Philip B. Haney Press Conference at the National Press Club titled, “See Something, Say Nothing.”
Philip B. Haney Press Conference at the National Press Club titled, “See Something, Say Nothing.”
A new book by Dept.of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney is filled with first-hand testimony that will make your mouth drop.
A new book by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, titled See Something Say Nothing, is filled with first-hand testimony that will make your mouth drop.
If you read the Clarion Project, then you’re aware of how U.S. governments, Democrats and Republicans, have tried to accommodate Islamism and political correctness. This book shows that it’s even worse than we thought.
A little background: Haney’s research on Islamist movements—rather than a narrow focus on membership in proscribed terrorist organizations derived from such movements– won the respect of his peers, many of whom are quoted in the book.
Haney was commended for identifying over 300 possible terrorist suspects and working on important and complex counter-terrorism cases. He and 10 colleagues were honored by a FBI Special Agent-in-Charge for proactively contributing to 98 FBI investigations, identifying 67 individuals engaged in suspicion activity who were previously known to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and identifying 24 persons of interest.
He developed a database of 185 Islamist terrorist groups in 81 countries and associated Islamist movements, believing that we need to “connect the dots” between the movements and radicalization, instead of only “connecting the dots” between individual jihadist operatives.
Here are 10 jarring revelations from DHS whistleblower Philip Haney’s new book:
Investigations into Islamist movements like the Tablighi Jamaat and Muslim Brotherhood were stopped by the federal government in the name of religious liberties.
The National Targeting Center investigation into the Tablighi Jamaat networks resulted in over 1,200 law enforcement actions, such as denial of visas to Jamaat members who wanted to enter the country. Then the State Department Civil Rights Division intervened.
“We know that members of the Tablighi Jamaat are fundamentalists, but they’re not terrorists,” Haney recalls a State Department representative informing him and his colleagues.
They informed the State Department official that its own consular officers were rejected three out of four Tablighi Jamaat-affiliated visa applications because of security concerns. That soon came to an end.
The same story happened with the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the fact that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are an intertwined network, as shown by the Justice Department in the trial of a Brotherhood front (Holy Land Foundation) for financing Hamas.
The hard work of the investigations was not only stopped; it was thrown out. Haney was ordered to delete over 800 records related to Islamist extremists.
Haney calls it the “great purge” and counter-terrorism personnel unconnected to him have also talked about databases related to Islamist extremist movements being cleansed.
Thanks to the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, a narrow focus on illegal activity in support of banned terrorist organizations took hold. The DHS deemed that data collection related to permitted Islamist movements like Tablighi Jamaat and Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to religious freedom and must be deleted in order to prevent profiling.
The deleted files may have prevented the “underwear” bomb plot, the Boston bombings and the San Bernardino attacks.
Haney’s story, along with copious amounts of other evidence, proves the worthiness of targeting the “radicalizer” (Islamist movements) and not just the radicalized (the jihadist terrorist). Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Tsarnaev brothers, and San Bernardino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik all associated with Islamist movements and institutions that were investigated by Haney and his colleagues. Had they continued, it is likely that they would have been denied visas into the U.S. and/or been put under surveillance.. He was exonerated each time.
When one of their own acclaimed experts offered to explain Islamism and its networks, the higher-ups didn’t even reply.
This is a bipartisan problem, as Haney can attest to. He saw the problems develop starting in 2006 under the Bush Administration with each year getting progressively worse. When the Department of Homeland Security began adopting politically-correct language that avoided the ideology, setting a precedent that the Obama Administration would later intensify, Haney offered to explain the ideology and his concerns to his supervisors and anyone who would listen. No one replied.
DHS even rejected the FBI’s request to use him for investigating a Muslim Brotherhood front.
Haney wasn’t just stopped from pursuing his investigations within Customs and Border Protection (which is part of DHS), his supervisors even stopped him from helping the FBI in regards to a Brotherhood front. He was not even told whether they replied to the FBI agent’s request for his help.
Senior officials intervened to let Islamists fly into the U.S. against the advice of their own personnel.
In addition to the changed attitude towards letting Tablighi Jamaat members into the U.S., the federal government also granted entry to terror-linked Muslim Brotherhood activist Jamal Badawi. Customs and Border Patrol had even prepared a dossier making the case against letting him.
Badawi’s complaints about receiving secondary inspections when traveling to the U.S. and lawsuit worked. The Brotherhood/Hamas-linked activist was allowed to enter the U.S. to speak at a Brotherhood/Hamas-linked organization’s conference.
Six individuals affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood fronts helped craft the Obama Administration’s Countering Violent Extremism approach to counter-terrorism.
The result, as you might have expected, was Islamist-friendly training guidelines; ones that even excluded “Muslim reformers” as trainers. You can read more the Clarion Project’s review of these guidelines and the personnel responsible here. Most recently, the Obama Administration picked an activist linked to a Brotherhood front as its liaison to the Muslim-American community.
Haney documented over 50 meetings between members of the executive and legislative branches and members of organizations identified by the U.S. government as Muslim Brotherhood fronts between 1998 and 2009.
There has been little, or no, controversy when members of the federal government, including members of Congress and the White House, meet and consult with Islamist groups that the Justice Department has labeled as Brotherhood entities and unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism financing. But when an opponent of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood teaches law enforcement, that’s a different story.
Islamist political pressure and lawfare works.
