Purge and Pushback

(Hat tip to MarmoeMarmoe who alerted me to the Congressional report.)

The Obama administration has pushed its intelligence agencies into purging their training materials of “anything that might be offensive to anyone, particularly anyone of Islamic faith” (a quote from the purge order).

Purge

So what, exactly, would that amount to? Apparently, any reference to Islam at all in connection with terrorists. Even calling jihadists “terrorists is” offensive to them.

Note that when a jihadist kills “infidels” while screaming Allahu Akbar, the reaction of CAIR and others is not to be angry with the jihadist. Instead, they immediately demand to be protected from any backlash, and they attack anyone who connects the act with Islam at all.

Nor are they fair about Islam versus other faiths.  For example, in the city of Detroit the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) complained vehemently to schools who were allowing children out of school for off-site Bible studies. That complaint contained this:

In his letter to the school district, CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid wrote in part:

“School staff and teachers are not to serve as advocates for one particular religion or congregation within a religion by passing out slips inviting parents to give permission for their children to attend religious instruction.

But once the school district was cowed and the practice stopped, CAIR then demanded that the same school grant Muslim students the ability to do Qur’an studies and prayers.

The Council on American Islamic Relations of Michigan (CAIR-MI) staff recently met with Dearborn Public Schools Superintendent Brian Whiston to discuss concerns from some parents regarding prayer accommodations in Dearborn Public Schools. 

Dearborn Public Schools has implemented a policy which fully accommodates student-led prayer in all the schools, as well as unexcused absences for students who leave early on Fridays for Jumu’ah prayers. CAIR-MI is currently in discussion with Melvindale Public Schools to get similar accommodations for students that are now in place for Dearborn Public Schools.

This, of course, was granted. And this same organization is involved in determining what is “fair” in training materials.  Even the word “jihadist” by a trainer would cause CAIR to seek disciplinary action against that trainer. They’ve done it already.

A Friendly Face

President Obama has obviously been friendly to Islam. So friendly, that the utterance below (ridiculous in the mouth of a nominal Christian in a country famous for free speech) is something he actually said. And on the world stage at the United Nations, to boot.
Obama's Future

He was not brandishing the sword shown; that was a bit of artistic license. But when he spoke at the UN exactly two weeks after the Benghazi attacks, he made that odd statement and added others worthy of thought:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims.

It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

A Clever Speech

One line caught my attention in particular: “…those who condemn the slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated…

Think about that for a moment. In this country and in Europe, the places admired by elites such as President Obama, such desecration of the image of Jesus is considered high art. High enough to be supported with government funds. Would Obama consider the artists to be operating from “hate”?  No. And he separates, in this paragraph, the notion of slander (against a religion) from hate (reacting to it).

So what exactly could he be complaining about? You could parse this into the idea that he is calling the reaction by Christians to attacks on their faith “hate” … and he wants that hate condemned as “intolerance” even if it in reaction to attacks in which “churches are destroyed.”

Now, despite Obama being depicted with a sword in the cartoon, we observe that he is personally not very sharp. This bit of speechwriting cleverness is perhaps edited by him, but I don’t think he’s up to the rhetorical subtlety. Nevertheless, he has a team of speechwriters who do indeed aspire to be clever, and here the intent was specifically to appease jihadists. (Anyone who would commit violence in response to an insult to their faith qualifies as a jihadist in my opinion.)

I wonder what the various Arabic translators made of that paragraph.

But back home, many people understand clearly what Obama is trying to do, and he’s therefore not completely successful at it.

Pushback

But while the Obama administration is famously friendly to Islam’s apologists (and hostile to other religions), Congress is not completely subsumed in this.  Thus, a report commissioned by Congress and submitted earlier this year can speak fairly frankly about jihadist terrorism in the United States.  Even the title of the document would earn a reprimand from Obama; it is now a forbidden word:

American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat

This report describes homegrown violent jihadists and the plots and attacks that have occurred since 9/11. For this report, “homegrown” describes terrorist activity or plots perpetrated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, legal permanent residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States. The term “jihadist” describes radicalized individuals using Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for their belief in the establishment of a global caliphate, or jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as a caliph. The term “violent jihadist” characterizes jihadists who have made the jump to illegally supporting, plotting, or directly engaging in violent terrorist activity.

The report also discusses the radicalization process and the forces driving violent extremist activity. It analyzes post-9/11 domestic jihadist terrorism and describes law enforcement and intelligence efforts to combat terrorism and the challenges associated with those efforts. Appendix A provides details about each of the post-9/11 homegrown jihadist terrorist plots and attacks.

Such a report can no longer exist in the executive branch agency training materials. Those agents, especially new ones, must fly blind into the threat we face. But that is the plan; they are being redirected to focus on Global Warming as the new national security threat.

I am pleased that Congress is pushing back against such nonsense, and I hope they are able to continue.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Categories