

Cruz began by comparing the number of references to “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam” found in the 9/11 commission report to the number found in several of the Obama administration’s intelligence and counterterrorism materials.

“The word ‘jihad’ appears in that report 126 times, the world ‘Muslim’ appears in that report 145 times, the world ‘Islam’ appears in that report 322 times,” he said sternly. “And yet since that 9/11 commission report, different policies have come into effect. And as a matter of systematic policy, those terms are no longer allowed to be used in this administration.”

Johnson told Cruz repeatedly that he has no knowledge efforts to “purge” DHS material of references to radical Islam. The DHS chief went on to claim that conceding the Islamic State is connected to Islam only gives the terrorist group what it wants.

Cruz ultimately cut off Johnson to reclaim his speaking time.

“You’re entitled to give speeches other times,” Cruz said. “My question was if you were aware that the information has been scrubbed.”

Watch the entire contentious exchange below:

Cruz also pushed back against Johnson’s assertion that removing references to radical Islam is merely a “semantic difference.”

“When you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur,” Cruz said.

The Texas senator suggested the Fort Hood shooting may have been one of those instances. When bluntly asked by Cruz if it was a “mistake” not to respond to the “red flags” in regards to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, Johnson accused Cruz of citing incorrect information.

“In one minute, I couldn’t begin to answer your question,” he said.

“Pick anything,” Cruz shot back. “Pick one thing, sir.”

“You’re assuming that the federal government in advance of the attack on Fort Hood saw all these different red flags. That’s not correct,” Johnson said.

That’s when Cruz got specific.

“Is it true or false that the Obama administration knew before the attack that Nidal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki?” Cruz asked.

“How are you defining the ‘Obama administration,’ sir?” Johnson said.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Cruz responded.

“The entire Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can’t answer that question sitting here,” Johnson answered.

“The answer is ‘yes’ and it’s public record, sir,” Cruz retorted.

Cruz went on to cite “red flags” missed in the Boston bombings and San Bernardino attack.

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 and 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

Ted Cruz GRILLS Muslim Advocates president who SCRUBBED the FBI lexicon


The Rebel, by VICTOR LASZLO, June 29, 2016:

Farhana H. Khera, President of Muslim Advocates, is questioned by Ted Cruz June 28 during a congressional committee called, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism”

In this video she tries not to answer the question as to why she pressed the Obama administration to expunge all language referring to Islamic Terror from security services such as the FBI’s lexicons.

It has been argued that the refusal to allow the FBI to pursue avenues of investigation based on terms such as “Jihad” or “Ummah” in the language found on surveillance materials directly led to the Boston Marathon bombing being carried out although the FBI were aware of the perpetrators and aware of the ideology they subscribed to.

Also very likely the San Bernardino attacks for the same reason.

Ms. Khera says in this video: “…Regardless of their race, religion or ideology”.

To discriminate on the basis of ideology is not the same as race.

In fact, ideology is what in rational times, societies based on reason would call “motive”.

Also see:

Understanding the threat here in America

431531030Secure Freedom Radio, June 22, 2016:

With JOHN GUANDOLO, President and Founder of Understanding the, veteran of Desert Storm, and former commanding officer of an FBI SWAT team.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Elaboration on the nature of Sharia and jihad
  • The lone wolf fallacy
  • PC culture’s protection of Islam

(PART TWO): Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Propaganda of ISNA, MSA, and CAIR
  • James Clapper’s classification of the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular” group
  • Origins and problems with “Countering Violent Extremism”

(PART THREE): Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Willful blindness to the true enemy
  • Marxist/socialist penetration of the US government
  • Dangers of classifying civilization jihad as a conspiracy theory

(PART FOUR): Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Origins of the term “islamophobia”
  • Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in use by violent jihadists

(PART FIVE) Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • “Countering Violent Extremism” Program passed by Congress
  • Zakat Foundation’s funding of NPR
  • Islamophobia labels and its use to silence opposition

To Define Is To Limit: Obama’s Rhetorical Vacillations Leave Terror Unbound


Philos Project, by Marc, Livecche, June 22, 2016:

On Tuesday, President Obama indulged in a particularly inane rant against those who take him to task for refusing to call the actions of self-proclaimed radical Islamists – from Fort Hood to Boston to Paris to San Bernardino and, now, to Orlando – for what they are. “What exactly would using this label accomplish?” he asked. Declaring that no strategy has been compromised by not using the term, Obama insisted that there is no military or tactical value in bothering about the language used to identify the enemy. To suggest otherwise is, to our President, simply “political distraction.” Actually, he suggests, it’s much worse than that.

