The Obama/Holder War On National Security
November 14, 2011
Unfortunately in nearly every venue where counter terrorism training is being conducted, from local law enforcement to the highest levels of the federal bureaucracy and the war colleges, those conducting the instruction are increasingly being muzzled; they can no longer tell the truth. The matter has gotten so out of hand that under current guidance just about any statement linking terrorist acts undertaken by people who claim to be Muslim with an underlying Islamist ideology is verboten because that linkage has been deemed by WH's advisors and Islamist pressure groups such as CAIR and ISNA to be Islamophobic.
Under such a restrictive construction there is no justifiable basis to connect acts of terror committed by self-identified Muslims with a subversive ideology based upon the political/military aspects of Shari'a. To do otherwise opens oneself to the charge of being an anti-Muslim bigot.
In an excellent article published in National Revue, written by Nina Shea [a human rights attorney and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute] The Administration Takes on "Islamophobia" the author demonstrates how closely Team Obama is working with the OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation, formerly the Organization of Islamic Conference, an organization comprised of 56 mostly hard-line Islamic countries] to delude the public regarding the root ideology of most of the terrorism which takes place today. This cooperative work has placed the issue of world-wide Shari'a compliance on the radar screen.
The Obama administration has moved swiftly to denude all official language of any references to Islam which don't pass the standards established by some of the most radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America. Regardless of how this effort is being characterized, it's effect will be to instill Shari'a compliance throughout the government, establishing a de-facto dhimmitude.2
To see how far this mindset of censorship has progressed, consider that on November 9, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on DOJ's now infamous gun running program "Fast and Furious," Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL] directed the following to AG Eric Holder, "we have found that the FBI agents who were given counter terrorism training were unfortunately subjected to many stereotypes of Islam and Muslims, for example FBI agents in training were told..."
Holder was apparently ready for the question because as Durbin was framing it, the AG could be seen referring to what appeared to be prepared notes on the matter. His response served to embellish Durbin's clear implication that the civil liberties of American Muslims are under siege:
We contacted Mr. Durbin's office on multiple occasions to determine the source of the quotes he used regarding counter terrorism training. As we go to press the Senator's office has not responded, however we did find a potential source for not only Mr. Durbin's query, but his whole line of questions in that matter.
That source is Wired's "Danger Room," edited by Spencer Ackerman. In a Sept blog posting, FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream' Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical' [see, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/] Mr. Ackerman writes, "The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that "'main stream' [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a "cult leader"; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a funding mechanism for combat."
If nothing else, the similarity between Durbin's question to the AG and Ackerman's post is a remarkable coincidence isn't it?
From outward appearances, Mr. Ackerman seems to be in lock-step [alongside Mr. Durbin] with the campaign undertaken since 9/11 by Islamists to attack any statement which reflects poorly on Islam as being Islamophobic. This could easily be a first step in having such declarations classified as "hate crimes," as they are in much of Europe where they are punishable by fines and potential jail time. Unfortunately these police state tactics seem not to be of much concern on the Continent.
Spencer Ackerman, for those not familiar with his bio, was part of the JournoList debacle, wherein it was revealed there existed a group of hundreds of lefty journalists who communicated via a listserv protocol [the "JournoList"] and basically conspired to advance their ideology via news manipulation.
As the Daily Caller, which broke the story, revealed, "...In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists.'" [source, http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/#ixzz1dFXQAbL6]
So propagandizing under the guise of journalism is second nature to Ackerman.
We find it unsurprising that a Democrat Senator might read the rants of shill journos and then use them to advance the Obama agenda, that under this regime one will not speak ill of Islam or its Prophet.
These proscriptions against the denigration of Islam are elemental components of Shari'a, Islamic law, specifically its "blasphemy/apostasy" codes, as Ms. Shea heretofore noted. Therefore the "sanitization" operation that the administration has put into motion, enacting these self-blinding policies, is in a very real sense, advancing Shari'a principles in pursuit of a perverse and divisive multiculturalism.
What got Mr. Ackerman's panties in a bunch [it might be contagious, witnessing Durbin's performance at the Judiciary Committee hearing] was apparently training material assembled by William Gawthrop, a government intelligence analyst and instructor at American Military University who from the archival material we have reviewed, makes clear the distinction between Islam the religion and Islam the ideology, the doctrine commonly referred to as Islamism, political Islam.
Gawthrop's exact guidance on this is, "Understand, what we are going to be doing is looking at Islam as an ideology, not as a religion. What's the difference? Religion is man's relationship with his deity, in the United States we protect it under the First Amendment. We're going to set it aside. We are not going to discuss religion. We're going to discuss Islam as an ideology, man's relationship to other men. At the same time we are going to be discussing Mohammed...we are not going to discuss Mohammed in his capacity as a theological figure...we will discuss him...as a military, political and cultural leader as we would anybody in our academic discussions..." [source, Gawthrop training, YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjLs5DR9UJo]
Pretty non-controversial, unless you have an agenda designed to intimidate and suppress free speech.
It seems that it was from this training material that Ackerman cobbled together the verbiage which Mr. Durbin apparently regurgitated and for which Mr. Holder conveniently appeared to have a prepared response during the reading of which he stated that he was aware of this trainer's identity.
While Ackerman is not important in and of himself, as a useful idiot he does deserve attention, if only to grasp the nature of what is going on just below the surface as motivated Islamists and leftists ally to undercut the same Constitution which grants them the freedom to act so irresponsibly.
From its inception - going back at least to his Cairo mea-culpa 3 delivered at Al-Azhar University - the seat of Wahhabism - president Obama has set out to curry favor with the Muslim world in a manner destructive to U.S. national security and foreign policy concerns. The ongoing campaign to cleanse official language of supposed negative references to Islam - of which last week's little exchange between Durbin and the AG is only the most recent and public example - is part of the administration's hijacking of the process that the United States has used throughout its history to remain free and secure.
How can a nation [or culture] develop a reasonable defense strategy unless it understands the enemy's threat doctrine? It can't be done under the type of constraints which have been employed across the administration which bars naming the enemy or identifying his attributes
Why Team Obama is doing this is less important than the fact that it is being instituted rapidly and shamelessly. Given the current inertia - and the possibility of "four more years" - soon writers, researchers and others who work in and around national security policy matters might well be faced with the prospect of either being forced into deluding the American people into believing that there is no link between the overwhelming majority of world terrorist acts and a Shari'a based ideology of domination or going to court for telling the truth.
©2011 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved.