By Bob Bennett
There’s a new ailment going around the White House, which has puzzled many. White House figures suddenly are incapable of uttering words like “radical” or “extremism” adjacent to words like “Islam” or “Muslim.”
In the White House Briefing Room on January 13th, Mara Liasson asked Josh Earnest:
“…the leader of France… has put a name on this ideology, which he calls “radical Islam.” You have bent over backwards to not ever say that. There must be a reason….”
AG Holder was equally challenged last Sunday, when George Stephanopoulos asked: France’s Prime Minister says France is at war with radical Islam. Are we at war with radical Islam?
Holder: Well, I certainly think that we are at war with those who would commit terrorist attacks and who would corrupt the Islamic faith in the way that they do…”
We laughed at this goofy political correctness.
But it’s not goofy: it could well be the outward sign of a sinister betrayal of America.
If we examined the inner mechanism of our government, we’d find a sizable colony of Muslims have painstakingly insinuated themselves into places where they can influence decision-makers, even working their own way into lofty positions in the agencies charged with defending this nation.
According to terror expert Patrick Poole, this process has been quietly advancing for decades. We first learned of it in 2001, when Swiss authorities raided the villa of Youssef Nada, longtime Muslim Brotherhood associate and director of a bank under investigation for funding terrorism.
One of the documents seized, dated 1982, was a detailed “Master Plan” … to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West.”
A key tactic was “Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions….” After 9/11, America was only too happy to work with the “moderate” Muslim groups who offered to help us root out the al-Qaeda types.
Naturally, we wanted to avoid offending these groups. So when they complained that Islam was being stereotyped by nasty words like “radical” or “jihad,” it was only polite to pluck those words out of our government’s dictionary.
In 2008, the Associated Press reported that the Bush Administration was now waging a War on Words:
“Federal agencies… are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as ‘jihadists’ or ‘mujahedeen’…Lingo like ‘Islamo-fascism’ is out, too.”
The AP noted that a DHS report indicated they had used “Recommendations from American Muslims,” in formulating their new linguistic strategy.
This trend was to intensify, under the Obama Administration.
On October 19, 2011 a letter signed by 57 Muslim groups found its way to NSC counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, demanding a “purge” of offensive words from training materials of Federal law-enforcement agencies. A dramatic response swiftly ensued: government officials worked feverishly with Muslim groups to cleanse training manuals of all “inaccurate and offensive” material, and set new rules for choosing trainers who were whistle-clean of negative notions about Islam.
Oddly–or insanely—some of the groups that helped draft the new rules had been named as fronts for HAMAS, by prosecutors in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial.
This foolhardy exercise resulted in the deletion of 867 pages from FBI manuals and the barring of anyone critical of Islam from training positions. More relevant to the White House’s current problem with words is a long-term goal of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a powerful group comprising 57 Muslim nations—the second-largest organization, after the UN.
The Obama administration has been profoundly involved in this goal, dubbed “the Istanbul Project.” The mission is to criminalize criticism of Islam—or ”blasphemy.” Obviously, this would render Islam nearly invincible, as no one could utter a peep about its anti-women, anti-gay practices and medieval punishments.
The Istanbul Project was kicked off in July of 2011, by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-OIC Secretary General Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu.
Integral to accomplishing the goal was UN Resolution 16/18, which had been adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April of 2011, co-sponsored by Pakistan and the U.S.—demonstrating how far beyond the pale it is. For the next three years, the State Dept. held strategy meetings with OIC affiliates.
The main task was to get the U.S. to pass laws enforcing the Resolution. Several European countries already had such laws. We’re the last holdout, because of our revered First Amendment. But Obama and Clinton may have found a way. [Boldface emphasis mine, throughout.]
Read the relevant passages in the Resolution:
[The Human Rights Council]…
- Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the [OIC] at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions:…
(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief…
In my piece “Are Obama, Holder and de Blasio Guilty of Sedition?” I wrote: Brandenburg v Ohio set the First Amendment legal standard. Here’s the relevant quote:
Speech is not protected if it is (1) “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
The key language is identical to that in the Resolution. Obviously, the resolution was drafted to fit Brandenburg, to get around our First Amendment.
Remember, we’re talking about people who commit mass murder over cartoons. In my lay opinion, here’s how such a law could be used to zip all our lips: “Directed” means intended. If you draw a cartoon insulting the Prophet, or write an editorial criticizing Islam, you’re likely to suffer violence very soon. And you bloody well know it, so your act was intended to cause imminent violence.
But, you say: “There is no law against criticizing Islam.” Wrong. In early December, 2014 AG Eric Holder put out new federal guidelines expanding the definition of racial discrimination to include “ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
By refusing to say “radical Islam,” the White House staff may be simply observing the new “law” they’ve created.
Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who wrote a featured op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on health care reform, was interviewed with his wife on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom about the same topic. He has traveled widely and authored travel articles and an opinion piece for the NY Post; wrote a cover story for the Jewish Press, and an opinion piece for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also the award-winning producer of a travel radio show that was heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR. Produced a live game show, giving away thousands of dollars’ worth of prizes on cable TV in Manhattan. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.