Obama insisted that calling Muslims who commit terrorism in the name of their faith “radical Islamists” only plays into the hands of those same terrorists, aiding in their venture to start a war between Islam and the West. Making the extraordinary claim that using such terms validates the claim of groups like ISIL and al Qaeda that they represent all Muslims by “implying that they speak for those billion-plus people”, Obama warned the U.S. not to “fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion.” To do so would be to do the terrorist’s work for them.

It turns out, Obama reassures us, that his obfuscation is actually a gambit that has “everything to do with defeating extremism.” Realizing that “calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away,” Obama revealed that by not referencing the terrorists as radical Islamists, he has avoided “fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims.” Against this wisdom, Obama draws a bright line between those whose “loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we’re fighting” leads them to call the enemy radical Islamists and Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants. How, precisely, the two go hand-in-hand, the president did not make clear.

Obama challenged the U.S. by asking “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?” The following two suggestions are in direct response to his challenge:

First, as terrorism expert Sebastian Gorka points out in his new book Defeating Jihad, it is important to fully understand the enemy, to understand their aims and motivations, and to grasp the terms of the fight at hand. Radical Islamic terrorism is not, pace the Obama administration, “the result of poverty, unemployment, and lack of political enfranchisement.” Rather it emerges from a totalizing ideology seeking “to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world.” Against the administration’s fallacy, only an honest analysis of the enemy will clarify the situation.

Radical Islam demonstrates a “religious fervor combined with an un-Western degree of patience that produces a lethal and unbelievably resilient commitment to its cause.” Gorka continues, “ISIS and the broader global jihadist movement pose an existential threat to the United States because they are based upon the inherently undemocratic ideology of takfiri jihad, which denies that Western democracy and Islam can peacefully coexist.” Understanding Radical Islamism for what it is helps the U.S. understand that itcannot be negotiated nor reasoned with, for these fanatics will offer no terms of surrender nor will they ever trade their own eschatological hopes for any paltry alternative offered for the sake of peace. It makes sense, even military sense, to acknowledge this.

This leads to the second point in response to Obama’s challenge. If Gorka is correct, then something crucial becomes self-evident. Several Americans are happy to have a good many Muslim friends who clearly believe that Islam and Western democracy actually canpeacefully, even happily, coexist. By qualifying as “radical Islamists” those Muslims who violently and imperialistically refuse to countenance this co-existence are instantly distanced from those that Americans label as friends. This is what definitions do.

To “define” is to specify, to bring something to conclusion. Etymologically it emerges directly from the Latin definire – to determine, to explain, to bound. That is to say: to define is to limit. Obama is worried that to call the terrorists radical Islamists is to paint with a wide brush. Quite the opposite is true: to define the terrorists for what they are is to make distinctions, it is to separate the beasts into their own fetid coral, it is to rightly limit the menace to the relative few.

Obama, in his ignorance, renders a disservice to America’s Muslim neighbors of goodwill. Not only does the president leave them (and America’s national election) vulnerable to the Donald Trumps of America – whose “straight talk” is seen as a relief from Obama’s cowardly equivocations – but in failing to make distinctions between Muslims of goodwill and the terrorists, Obama also occludes the fact that there is an internecine struggle within the Muslim world. As Gorka stresses:

We are not at war with Islam. The people most immanently in danger, in fact, are the nonviolent and non-extremist Muslims of the Middle East, such as our allies in Jordan and the modern Muslims of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. They are on the most important front of this war, and they understand just how much religion truly matters.

While the U.S. must support these allies, not only in a shared military struggle against radical Islamists, but by coupling this martial endeavor with the crucial strengthening of America’s partner’s own information warfare campaigns and counterpropaganda measures against jihadi recruitment efforts.

Words matter, the right words matter most: they ground expectations and help set strategy. Obama’s rhetorical vacillations are a political distortion of the actual threat, and they do nothing to keep America safe.

Also see:

House To Hold Hearing On DHS Readiness After Reauthorizing Agency’s Politically Correct Training Program

ISIS (1)Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, June 17 2016:

WASHINGTON — A week after House Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly passed a bill that reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security’s controversial “Countering Violent Extremism” training, the committee that crafted the bill is holding a hearing next Thursday to ask how prepared DHS is.

The House Homeland Security Committee’s Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee is expected to have a hearing next Thursday asking how prepared DHS is to address terrorist threats.

CVE training, The Daily Caller previously reported in 2013, stresses personnel appease different cultural backgrounds. For example, under the section of being “sensitive to constitutional values,” it suggests, “Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally-protected activity, including disliking the U.S. government without being violent.”

In addition, the policy manual, which was created by an inter-agency working group from DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center, urges, “Trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.”

DHS CRCL CVE Training – Dos and Donts

When asked by The Daily Caller what the intent of including CVE training in the bill, a House homeland committee aide said it was to “expand the number of people familiar with the material and specifically these three things that they have been doing for the last few years now, because there’s a very small team at the department that’s really active with the CVE.”

The aide added that travel makes up a large portion of their budget. And the genesis for the idea came from the notion that “generic training material community awareness briefings—those types of things, if more people were trained on them they would have a wider reach.”

The FBI found itself in a similar situation in 2011, when Justice Department’s subject matter experts deemed its training manual and several instructors culturally insensitive to Muslims. Both the materials and the instructors were purged from the agency. The agency adopted a CVE training policy thereafter.

TheDC asked House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday if the GOP is so concerned about law enforcement being unable to investigate subjects with Islamic backgrounds as a result of accusations of discrimination, then why Republicans overwhelmingly support the bill?

“I had concerns about this aspect of DHS and one of the reasons why we delayed the markup of the homeland security bill in the appropriations committee is because we wanted to look at all these issues to see if something needed to be improved through the appropriations process and that’s one of our concerns,” Ryan said.

Follow Kerry on Twitter


Also see:

Homeland Security Report Calls for Rejecting Terms ‘Jihad,’ Sharia’

An ISIS propaganda shows Omar Mateen who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, with 'Islamic State' blazoned behind him / AP

An ISIS propaganda shows Omar Mateen who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, with ‘Islamic State’ blazoned behind him / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, June 17, 2016:

A new Department of Homeland Security report urges rejecting use of Islamic terms such as “jihad” and “sharia” in programs aimed at countering terrorist radicalization among American youth.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council report recommends that the department focus on American milliennials by allocating up to $100 million in new funding. It also urges greater private sector cooperation, including with Muslim communities, to counter what is described as a “new generation of threats to the Homeland related to the threat of violent extremism.”

The funds would be used for hiring experts and new social media programs and technology to influence young people not to join terror groups.

“The department’s CVE efforts are an attempt to protect our nation’s young people from extremists who prey upon the Millennial generation,” the report says.

“The department must reframe the conversation to reflect this reality and design a robust program around the protection of our youth, which must include predator awareness and an understanding of radicalization. In doing so, our citizens will be better equipped for this threat.”

Under the section on terminology, the report calls for rejecting use of an “us versus them” mentality by shunning Islamic language in “Countering Violent Extremism” programs, or CVE, the Obama administration’s euphemism that seeks to avoid references to Islam.

Under a section on recommended actions on terminology, the report says DHS should “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

Government agencies should employ “American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma,’” states the June 2016 report by the Council’s countering violent extremism subcommittee.

Jihad is the Islamic concept of holy war that is the primary call to arms for Islamic terrorist groups around the world, including the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharia law is the anti-democratic Islamic supremacist legal code that critics say has prevented U.S. Muslims from assimilating into American society. Takfir is the Arabic term for apostasy, and umma is the word used to describe the entire Muslim community.

The DHS report stated that to avoid a confrontational “us versus them” stance in public efforts to counter Islamic radicalization, government programs should use the term “American Muslim” instead of “Muslim American.”

The limits on counterterrorism terminology outlined in the report are the latest sign of verbal censorship within government imposed by President Obama. The president this week launched into an angry public denunciation of Republican critics of his policy of avoiding use of the expression “radical Islam.”

Obama sought to deny charges that political correctness was behind the policy of not linking Islamic terrorism to its religious roots, and dismissed those who favor highlighting the links as a Republican political ploy.