You can read Haney’s book for story after story of Islamists using political pressure, provocation and lawsuits to bend U.S. government agencies to their demands, with the above example involving Jamal Badawi being only one. If the U.S. government caves from lawsuits and complaining, then what will happen in the future if these groups continue to become more powerful?
Haney was repeatedly disciplined and investigated for his approach in tackling Islamic extremism, which took on the Islamist ideology as well as the results of that ideology. He was exonerated each time.
If only the government were that hostile to Islamists and their apologists.
ABOUT RYAN MAURO:
Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.
This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Philip B. Haney, a former homeland security officer. He reveals how the Obama administration facilitated the San Bernardino jihadist attack, sharing how his DHS program would most likely have prevented the California massacre — if Obama’s “Civil Rights” enforcers hadn’t shut it down.
EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate through their Pay Pal account, subscribe to their YouTube Channel and LIKE them on Facebook. Please watch the special Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception, in which Stephen unveils how the CVE narrative was fostered by the Muslim Brotherhood -– and how it negates countering terror. This explains precisely why Philip Haney’s database was shut down.
FAYETTEVILLE, NC /PRNewswire/ — In an exclusive interview with FTMDaily’s Jerry Robinson, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul discusses the recent Senate vote on his “Audit the Fed” bill, as well as the lack of support of his candidacy within the American evangelical community.
Sen. Paul explains that the message in the New Testament is one of peace and that Jesus never encouraged his followers to rebel against the government or to instigate war. Therefore, Sen. Paul’s message of peace through prosperity should resonate within evangelical groups during this presidential election cycle. But when asked why many evangelicals in America prefer militarism over peace, Sen. Paul is truly baffled.
Sen. Paul comments:
“I think it is really an irony, and I continue to be baffled by it, but it’s not always true. I do remind them [religious and evangelical groups] that the sermon on the mount and the beatitudes were ‘blessed are the peacemakers’. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Oh, let’s gather some rebels and overturn the government that’s collaborating with the Romans’. Really, his message was a much different one.”
Jerry Robinson, a Christian economist and host of Follow the Money radio, recognizes that Sen. Paul’s message of a humble foreign policy, sound money, and fiscal transparency within government is in step with the teachings of the New Testament. And although Sen. Paul’s Audit the Fed bill was narrowly defeated by Senate Democrats on Tuesday, he promises that the fight for an audit is not over.
Sen. Paul concedes that he has worked for five years to get the bill up for a vote in the Senate, but that despite Tuesday’s defeat, he will continue to push his agenda.
Ultimately, Sen. Paul explains that his desire is to not only see a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve’s massive and opaque balance sheet, but also to allow interest rates to be set by the marketplace rather than the Federal Reserve. He claims that had interest rates been allowed to rise prior to the housing bubble of 2008, investors would have heeded the market signal that they had over-built and the bubble could have been avoided altogether.
FTMDaily, or Follow the Money Daily, is an online media company delivering cutting-edge financial commentaries, unique economic strategies, and informed geopolitical analysis. FTMDaily.com was created in 2010 by Christian economist and best-selling author, Jerry Robinson. Since then, FTMDaily.com has grown exponentially with readers and subscribers from all around the world.
Our mission at Follow the Money Daily is simple. We exist to help people understand the global economic and geopolitical realities that face them. For our paid subscribers, we provide real-time, actionable investing ideas and income strategies, along with cutting-edge geopolitical analysis, designed to prepare them for the difficult challenges that lie ahead for America and the world.
RELATED ARTICLE: Why the Freedom Caucus Wants to Declare War on ISIS
LISTEN to this podcast of the January 10, 2016 Lisa Benson Show on KKNT 960 The Patriot. Lisa Benson and New English Review Senior Editor Jerry Gordon co-hosted this show with the assistance of Board of Advisors member, Richard Cutting.
Col. Richard Kemp, (ret.) CBE, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and noted commentator on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, discussed why Israel is the outpost of civilization in the Middle east. He urged Queen Elizabeth to visit Israel in 2017, the 100th Anniversary of the liberation of Jerusalem from the Turks to honor ANZAC fallen. He drew attention to British Prime Minister Cameron who has spoken before Israel’s Knesset and his designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. He suggested that perhaps the Administration might follow suit.
He considers the Muslim Brotherhood as an evil organization seeking to spread Islamist hatred of Israel Europe and the West. Hamas he pointed out had links to the Muslim Brotherhood with objectives similar to that of ISIS. An ISIS he said was spreading its barbaric Islamic doctrine across the Muslim Ummah from Syria and Iraq to North and sub-Sahara Africa and South Asia.
With regard to the resurgence of the Taliban in a 14 year war in Afghanistan with NATO forces, he said that some of it was attributable to the role of Pakistan intelligence service. The Pakistanis and Afghans he noted are enemies. He called attention to the internecine war between the Taliban and ISIS endeavoring to gain power as enemies of the democratic government in Afghanistan. A government plagued with corruption hobbling the country’s security forces. He called attention to a generational long struggle against Islamist Jihadism in which the West cannot relax. It must stand up and fight. He noted in passing that the US Administration has taken its eye off the ball with outreach to an enemy, Iran. He attributed some of the present difficulties in the Middle east and South Asia to both the pullout of US forces in Iraq and pull down of ISAF troops in Afghanistan.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka addressed the number one issue in polls taken of Americans, national security and domestic Islamic terrorism. He suggested that the Administration had to jettison the canard of lone wolf terror acts. The Boston Marathon Bombers, the shooting in Chattanooga, the massacre in San Bernardino and the recent attempted murder of a police officer by a convicted felon and convert to Islam in Philadelphia he said was reflective of the connective tissue of Global Jihad doctrine. That doctrine viewed America and the West as antithetical to Jihadist aims.
