Will White House & FBI Continue To Invite Muslim Groups to Shape American Counterterrorism Training?
By ilana mercer
Christopher Wray, President Donald Trump’s FBI director nominee, seems a perfectly nice man. But nothing he has said during confirmation hearings on July 12 distinguishes him as someone who would reform Barack Hussein Obama’s Islamophilic FBI.
President Trump ran on a quixotic set of ideas about aggressively stopping Islamic terror. Like a fly-in-amber, the standard operating procedures (SOP) governing the Obama Federal Bureau of Investigation guarantee to preserve the same systemic, intractable failures that unleashed mass murderer Omar Mateen or Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik, to maim and murder dozens of Americans.
From Wray’s comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee, we know how he’ll bravely break with President Trump, but that he’s partial to his predecessor, James Comey. To wit, Wray said he sided with Comey in rejecting a domestic surveillance program in 2004, “… not because he knew the substance of the dispute,” but because of his affection for Comey.
Given his unalloyed loyalty, Wray’ll be unlikely to remove from FBI training manuals the fiction about Jihad being a peaceful pillar of the Islamic faith.
To get a sense of how the outfit being glorified by the Senate panel operates, consider this: You hire a private firm to protect you, only to discover that, as part of your protection plan, your protectors undergo sensitivity training to desensitize them to potential perpetrators and evil-doers, thus giving the latter easy access to you and yours. This “strategy” would endanger your life. The company executing this harebrained scheme, moreover, would be in violation of its contractual obligation to keep you safe. If you came to harm, you’d sue.
But first, fire the fools before they get you killed.
Thanks to the president, we can only hope that firing the director of the FBI will become a new norm. For among his many other “virtues,” former FBI Director Comey believes that “unless [his] passport is revoked,” an American citizen who holds an American passport and who has fought for ISIS—maybe even decapitated a dhimmi or two—“is entitled to come back” to the US. We know this because Comey said it on “60 Minutes”!
In 2014, he was asked about the status of the fighters America, unwittingly, exports to ISIS Land. This sanctimonious civil servant, traitor to the people who pay for his keep, promised to “track [the fighters] very carefully,” after he let them in.
At the time, anchor Megyn Kelly had aptly used the word treason, although she applied it exclusively to ISIS-Americans, when they, at least, were being true to their vampiric god. To whom was Comey being true? Certainly not to the law. In Judge Andrew Napolitano’s telling, the federal government’s top law enforcement agent didn’t know the law [or, was willfully ignoring it]:
“[Comey] forgot there’s a statute called providing material assistance to a terrorist organization. So, if he knows that Americans have been fighting with ISIS and he also knows that the secretary of state has declared ISIS a terrorist organization, that is more than enough evidence for him to arrest them upon their re-entry to the U.S. It is crazy to let them back in and wait and see what they do.”
That’s our crazy Comey. And the new guy, Christopher Wray, loves him just the way he is.
Another swamp creature for whom Wray has “enormous respect” is former FBI Director Robert Mueller. “[T]he consummate straight shooter,” gushed Wray.
Both the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute would agree. Thanks to Mueller, Comey’s predecessor, these and other special interests were involved in shaping FBI counterterrorism training.
Before Russia (B.R.), when the-now monomaniacal media touched occasionally on an issue of abiding interest to Americans (“murder-by-Muslim-immigrant“), they used milquetoast words. Again, the T-word (being floated for Donald Trump Jr.) would more appropriately describe how White House and FBI leadership invited Muslim advocacy groups to shape American counterterrorism training.
In Feb., 2012, WIRED magazine published an article titled “FBI Purges Hundreds of Terrorism Documents in Islamophobia,” and hashtagged Islamophobia. The magazine took some credit for urging the FBI to scrub counterterrorism training manuals of what sentient human beings would view as undeniable and dangerous trends and proclivities in Islam and its practitioners. Bragged the author: “The White House ordered a government-wide review of counterterrorism training late last year . A Pentagon document responding to the order cited [WIRED magazine’s series] as an impetus for the effort.”
To better know thy enemy, your FBI had purged the scholarship of the likes of Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes from the FBI training library at Quantico.
How did this book-burning go down? Enter Director Mueller. In 2012, wrote WIRED, Mueller, who was succeeded by Comey, undertook to excise the FBI’s counterterrorism training program of “anti-Islam materials.” Essentially, Mueller saw to it that Islam was porcelainized.
Soon, the agency was redacting or expunging documents perceived to “stereotype” Arabs or Muslims, to sport “factual errors” (such as that Islam is not peace, presumably), be in “poor taste” (perhaps a less than polite reference to The Prophet), or “lacking in precision.” (Because the “truth” is that no “authentic” Muslim theologian would ever suggest that decapitation of a non-believer could be considered a mitzvah in Islam.)
Guidelines were published to help our comical FBI “protectors” defend against “anti-Islam documents.” You can feel safe. New FBI recruits are brainwashed to believe Americans who fly Gen. R. E. Lee’s Battle Flag are as likely to erupt as Muslims.
It’s easy to see how this frightful situation saw Mohammed A. Malik, friend to Orlando mass murderer Mateen, dutifully report Mateen to the FBI, only to be dismissed. (Just another self-hating Muslim. Hug?) Faithful to Mueller’s mandate, Director Comey personally vouched for the botched investigation that facilitated slaughter in Orlando.
Both men, role models to the new guy, were clearly Eric Holder loyalists. The attorney general had declared that the FBI harbored “systemic” anti-Islam bias and needed a fix.
One such “fix” entailed ridding the FBI of heroic men like Philip Haney.
Forcibly retired from the Department of Homeland Security, the soft-spoken, demure Haney has since divulged that the Obama Administration “nixed the probe into the Southern California jihadists” (Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik and their network), eliminating a program he, Haney, had developed. The Haney database would’ve helped connect certain networks—Tablighi Jamaat and the larger Deobandi movement—to domestic terrorism rising. Haney’s files were destroyed and he subjected to an internal investigation for doing his patriotic duty to protect Americans.
Political correctness run amok is how pundits on Fox News had euphemized the FBI’s SOP under BHO. Treason seems more like it.
This is the Mueller and Comey FBI. How does President Trump imagine Christopher Wray, who looks up to the two and swam in the same polluted waters, will fix it?
Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube channel.
I have been asked to write a weekly column on British politics. Since I am writing for a largely American readership, and since Americans mostly know little of what happens outside their own country, and since American politics are presently in themselves of consuming interest, I think it would be best if I were to begin with a brief overview not only of what is happening here, but also of what has been happening. Read more
Sometimes I wish that my soapbox were just a little bit taller.
Over the past two or three decades, I have more-or-less accidentally made a number of historically significant predictions in various of my books and essays that have turned out to be correct. In 1977, for example, in my first novel, The Probability Broach, I predicted the Internet, wall-sized computer/television screens, laptop/tablets, computer-aided forensics, and laser designators for handguns. Some time around the same period, I talked about what would become known as the “Strategic Defense Initiative” or “Star Wars” (in an article for Reason/Frontlines, and I predict now that the concept is coming around again). In 1981, in The Gallatin Divergence, I said that the Marxist regime in Russia would not survive to celebrate its 100th anniversary. My editor at the time, supposedly an expert on Soviet affairs, dismissed that as “wishful thinking”. In numerous books and articles, I insisted that Global Warming is a crooked scam, that the very notion of “peak oil” was absurd, and that our species would be far better off emphasizing travel to and exploitation of the Asteroid Belt than the Moon or Mars. Read more
By Richard Storey
It is my firm belief that the state is the embodiment of collective irresponsibility and that, for this reason, it incentivises its own growth. Having to maintain a good reputation in a community can be hard work; but, we live in a time of declining birth rates and a growing nanny state – our communities are all but dead as the growth of the state presents an increasingly hostile environment to them. Read more
Aside from my various books – more of which will come out this month and next – I get most of my living nowadays from teaching Greek and Latin. I do this as a private tutor, and sometimes as an informal member of staff at various places of education. Because demand for my services in any one place is limited, there is no point in my becoming a formal member of staff. Instead, I go out to see students in their homes or in classrooms, or in university libraries, or I hold court in the kitchen of my own house. I do the teaching and then get on with other business. Read more
To join me on this journey, imagine if you will that this book was written and published in 2024. It owes much to futuristic fiction, both utopian and dystopian, but it is not a novel. There are no imagined characters, no dialogue, no focussing on the affairs of any one person or group of persons. Nor is it a formal history, stuffed with references and footnotes. There is no focus on the details of policy, no costing of alternatives, no effort to deal with objections. Rather, we look back together at crises of the past and use their lessons to transit to a new order for the future.
I hope you will gain much from this book. I do not expect you to agree with all that you find. Perhaps you do not share my view of the world. Perhaps, even if you agree that my view of what will happen, you will find what I regard as a future world on the edge of utopia as a world on the edge of nightmare. More likely, you will simply disagree with my opinion of where things are heading and how they can be overcome. If this is the case, you will find me in partial agreement with you. Read more