The comments prompted a backlash from counterterrorism experts who say that failing to publicly link Islamic terrorism to its religious tenets makes it more difficult to counter jihadist ideology.

The terrorist attack Sunday in Orlando was carried out by a radical Muslim, Omar Mateen, who declared loyalty to ISIS during the rampage that killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on Sunday. The FBI said Mateen was “radicalized” through the Internet.

President Obama’s program to counter ISIS came under fire from CIA Director John Brennan during a Senate hearing Thursday.

Some gains are being made in taking back territory controlled by ISIS and limiting its finances, according to Brennan.

“Unfortunately, despite all of our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” he said.

“The resources needed for terrorism are very modest, and the group would have to suffer even heavier losses on territory, manpower, and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly.”

The DHS report said the average age for foreign fighters joining ISIS is 26, with the Internet “playing a primary or contributing role” in radicalization.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kansas) a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, criticized the DHS language restrictions.

“The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Interim Report makes the dangerous recommendation that the Obama administration continue to deny the threat that radical Islamic terrorism poses,” Pompeo said.

“Jihadists are the ones who have made this fight ‘us vs. them’ with every violent terrorist attack—from bringing down the World Trade Center towers, killing American soldiers overseas, beheading journalists, or shooting Americans in Orlando,” he added. “DHS’s emphasis here on political correctness is absolutely dangerous and places America and our military at risk.”

In the Senate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said the administration’s failure to properly address radical Islam has made the country less safe.

“Over and over again, we have seen the Obama administration having ample information to stop a terrorist attack, and yet because of the political correctness, because of the ideology of this administration that won’t even say the word ’jihad,’ won’t even say the words ’radical Islamic terrorism,’ they look the other way and the attacks go forward,” Cruz said in a Senate floor speech Thursday.

Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism expert, said that banning the jihadist terminology is similar to “Newspeak,” the fictional language used for totalitarian control in George Orwell’s book 1984.

“This is simply outrageous from the perspective of national security,” said Gorka, the Horner chair of military theory at Marine Corps University.

“Banning words that our political elite don’t like is not only a contravention of the First Amendment, it directly endangers the lives of Americans,” he added.

“When the enemy that slaughters our citizens in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Boston calls themselves ‘jihadis’ no one, not even the president, has the right to censor that reality and give them another name.”

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official now with the American Enterprise Institute, said the report’s concerns about terminology are hindering counterterrorism efforts.

“If the Obama team and DHS used half the effort they expend debating vocabulary actually advancing strategies to stymie and defeat enemies, America would be safer,” he said.

The report also recommends using former terrorists in “programming and messaging” efforts, including “far right, anti-government, and other extremists groups.” The report also mentions white supremacist, sovereign citizen, and anarchist groups as posing a terror threat but makes no mention of left-wing extremist groups.

The report also calls for a focus on “gender diversity of youth through careful attention to the range of push and pull factors that attract individuals of differing gender.” The gender focus was not further explained.

On the use of social media, “the department must fully understand and leverage social media in its policy and programmatic activities,” the report said.

America’s children, the report says, will grow up in a world of expanding human ingenuity and knowledge. “As that process of human evolution, including the expansion of freedom and liberties across the globe proceeds, our government must remain vigilant, adapt, and evolve to protect them,” the report concludes, adding that “we must do so by demonstrating faith in the American people, in their government, and we must be confident in the power of America’s ideas.”

A DHS spokeswoman had no immediate comment.

Farah Pandith, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow, and chairman of the panel that produced the report, did not return emails seeking comment.

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.


Five Ways Political Correctness Kills Americans


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

Time for Obama to face the problem of radical Islam


The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka June 14, 2016:

ISIS has stated in their English language publications that they will and are using the refugee streams. This happened in Europe where people used false Syrian passports and exploited the refugee streams to execute the attacks that were just like the attack in Orlando. We don’t have to hypothesize that this might happen — it’s happened already and they’ve said they want to do more.

President Obama is passionate in his petulance–his speech about why he won’t say radical Islam was outrageous. He said “what difference does it make what we call it?” But what if you went to a doctor’s clinic with a serious illness, you had tuberculosis, and the doctor says, “I’m going to call what you have the flu or the common cold–here’s a couple of aspirins, go home.”

This is a time when we have to bring people together. The victims weren’t gay people–they were Americans. Yet the talk will be about how the murderer had twisted sexual identity and the perpetrator will become a victim. It’s unconscionable.

I was on Hannity to discuss all this. Be sure to see the series of video clips towards the end of Obama talking about Islam and Obama talking about Christianity. Sean Hannity asks me why Obama won’t say radical Islam and I give him the answer.

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:

Orlando Attack Is a Failure of Obama’s ‘Politically Correct’ Policy, Analysts Say

Family members wait for word from police after arriving down the street from a shooting involving multiple fatalities at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla. / AP

Family members wait for word from police after arriving down the street from a shooting involving multiple fatalities at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla. / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, June 14, 2016:

The Florida terrorist attack last weekend revealed multiple failures of Obama administration counterterrorism policies that critics say are hamstrung by liberal “political correctness.”

Security analysts said the attack exposed failures of the administration’s counterterrorism policies that were designed to separate Islam from the jihadist terrorism that continues to spread from the Middle East to Europe and now the United States.

The attack early Sunday by security guard Omar Mateen, 29, included a 911 call to police stating the mass shooting was conducted in support of the Islamic State terror group. A total of 49 people were killed at a crowded Orlando nightclub.

It was the worst mass shooting in American history and the deadliest terror attack since the September 11, 2001, strikes on New York City and Washington, D.C.

FBI Director James Comey defended the bureau despite the fact that agents first identified Mateen as a terror risk in May 2013 after a coworker alerted authorities that he had voiced sympathy for Islamic terrorists.

The tipoff showed that the Department of Homeland Security’s high-profile tip program, called “see something, say something” is not enough to prevent terrorist attacks.

The FBI gave up investigating Mateen after two interrogations. Mateen told agents he had made pro-terrorist comments because he felt he was a victim of religious discrimination from coworkers because he was Muslim.

“He admitted making the statements that his coworkers reported, but explained that he did it in anger because he thought his coworkers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim. After ten months of investigation, we closed the preliminary investigation,” Comey said in Washington.

Former FBI Agent John Guandolo said the FBI mistakenly closed its investigation because it had no idea how to respond to jihadist threats because the bureau does not teach agents about Islamist doctrine, such as Sharia law, that is used as a guide for terrorist operations and activities.

“This investigation was closed because FBI leadership has systematically refused to look at and teach Sharia to its agents because it is getting its advice on Islam from Muslims who are hostile to us and our system of government,” Guandolo said.

Comey said the FBI would examine whether it should have handled the case differently. “So far, the honest answer is, I don’t think so,” he said.

Guandolo said the FBI director was wrong.

“Fifty Americans are dead, the FBI had the killer in their sights and let him go, and the FBI director is okay with this,” he said. “Not knowing something that is a requirement of your profession—like an FBI director not understanding that Sharia is the key to understanding the entire global war—is unprofessional.”

Comey said Mateen declared he was conducting the attack on behalf of the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and pledged his loyalty to the group during his 911 calls from the club.

Mateen also stated the nightclub murders were carried out in support of the two Islamists who carried out the 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon that killed three people. He also was supporting a Florida terrorist who died carrying out a suicide bombing for the Syrian al Qaeda group Al Nusra Front.

Comey said the FBI was confused about Mateen’s motive because of his support for multiple groups, including the Iranian-backed Shiite terror group Hezbollah, the Sunni terror group al Qaeda, and its rival Sunni offshoot, the Islamic State.

“This is one of the more frightening comments, but it is a falsehood American intelligence officials have been regurgitating since 9/11,” Guandolo said.

“The lie in the government goes like this: ‘Sunni and Shia hate each other and don’t work together,’” he said. “That is wrong on so many practical levels.”

Radical Shiite Iran has supplied weapons and material to Sunni al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, also Sunni, in Iraq, he said.

“Mostly, these comments demonstrate the FBI director is fundamentally ignorant of basic facts about our enemy,” Guandolo said.

Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism specialist, also faulted the administration’s adoption of politically correct policies for the failures to prevent the Orlando massacre.

“Political correctness is endangering the lives of Americans,” said Gorka, the Gen. Horner distinguished chair of military theory at Marine Corps University.