He viewed the ability of the US and the EU to vett the millions of migrants and refugees flooding the west as well nigh impossible. While referencing the intense scrutiny of his parents, refugees from the 1956 Hungarian rebellion against Soviet Communism, he suggested that could only be done under intense and repeated questioning by counterterrorism security echelons using a data base to check documents and bona fides. He suggested that the US is hobbled by the lack of manpower and a data base to vett, for example, the stream of Syrian Refugees.
Having visited a Syrian refugee camp during the recent Christmas New Year’s holiday, he was struck with two takeaways. He commended the Kingdom of Jordan, without the resources of oil revenues of an incredible job of s country of 6 million handling an influx of 1.5 million Syrian refugees. He tasked the oil rich Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to offer financial and resettlement assistance. He said there was no sense to send Syrians to the EU or the US. Rather it was incumbent on the contending powers, especially the US, to resolve the conflict, hereby enabling the Syrians in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon to return home.
Regarding the recent settlement between New York City and Muslim and civil liberties advocacy groups ending the NYPD Muslim community profiling program, Gorka said in a recent House Armed Services Committee testimony that after 9/11, the NYPD had been let down by Federal law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies. The NYPD he noted undertook to build perhaps the best counterterrorism intelligence and surveillance program to monitor and protect the Muslim community in New York against Islamist inroads. Effectively he commented to the House Committee that politics continued to get in the way of national security.
When asked about the current rising Sunni Shiite divide between Saudi Arabia and Iran, he referred to a comment from Israeli PM Netanyahu, who said it was a Game of Thrones pitting the Saudi Wahabbist Sunni Caliphate against the Mullahs of the Shia Mahdist Caliphate in Nuclear Iran.
This has not been a good year. From the start of January when gunmen walked into the offices of Charlie Hebdo to last month when suicide bombers walked into a concert hall in the same city, the terror and bloodshed may have returned to France but in the meantime it circled the entire globe. From California to Tunisia and Texas to Mosul this year has been one of atrocities and barbarism of a scale almost too appalling to consider.
At the same time our politicians have struggled to even get some consensus on what to do about the human tide which has flowed across the continent and begun a process of change which will take decades to play out. In the Middle East we have prevaricated and then patted ourselves on the back for doing little and late. In the international arena we have seen Vladimir Putin begin to look like a world leader, while the President of the United States has been reduced to something like a global commentator. Everywhere the world looks more unstable and uncertain and the future more troubling than it has at any year’s end for a long time.
In such a situation one has to look for points of light. One such point came this week in a small but important victory in the UK. It is a year and a half since David Cameron ordered a review into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK. Since the conclusion of that report’s findings and its writing-up earlier this year the Brotherhood has three times tried to stop the report’s findings from being released. They have attempted injunctions in March, in the summer and then again this week, just one day before the publication of the findings, though not the full report.
That such an organisation can even think of being able to use the British courts to silence the British government says much about why the global battle against Islamic extremism is going backwards. But the UK government won out and its findings are immensely helpful to pushing back the tide of extremism at home. While deciding that the Brotherhood does not meet the level of violence required to justify outright proscription it does find that the group is one that possibly leads to extremism and that new measures should therefore be put in place to tackle those groups and individuals associated with the movement.
When the review began a team of our top researchers at HJS were invited in to give evidence about the activities of the Brotherhood in the UK and in Europe. It was a great pleasure and honour to do so and to be able to name some of those who have been named and identified in the final report’s conclusions. This makes the fight against the group’s affiliates in the UK very significantly easier. Much of the challenge in this area in recent years has been fighting to ensure that extremist groups are identified as such by the authorities so that it cannot be lowered to a ‘he-says, she-say’ debate between non-governmental organisations.
Much more will be needed to turn events around globally, but keeping our own stable clean in the UK and Europe is a very important part of changing around that global tide. This is a very long conflict, and although the set-backs can be swift, progress is always arduous. Nevertheless, some progress there is and for that we can at least reflect on a year which has ended with a modest victory.
FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK
This week, yet another bit of hope in the world was extinguished by the Obama Administration. In this case, that the USA would attempt to stick by some principles – as well as sound strategic sense – in its decision making over Syria.
Speaking in Moscow following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Secretary of State John Kerry uttered the fatal words that “The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change” in Syria. In short, that the Butcher of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad, could stay in power after all, and despite both destroying his country and occasioning the rise of Islamic State through his murderous behaviour.
This is disappointing, but not surprising. The Obama Administration has after all flunked pretty much every foreign policy test thrown at it, ranging from Russia in Ukraine to the Iranian nuclear agreement.
But it is also a decision that will have serious consequences going forwards. If our declared intention is to defeat Islamic State by bringing the remaining non-jihadist forces together in a political settlement, then keeping Mr Assad will make that harder, not easier to achieve. Syrian rebels who have spent the past few years seeking his removal on account of his dictatorship will not now suddenly rush to embrace him, although they could have been persuaded to ally with Assad’s regime minus a few figureheads. Instead, they will continue their struggle, even if it looks ever more forlorn.
