It’s been a week since America witnessed the horrifying massacre in Orlando and what a week it’s been.
While the corpses of innocents lay strewn across the floor of the Pulse nightclub, our betters at The New York Times editorial board wasted no time in blaming “American politics” for the rampage. Jumping to ridiculous conclusions, as is their wont, the board declared the assassin “was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians.”
The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer who promised hope and change never seemed so small and hopeless as when he launched into his invective following a meeting of the National Security Council:
“For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.”
“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?”
“The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
“Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around.’ Not once.”
One day after the carnage an avalanche of evidence emerged which made it clear the Orlando killer was a jihadist—a radical Islamic terrorist—and yet he stubbornly clutches at pearls like gun control as he defiantly soft pedals links to Islam.
I remember well when ISIS burned alive in a cage Jordanian pilot First Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh while King Abdullah was visiting Washington. The release of the horrifying video prompted the king to cut short his visit and return to Jordan amid revulsion and outrage for the grisly killing.
While the king’s plane was still in the air, he ordered the execution of two convicted terrorists with connections to the Islamic State.
In Syria, the government denounced the group that has been fighting it for months, but so did al-Qaeda fighters who oppose both the government and the Islamic State. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian government for once agreed on something, the barbarity of the militant group for the way it murdered the Jordanian. And in Cairo, Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayeb, the head of the 1,000-year-old Al Azhar institute, was so angered that he called for the Islamic State’s extremists to be “killed, or crucified, or their hands and legs cut off.”
Contrast the king’s reaction to that of the current occupant of the Oval Office who took exactly 7 minutes to make his way from the podium to his golf cart following his Martha’s Vineyard vacation press conference to speak of James Foley’s beheading at the hands of ISIS terrorists.
He spent the rest of the afternoon on the links even as a firestorm of criticism erupted over what many saw as a callous indifference to the slaughter he had just condemned.
Use of the word “Islamophobia” is a potent weapon the Left uses as a cudgel to terminate rational discussion about radical Islamic terrorism. On September 25, 2012 while addressing the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer uttered these words:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
From Judicial Watch we learn that since 2009, at least seven Islamists (the Tsarnaevs, Muhammad, Zazi, Hassan, Abdulmutallab, Shahzad) have attempted to conduct attacks in the United States— undetected by either the law enforcement or intelligence communities. Likewise, Muslim political pressure and community groups have failed to identify, warn authorities or interdict these terrorists. In 2011, as the Obama administration was carrying out the training curricula purge demands of groups like CAIR, the Russian government was, without success, warning the FBI about Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
Certain terms and—in basic Islamic history, as well as the language/publications of the terrorists themselves—have been removed from US government law enforcement and intelligence records. Why? Whose interests are served by not using accurate language to describe the actions of persons attacking US persons and property? Who wishes the historical record to be revised in such a way as to deny facts? Why would America’s leadership seek to ignore almost 1,400 years of history? If “sensitivity” to Islam is a concern, why would we seek to deny the teachings of Islam and its historical conquests—from medieval Spain to Indonesia, and beyond? Isn’t such a denial “insensitive”?
If government officials are forbidden to use terms such as jihad and Islamist, how can they ever hope to conduct the fact-driven analysis required to comprehend and act upon threat information?
The Judicial Watch report continues, “The Obama administration has also taken strong action to combat anything deemed insensitive to Muslims. Whatever the broader motives of the Obama political operatives, this desire to eliminate “insensitivity” is, in large part, rooted in fear—fear of terror attacks, violence, provocations, “days of rage,” burned consulates and protests. American leaders engage in self-censorship out of fear—pretending it is ‘tolerance” and “respect.’ They ironically proclaim that ‘intolerance’ is intolerable and must be eliminated. Consistent with this fear-based approach, in December 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a three-day, closed-door, international ‘Istanbul Process’ conference on measures to combat religious ‘intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization’ saying our government would use “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against Islamophobia.
Two months prior to Hillary’s “conference”, 57 Muslim groups sent a letter to the White House demanding the “purge” of all counterterrorism training materials and “re-education” of all FBI agents exposed to “Islamophobic” training.
In September of 2012 the Obama administration blamed attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo and the “Special Mission Compound” in Benghazi on a YouTube™ video. That same month, Obama repeats the YouTube™ video lie to the UN General Assembly saying, “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” His lies to the world emboldened the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to push through a blasphemy resolution at the UN claiming that the video was part of a larger anti-Islam conspiracy.
The Obama administration, according to Judicial Watch, has been penetrated by Islamist influence operators, seeking to advance an ideological agenda completely at odds with our constitutional system. The penetration is, in many cases, by the Obama administration’s invitation. Some of the more public and controversial figures associated with the Obama administration have included:
Rashad Hussain—US Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Huma Abedin—Long-time personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Daliah Mogahed—Advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and an unapologetic defender of unindicted terrorist conspirator organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
Momamed Elibiary—An Islamic cleric named to the president’s Homeland Security Advisory Council with close ties to radical Islamist causes and a prime mover behind normalizing relations with domestic and foreign Islamist groups. He reportedly leaked sensitive intelligence documents to a media outlet as part of the “Islamophobia influence campaign.”
Mohamed Magid—Executive Director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), outside Washington, DC and President of the ISNA, an unindicted terrorist conspirator organization. Magid was appointed by President Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. From that position, Magid was key in influencing and directing the purge of training materials and policies in the FBI and other federal agencies. Magid is a regular visitor to the White House, and extremely influential on Islamic issues in the Obama administration.
On September 20, 2015 Chuck Todd interviewed Donald Trump, Ben Carson and John Kasich on Meet The Press following the Republican Presidential Debate from the Reagan Presidential Library.
CHUCK TODD: Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?
DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.
CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?
DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don't, I do not.
CHUCK TODD: So you--
DR. BEN CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.