“I have spoken to many law enforcement officers who are angry and not just frustrated that a political matrix and narrative is being forced upon them, and they are not allowed to speak accurately and truthfully about what the threat is and who the enemy is,” Gorka added.

The neighbors of San Bernardino terrorists who killed 14 people last year were cowed from fear of being labeled racists or “Islamophobes” and did not report the terrorist leanings of the two killers, Gorka noted.

“The age of political correctness should have died with the killer in Orlando,” Gorka said. “Sadly, with his statement yesterday, the president has perpetuated it and so the deadly fantasy endures.”

President Obama on Sunday made no reference to Islamic terrorism in his statement and instead suggested it was a hate crime directed against gays. The nightclub was frequented mainly by homosexuals.

On Monday, the president said “we’re going to have to grapple” with groups like ISIS that spread “perversions of Islam” on the internet.

In addition to missing the early danger posed by Mateen, the administration also failed to issue any public warning about possible Islamic State terrorist attacks during the Muslim observance of Ramadan that began earlier this month.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported June 3 that an Islamic State spokesman advocated in May for attacks by ISIS supporters to be carried out in the United States and Europe.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Joseph Myers, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst and counterterrorism expert, said U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are operating under rules of engagement that prevent the preemption of terror attacks.

“The fact that as a matter of Obama administration policy they have purged any references to Islam, Islamic doctrines and tenets of war and jihad from the professional terrorism lexicon leaves the FBI, DHS, DoJ, and DoD from being intellectually and physically ready to act and operate to preempt these kinds of events in the homeland,” Myers said.

The purging of Islamic concepts has left American leaders and law enforcement agents confused about terrorists’ motives.

“Individual acts of jihad are a legitimate tenet of Islamic war doctrines that do not require specific sanction or outside terrorist group approval,” he said, noting that “leaderless jihad” is an established tenet for both al Qaeda and ISIS.

Myers said the Orlando attack was a “catastrophic failure” for the FBI and showed its policies, procedures, and resources are inadequate to the mission of homeland security.

“This has to change now or a new organization, mandated to defeat this domestic threat, must be organized and fielded,” he said.

The deadly terrorist attack was an immediate focus of presidential candidates.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump blamed politically correct policies for the failure to prevent the latest attack. He repeated his call to temporarily bar Muslims coming from areas of the world that have been linked to terrorism against the United Stats.

Trump said during a speech in New Hampshire that “the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and to think and act clearly.”

“We’re importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system and through an intelligence community held back by our president,” Trump said. “Even our own FBI director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds of people we’re letting into America.”

The Obama administration has hamstrung intelligence and security agencies, the New York businessman said.

“They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else. I refuse to be politically correct,” Trump said.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the expected Democratic nominee, initially declined to link radical Islam to the Orlando attack. Later she acknowledged in broadcast interviews that jihadists were religiously motivated but she sought to play down that aspect of the threat.

Asked about Islam during a CNN interview, Clinton said: “Well, first of all, from my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say, and it mattered we got Bin laden, not what name we called him.”

“I have clearly said whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either,” Clinton said, adding that she also would not “demonize, demagogue and declare war on an entire religion.”

“That plays right into ISIS’ hands,” she said. “This is something that we can call it radical jihadism, radical Islamism, but we also want to reach out to the vast majority of American Muslims and Muslims around this world to help us defeat this threat, which is so evil and has got to be denounced by everyone, regardless of religion.”

Clinton  said she supports increasing gun laws to regulate firearms after the Orlando massacre.

Mateen, before he was killed by police, was armed with an AR-15 rifle and a Glock handgun.

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman would not respond when asked why DHS did not issue any warnings about a possible ISIS attack during Ramadan.

Marsha Catron, the spokeswoman, said the department issued a national terrorism advisory in December that remains in place.

Since the Orlando shooting and the arrest of an armed man in Los Angeles, DHS notified state and local law enforcement “of all relevant threat information and to consider appropriate responses,” Catron said.

A DHS official said, “Lone offenders and self-directed attackers present a significant challenge to our public safety as there are often very limited opportunities to identify and disrupt their plots prior to violence.”

The official said that in more than 80 percent of cases involving what DHS calls “homegrown violent extremists” people close to the extremists had observed warning signs of radicalization.