Assad has become a symbol of oppression. And in acquiescing to that symbol’s survival, the US has betrayed its principles as a bastion of liberty in the world. You can be certain that Islamic State will use this declaration to pump propaganda material out to its Muslim targets in the West, entreating them to join its jihad because the Western powers have shown they are happy to tolerate repression.
But the true victors from this policy shift will be the Iranian revolutionary regime. Assad’s dependency on Iran is well-established. If his regime wins, then so does Iran. And if Iran wins in Syria, it will be able to extend its push for dominance in the region through territorial control linking Lebanon to Iran through a direct land corridor that will take in Syria and a Shia dominated Iraqi state. Which will be bad for Western allies in the region, and ultimately for the West itself.
Congratulations therefore to President Obama and Mr Kerry. It is a rare feat to be both strategically shortsighted and morally bereft. But they have managed it and in some style.
Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza
“One may well ask how ‘the religion of peace’ became a brand of Islam, for the phrase cannot be found in the Qur’an, nor in the teachings of Muhammad.”
Days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, President Obama’s address to the nation concerning the threat of ISIS missed the mark. In fact, President Obama seemed at times to be more concerned with Americans ostracizing Muslim communities through “suspicion and hate,” than he was with protecting innocent American civilians from murder in the name of radical Islam.
It is high time for western political leaders to stop responding to terrorism by naming Islam as ‘the religion of peace’. It is time to have a hard conversation about Islam.
The West is in the throes of acute cognitive dissonance over Islam, whose brands are at war with each other. On the one hand we are told that Islam is the Religion of Peace. On the other hand we are confronted with an unending sequence of acts of terror committed in the name of the faith.
There is a depressing connection between the two brands: the louder one brand becomes, the more the volume is turned up on the other.
The slogan ‘Religion of Peace’ has been steadily promoted by western leaders in response to terrorism: George Bush Jr and Jacques Chirac after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7, David Cameron after drummer Lee Rigby was beheaded and after British tourists were slaughtered in Tunisia, and François Hollande after the Charlie Hebdo killings. After the beheading of 21 Copts on a Libyan beach Barak Obama called upon the world to “continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam.”
One may well ask how ‘the religion of peace’ became a brand of Islam, for the phrase cannot be found in the Qur’an, nor in the teachings of Muhammad.
Islam was first called ‘the religion of peace’ as late as 1930, in the title of a book published in India by Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi. The phrase was slow to take off, but by the 1970s it was appearing more and more frequently in the writings of Muslims for western audiences.
What does “religion of peace” actually mean?
Words for ‘peace’ in European languages imply the absence of war, and freedom from disturbance. It is no coincidence that the German words Friede ‘peace’ and frei ‘free’ sound similar, because they come from the same root.
While there is a link in Arabic between salam, a word often translated ‘peace’, andIslam, the real connection is found in the idea of safety.
The word Islam is based upon a military metaphor. Derived from aslama ‘surrender’ its primary meaning is to make oneself safe (salama) through surrender. In its original meaning, a muslim was someone who surrendered in warfare.
Thus Islam did not stand for the absence of war, but for one of its intended outcomes: surrender leading to the ‘safety’ of captivity. It was Muhammad himself who said to his non-Muslim neighbors aslim taslam ‘surrender (i.e. convert to Islam) and you will be safe’….
Sheikh Ramadan Al-Buti of Syria was one of the most widely respected traditionalist Sunni scholars before he was killed in 2013 by a suicide bomber. The year before he had been listed as number 27 in the ‘The Muslim 500’, an annual inventory of the most influential Muslims in the world. According to Al-Buti, the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion was a ‘falsehood’ imposed upon Muslims by westerners to render Islam weak. He argued in The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography that when non-Muslims fear Islamic jihad, their initial inclination is to accuse the religion of being violent. However they then change tack, and craftily feed to Muslims the idea that Islam is peaceful, in order to make it so. He laments the gullibility of ‘simple-minded Muslims’, who:
“… readily accept this ‘defense’ as valid and begin bringing forth one piece of evidence after another to demonstrate that Islam is, indeed, a peaceable, conciliatory religion which has no reason to interfere in others’ affairs. … The aim … is to erase the notion of jihad from the minds of all Muslims.”
There does seem to be something to Al-Buti’s theory, for it has invariably been after acts of violence done in the name of Islam that western leaders have seen fit to make theological pronouncements about Islam’s peacefulness. Who are they trying to convince?
In the long run this cannot be a fruitful strategy. It invites mockery, such as Palestinian cleric Abu Qatada’s riposte to George Bush’s declaration that ‘Islam is peace’. Abu Qatada asked: ‘Is he some kind of Islamic scholar?’
We do need to have a difficult conversation about Islam. This is only just beginning, and it will take a long time. The process will not be helped by the knee-jerk tendency of western leaders to pop up after every tragedy trying to have the last word on Islam. This strategy has failed, and it is time to go deeper.
Today, 13-year Department of Homeland Security veteran, Philip B. Haney, released an open letter to Members of Congress, writing that he, “no longer [has] the confidence this administration can adequately vet or screen refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries.” (full text below)
Since becoming a whistleblower, Haney has met repeatedly with Members of Congress and their staffs in closed-door sessions, warning them of both the inadequacies of the Obama administration’s screening processes and the shut down of his investigation into extremist groups tied to both perpetrators of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
On Fox News, Haney described an ill-advised action by DHS’ Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to terminate an investigation into groups associated to the Deobandi Movement and other Islamist groups. “This investigation could possibly have prevented the San Bernardino jihadist attack by identifying its perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, based on their associations with these groups.”
An Open Letter to Members of Congress:
In the aftermath of the most devastating and lethal jihadist attack in the United States since 9/11, Americans are rightly angry their government will not face the problem of Islamic terrorism honestly. I know this first-hand.
During my 13 years at the Department of Homeland Security, I worked tirelessly to identify and prevent terrorism in the United States. As a recognized “founding member” of DHS, it was among my responsibilities to raise concern, not only about the individuals primed for imminent attack, but about the networks and ideological support that makes those terrorist attacks possible.
I investigated numerous groups such as the Deobandi Movement, Tablighi Jamaat, and al-Huda as their members traveled into and out of the United States in the course of my work. Many were traveling on the visa waiver program, which minimizes the checks and balances due to agreements with the countries involved. But the scrutiny we were authorized to apply was having results. This investigation could possibly have prevented the San Bernardino jihadist attack by identifying its perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, based on their associations with these groups.
Almost a year into this investigation, it was halted by the State Department and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. They not only stopped us from connecting more dots, the records of our targets were deleted from the shared DHS database. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al-Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. Instead, Malik was able to avoid serious vetting upon entering the United States on a fiancé visa—and more than a dozen Americans are dead as a result.
The investigation was not stopped because it was ineffective, it was stopped because the Administration told us the civil rights of the foreign nationals we were investigating could be violated. When did foreign nationals gain civil rights in the United States, especially when they are associated with groups we already know are involved in terrorist activity? Based on what I have seen in the Department of Homeland Security, I no longer have the confidence this administration can adequately vet or screen refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries.
I took my story to the American people last week. Remarkably this week, DHS’ former acting under-secretary for intelligence and analysis, John Cohen, told ABC News that under the direction of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, potential immigrants’ social media activity was off-limits to those responsible for screening.
Just as they did when they halted my investigation in 2012—which could have provided key intelligence and potentially saved over a dozen lives—DHS described a potential “civil liberties backlash” if the law enforcement officials tasked with keeping our country secure did the most basic checks on potential travelers, immigrants and refugees. Parents checking on someone their child may be dating look at social media, but our law enforcement officials can’t?
This administration has a deadly blind spot when it comes to Islamic terrorism. It is not willing to allow proper vetting and screening of refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries; Congress must take action to defend the security of the American people.
I understand the desire to welcome as many immigrants and refugees as possible, especially those fleeing dangerous conflict zones. However, this administration has handcuffed law enforcement officials tasked with vetting these individuals appropriately and that places the American people in danger.
Philip B. Haney
ABOUT PHILIP B. HANEY
Philip Haney served in Passenger Analysis Units at the Department of Homeland Security in Atlanta and at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center. His responsibilities included in-depth research into individuals and organizations with potential links to terrorism.
After almost a year of research and tracking the Deobandi movement, Department of Homeland Security stopped the investigation, at the request of the Department of State and its own Civil Rights Civil Liberties Division, claiming that tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travellers’ civil liberties.
Haney says, “The administration was more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of foreign Islamic groups with terrorist ties than the safety and security of Americans.”
There seems to be growing tolerance for agendas that conflict with Jewish sovereignty and national claims. At the same time, Islamic operatives enlist liberal support for their anti-liberal goals.
After a recent trip to Israel, former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann reportedly called upon Christians to step up efforts to convert the Jews. Her pronouncement was met with indignation from across the Jewish political spectrum – and deservedly so, as it displayed a patronizing and flawed understanding of Jewish scripture and history. But as misguided as it certainly was, it was not a call to pogrom or massacre; and while Jews have every right to be offended, such comments are benign, albeit insulting, and pose no threat to Jewish life, limb, or belief.
Ironically, few of those who criticized Bachmann would ever chastise those Muslims who preach doctrinal supremacism or reject the very concept of a Jewish state. Nor would they denounce leftist ideologues who defend progressive anti-Semitism as political speech or delegitimize Israel. The question, then, is how they can reconcile assertive condemnations of Christian missionary zeal with apologetic attitudes towards radical Islam and a refusal to acknowledge the religious basis for much of today’s terrorism.
As suggested by ongoing dialogue between the nontraditional movements and dubious Muslim advocacy organizations, and by liberal support for progressive groups like the New Israel Fund, there seems to be growing tolerance for agendas that conflict with Jewish sovereignty and national claims. There is also a tendency to express admiration for Islamic values while ignoring troubling dogmas that discourage free speech and demonize Jews.
Jewish progressives are quick to praise Islamic culture as peaceful and tolerant, yet few have actually read the Quran, Hadith, Sira, or classical legal commentaries. Fewer still have any concept of the stringent nature of Sharia or how “infidels” are treated thereunder. They overlook the history of Jews in Islamic lands, where subjugation, massacres, segregation, pogroms, and forced conversions were the rule, not the exception; and they rationalize Muslim Jew-hatred as a modern consequence of the Arab-Israel conflict.
In denying the existence of traditional anti-Semitism in Islamic society, these sophists also claim that the Quran and Hadith are no different from the Torah and Talmud. But Jewish law does not command the subjugation of Gentiles and has no jihad-like tradition of holy war. Whereas Halakha applies to Jews, Sharia purports to bind non-Muslims, whom it regards as infidels to be conquered, taxed and converted.
These issues were discussed at a recent program in Massachusetts entitled, “Western Media and Sharia Law: A Fundamental Misunderstanding,” featuring Daniel Akbari, an ex-Muslim and former Sharia lawyer from Iran, and Lt. Col. Roy White, a retired U.S. Air Force combat pilot and Gulf war veteran.
Before renouncing Islam and converting to Christianity, Mr. Akbari defended clients accused of capital offenses in Sharia courts. He was jailed and tortured for apostasy before coming to the United States, and is the author of many articles and two books, “Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources,” and “New Jihadists and Islam.”
Lt. Col. White served in various Air Force command positions for twenty years and now heads the San Antonio, Texas chapter of “ACT! for America,” which is at the forefront of the counter-jihad movement. Through the “Truth in Texas Textbooks Coalition” he spearheaded a review of books being considered by the Texas State Board of Education for use in its public schools, which exposed more than 1,500 errors regarding, among other things, Jewish history, Christianity, and the historical use of violence against non-Muslims. As a result, hundreds of errors were corrected or deleted, and many of the textbooks were rejected altogether.
One strategy of civilizational jihadists is to infiltrate societal institutions and pursue their goals from within.
Mr. Akbari and Col. White discussed the spread of Islamism in the West, which they see as a consequence of doctrinal supremacism combined with a western failure to discuss it or acknowledge its existence. They explained that jihad can be violent or nonviolent, and that in the absence of sufficient power to dominate infidel society by force, it is permissible to advance the faith bytaqiyya (deception).
Propagating the faith covertly is the modus operandi of many extremists posing as moderates in the West. The principles of “civilizational jihad” were articulated in “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” reportedly written for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was entered in evidence by federal prosecutors in U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a terror financing trial in 2009. One strategy of civilizational jihadists is to infiltrate societal institutions and pursue their goals from within. They commonly use political correctness to portray themselves as a minority (despite a global Muslim population of approximately 1.6 billion) and to characterize their opponents as bigots.
According to Mr. Akbari, the term “Islamophobia” was created to chill discourse by equating critical discussion of Islam or Sharia with unwarranted prejudice, adopting the strategy of gay rights activists who coined the term “homophobia” to describe opposition to their cause. Stealth Islamists understood how quickly the term “homophobic” became synonymous with “bigot,” and endeavored to manipulate language to similar effect. The irony is that in so doing they emulated the strategy of a group that suffers greatly in Sharia states.
It’s equally ironic that their operatives in the West have enlisted progressive support to advance an agenda that contravenes liberal principles. According to Akbari, they have beguiled western progressives by claiming only to be protecting a minority culture while downplaying supremacist religious doctrine. He believes the distinction between culture and religion is artificial, however, and that in evaluating the long-term goals of civilizational jihad it is necessary to determine those of Sharia.
In assessing the nature of Sharia, Akbari said one must analyze its rules and determine whether harsh applications can be militated by interpretation. Informed by his experiences growing up in Iran and practicing law in Sharia courts, he opined that punishments such as crucifixion, beheading and amputation reflect a body of law that is anti-western. Moreover, the prevalence of honor killings of women and girls who adopt western manners or refuse arranged marriages cannot be ignored. These killings have occurred in North America and Europe without comment from apologists who so freely characterize critics of Sharia as racists and bigots.
Mr. Akbari believes that many Muslims who came to the US and Europe a generation ago were nominally religious and had little understanding of Sharia law and doctrine. Indeed, many were fleeing persecution and had no interest in forcing their beliefs on others. But as first generation children began to assimilate, their parents often encouraged them to attend Islamic centers run by fundamentalist clerics, or student groups under the aegis of such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is in fundamentalist environments where youths from acculturated homes become radicalized and learn the use of dissimulation. Mr. Akbari noted that a sure sign of taqiyya is the claim that the word jihad does not mean war, but instead means “fighting evil temptation,” a definition that he said is not found in Islamic scripture. According to Akbari, this interpretation requires a suspension of orthodox belief, which itself could be considered heretical. There is nothing heretical, however, in claiming to be moderate to advance jihadist goals. And no expense is spared promoting such efforts, particularly in public schools and on college campuses.
Both Akbari and White expressed concern about the prevalence of Islamist propaganda in American schools. White’s work in vetting textbooks is a response to the proliferation of educational materials from questionable sources that seek to indoctrinate schoolchildren. At a time when organized prayer and moments of reflective silence are banned in American public schools, many districts are using materials that teach Islamic principles, and parents who complain are often branded “Islamophobic.” Sometimes it takes interventions by activists like Col. White to force schools to reassess their counterintuitive – and perhaps unconstitutional – use of such materials.
The problem is especially acute on college campuses, where groups with ties to organizations like the Brotherhood are accorded respect and credibility, and where anti-Semitism is pervasive, Israel is vilified, and free speech is denied those who disagree with the agenda. Universities boasting anti-hate speech codes only seem to enforce them when progressive or Muslim sensibilities are offended, not when Jewish students are abused or conservative students are penalized for voicing their opinions.
The divide between western enablers and critics of radical Islam is reflected in the debate over Syrian refugees. The left advocates relaxing immigration restrictions and admitting refugees with little scrutiny, while the majority calls for a cautious approach in light of the skewed demographic profile of the refugee population, seventy to eighty percent of which consists of single men of fighting age. Furthermore, many are non-Syrians with fake passports or are suspected of having terrorist sympathies or affiliations. This is especially troubling in light of reports that at least one of those responsible for the recent carnage in Paris entered France as a refugee.
Through it all, progressives refuse to identify the problem, and their critics tend to limit the danger to extremist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda. But western society would be better served by recognizing the dogmas that motivate extremism and the existence of civilizational jihad. If Americans and Europeans are to prevail against today’s terrorism, they will need to discard their stupefying political correctness, acknowledge the doctrines that sanctify violence, and assert those values that are under attack. Falling short will only facilitate submission and defeat.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva.
Not only do the politically correct and willfully ignorant such as Senator Brown do all they can to avoid acknowledging that there is any connection between jihad terrorism and Islam, but they also enforce that willful ignorance upon the rest of us: unless you confess with his lips and believe in your heart that the Islamic State is not Islamic, you will be subjected to a chorus of opprobrium, along with ostracism and ongoing vilification.
“Dem Senator Unsure If ‘Enemy Is Connected to Islam,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 11, 2015:
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) struggled to explain whether he believes there is a connection between Islam and terrorist forces aiming to launch strikes at the United States when questioned by another leading lawmaker Thursday evening on the Senate floor, according to video of the exchange.
Asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) during an exchange on the Senate floor if he believes “there is any connection between our enemy and Islam,” Brown appeared confused and struggled to respond.
“I’m sorry, excuse me?” Brown said in response to Sasse’s question.
When asked again if he believes there is any connection between the radicals waging terrorist attack on the West and Islam, Brown said he is not sure.
“I guess, I don’t know, I’m not here to debate this,” he said. “I don’t know exactly what that means, ‘A connection between our enemy and Islam.’”
“I know that semantics matter and the criticism of our president in this body is kind of front of center” as a result of the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., Brown continued….
The White House made clear this week it has a “strong belief” to not “treat the [Islamic State] terrorists as leaders of some religious movement.”
Sasse described this response as “lunacy.”
“This is lunacy,” he said. “First, while the White House is insisting that no one use the word ‘Islamic’ or note any connection between the war that we’re facing and some subset of Islam—even as the White House insists that no one use the word—their own preferred adjective—ISIL or ISIS—begins with an ‘I,’” Sasse said….
Dr. Welner, on Fox & Bill Bennett, Decries Lies About Mass Shootings and Crisis Incidents, Issues Multi-Pronged Homeland Proposal to Mitigate Risk.
Dr. Welner’s early appearance on “Fox and Friends” laid out the distinctions from workplace mass killing, and raised the importance of learning more of how a woman taking up destructive spectacle crime (which happens regularly overseas) related to how Muslim identity is expressed in America. Dr. Welner relied on his extensive experience in evaluating mass shooting incidents, workplace risk assessment, and risk assessment and other Jihadi psychology and criminology issues.
Dr. Welner added, in an appearance later that hour on “Fox & Friends,” that the hallmarks of how far one would go for their faith, demonstrated in a woman leaving an infant behind, bore the hallmarks of ISIS’ modus operandi. He encouraged the government and press to be straightforward about terrorist motivation, adding that being forthright was essential to devising public safety plans ahead.
Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, in his nationally broadcast program“Morning in America,” praised Dr. Welner for focusing the discussion on the core cause and not allowing a false narrative to take hold in the press. Dr. Bennett then invited Dr. Welner onto “Morning in America” yesterday to discuss Dr. Welner’s proposals for mitigating Islamist risk in America. Dr. Welner asserted that it was necessary to dismiss a number of oft-repeated false assertions as deliberate manipulations by informed authorities seeking to avoid addressing violence risks and risk factors of potential perpetrators, specifically:
In their extended discussion, Dr. Welner proposed a number of policy prescriptions for mitigating risk. Dr. Welner’s recommendations, which have since been re-published by the Investigative Project for Terrorism and the New English Review, include:
Some very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it. while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.
It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.
The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …
Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.
Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:
During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.
In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, reports have emerged citing neighbors who noticed suspicious activity at the shooters’ residence but decided against contacting the police so as not to appear racist.
One man who worked in the neighborhood for three weeks said he questioned why day after day, about six Middle Eastern-looking men came to the shooters’ house. “We sat around lunching thinking, ‘What [were] they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. But he didn’t report the activity because he didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling.
Another neighbor related she watched with unease while multiple packages arrived in a short amount of time at the shooters’ house. At the same time, she noticed a lot of work being done in their garage.
“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” another neighbor explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”
Speaking just one day after the attack – not to mention just weeks after the attack in Paris, the downing of a Russian commercial airliner in the Sinai and the announcement by the FBI it is involved in 900 homegrown terror investigations, U.S. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”
Addressing those engaged in “Islamophobia,” but ironically more aptly describing Islamist extremists, Lynch said, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
Lynch takes her cues from her boss, the president of the United States, as do many of the country’s citizens. The fact that, just 14 years after the September 11 attacks, ordinary citizens are afraid to report suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism for fear of being called racist, is a testament to the Orwellian political atmosphere that now pervades America.
We can look to Europe to see the end result of such an atmosphere, taking as the quintessential example the recent revelations from Rotherham, England, where 1,400 young, white British girls (some as young as 11) were sexually abused by “grooming gangs” of Pakistani Muslim men, while the police and social services looked onover a period of 10 years. In a horrifically-shocking report released last August, it was revealed knowledge of the abuse was repeatedly dismissed by police, social services and even the city council over fears of being labelled “racist.”
In the case of America, the commander-in-chief’s markedly-pronounced decision to refuse to label Islamist terror as such while instead drumming into the hearts and souls of the country’s citizens that Islam has nothing to do with the world’s recent spate of terror attacks has set the tone.
It has been argued Obama’s refusal to call out Islamist extremism for what it is, is part of a strategy to engage the Muslim world in the fight against it. As Hillary Clinton, who has also refused to out “radical Islam” said, it is “not particularly helpful to make the case” to “Muslim countries.”
This convoluted reasoning for this strategy was summed up by Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, who wrote, “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims. Sadly, large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam.”
Meaning, if we called out Islamist extremism for what it is, our radical Islamist “friends” (i.e., allied countries) would stop cooperating with us which would lead to “a world in which the U.S. stopped waging a global war on terror.”
The major countries Lake is most likely referring to are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – all Islamist entities that have aided and abetted these self-same radical Islamists. At a glance, let us consider
However, it is a strategy based on the illusion we are working for the same side. We are clearly not.
All of these countries (and by definition, any country that endorses what Lake called “the aims of radical Islam”) are looking to replace democracy and Western values with sharia law.
The willingness to joining with such countries has necessitated the breeding of a culture of political correctness where common sense on the part of ordinary citizen is now questioned as being “racist.”
In reality, the “war on terror” will not be won until we stop being afraid of declaring who we are fighting against. Once that happens, we will be able to start the battle for real.
Meira Svirsky is the editor of Clarion Project.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of mourners praying at a makeshift memorial for the victims of the California terrorist attack. (Photo: © Reuters)
U.S. President Barack Obama’s December 6 speech contained few surprises and, on many points, he said the right things.
He mentioned the “I” word, admitting there is a perversion of Islam out there that resulted in last week’s San Bernardino massacre.
The president repeated his refrain about aerial strikes against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), which he prefers to a boots-on-the-ground approach.
He gave us the very quotable quote: “If we are to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as our strongest allies in rooting out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization.”
But outside of that, and a plea for all in America to use non-inciting language, his televised White House speech focused on ISIS.
His speech lacked a clear policy on what to do about the Islamist extremists already operating in the United States – with or without the support of ISIS, al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.
There seemed to be no linkage in his comments between the order for more bombing raids in the Middle East and the inspiration ISIS provides for terrorists on American soil – whether directly under ISIS’ aegis or acting alone.
This was where Obama missed the point in his speech:
“But over the last few years, the threat has evolved as terrorists have turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all-too common in our society. For the past seven years, I have confronted the evolution of this threat each morning. Your security is my greatest responsibility. And I know that, after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.”
The obvious follow up to this would have been to give at least some details of the numbers of arrests in the U.S., or the types of actions being taken by the FBI and other agencies, without going into sensitive operational details.
However, Obama’s logical follow up was not on home soil but rather:
“So, tonight, this is what I want you to know: The threat of terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Here’s how:” (this part of the speech was bolded in the statement to the media)
And then he discussed what Washington will and will not do in its war against ISIL in the Middle East.
Maybe the president is trying to avoid panic in the homeland, but he did not give the American public any reason to feel calmer by ignoring the very real, palpable threat in the United States.
And if his policy of destroying ISIS succeeds, will it mean no more terror attacks on U.S. soil? The answer to that I will leave for the reader to mull.
Suffice it to say, unless the president announces a clear intention to increase surveillance and other interventionist measures at home – and yes, it should come from the president himself – he will leave Americans scared and the terrorists feeling emboldened.
Watch President Obama’s speech:
David Harris is editor in chief of Clarion Project.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was likely the result of a few disgruntled employees, maybe even the Emperor’s wife suffering from post-partum depression. Therefore, I urge patience and understanding.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu. No doubt these attacks were carried out by lone wolves who have hijacked the noble religion of Shinto which, we must remember, built the very fabric of our nation.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island. However, the fact remains that most Japanese are moderate and peaceful.
Japan has, in the minds of a few intolerant Asiaphobes, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves, they say. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of anyone who dares to engage in anti-Japanese rhetoric that edges toward violence.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for the immediate reduction of our military forces, especially our navy. Like I’ve said since since the invasions of Poland and France, every time something like this happens, these sort of military actions just don’t happen in other countries. I think it’s time to reconsider the Kellogg-Briand Pact which made war illegal, and to rethink the Washington Naval Treaty. If we could take combat vessels off of the high seas, events like these wouldn’t happen. We could make the oceans safer for our children.
Always will we remember that this would never have happened if America hadn’t acted arrogantly during the Spanish-American War by seizing overseas territories. No matter how long it may take us to overcome our own bigotry, the American people will reflect and support common sense arms reductions.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only decommission all of our naval assets, but make sure we never again threaten other countries with a military that air raids villages and kills civilians.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are primarily responsible. In the meantime, I don’t want to hear any nonsense about “America leading” or “America winning”.
With confidence in our policy of tolerance – with the unbounded determination of our people – we will lead from behind – so help us, uh, I’ll come back to that.
Given that the provoked and understandable attack by Japan was caused by a despicable video on YouTube, I ask that the Congress declare that the future must not belong to those who insult the Emperor of Japan and the peace-loving religion of Shinto.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.