Why Should Someone Who Targets Congressmen Not Be A "Terrorist." Is FBI Restricting That Name For Conservatives?

FBI Refuses to Call Scalise Shooter

 a “Terrorist”

• 06/21/2017 
• Source: AAN 
• by: Remington Strelivo

SPECIAL:VIAGRA OBSOLETE: NEW TREATMENT CHEAPER, SAFER AND FASTER

DailyHealthPulse

Learn More

The FBI has released new information about the man who shot Republican Congressman Steve Scalise—but, curiously, they’re refusing to call him a “terrorist.”

Investigators determined that James Hodgkinson, the Bernie Sanders supporter who opened fire on a Virginia baseball field last week and injured four people including Scalise, had no ties to international terrorism, and acted alone. Scalise, along with a number of other Republican leaders, were practicing for the annual Democratic vs. Republican congressional baseball game at the time. Scalise remains hospitalized in serious condition.

The FBI’s refusal to label Hodgkinson a terrorist—despite his radicalized views, and his attempt on the life of multiple Republican political leaders—harkens back to the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, when Maj. Nidal Hasan killed 14. The FBI, at the time, also refused to label Hasan a “terrorist,” instead calling him a “homegrown violent extremist.” The Defense Department, controversially, classified Hasan’s attack  as “workplace violence.”

In addition to their determination that Hodgkinson was not a terrorist, the FBI also determined that the shooter had kept a storage locker in Alexandria, Virginia, containing large stores of ammunition and a laptop computer. He visited the locker nearly every day since April, including less than an hour before his attack.

Officials also discovered a list including the names of six additional members of Congress. It’s not clear what leaders were on the list, and the FBI has not yet characterized it as a “hit list,” despite Hodgkinson’s political leanings and the large number of unused rounds found in the locker.

Will Liberals Only Awaken To The Threat Until Their Women Are Enslaved, That Sharia Law Is Instituted And Dhimmis Are Forced To Pay Jizya?

Why liberals keep giving radical Islam a pass — and what it will take to change their minds

Dave Urbanski Feb 7, 2017 8:24 am

Kashmiri demonstrators hold up a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during a demonstration against Israeli military operations in Gaza, in downtown Srinagar on July 18, 2014. (Image source: Tauseef Mustafa/AFP/Getty Images)

124Follow

• SHARE
• TWEET

One might conclude that given example after example of radical Islam’s heinous acts around the globe even after 9/11, liberals would cease giving them a pass or the benefit of the doubt.

But even after Fort Hood, Boston, Paris, Garland, Chattanooga, San Bernardino and Orlando — to name a few attacks — some liberals clearly don’t feel that way. Indeed, a new CBS poll indicates that 66 percent of Democrats believe Islam is no different from other religions when it comes to encouraging violence.

People hold candles during a vigil for shooting victims Dec. 3, 2015, at San Manuel Stadium in San Bernardino, California. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Who can forget left-wing actor Ben Affleck’s infamous appearance on “Real Time” when he became incensed at host Bill Maher and atheist icon Sam Harris for daring to say Islam’s general reluctance to call out and combat radical elements is a problem? Affleck referred to that conclusion as “racist” and “gross.”

Maher — a rare liberal who’s outspoken in his criticism of Islam — countered that it’s “the only religion that acts like the mafia; that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, paint the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”

Loud and opinionated comedienne Rosie O’Donnell — who praised Affleck’s words after the “Real Time” dust-up — drew honest-to-goodness applause on “The View” a few years before saying that “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.” To her credit, left-wing icon Joy Behar attempted to temper O’Donnell, saying, “Christians are not threatening to kill us.”

And of course, former President Barack Obama refused to place the words “radical” and “Islam” together, which led to many to conclude he was giving special favor to Islam while never hesitating to openly criticize Christianity.

After last June’s terror attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Obama said using the term “radical Islam” won’t change a thing.

“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?” Obama asked. “The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

Republican President Donald Trump disagrees — and made it a point to emphatically call out “radical Islamic terrorism” during his inauguration address last month and promise to end it.

So what will it take to change liberals’ minds on the subject? Another 9/11-scale attack — or worse? And what other factors might be playing a role in the left’s seemingly ingrained desire to not look radical Islam square in the eye and take it on?

Robert Spencer — director of Jihad Watch and a noted authority on the pervasiveness of radical Islam — told TheBlaze he’s seeing the left not only continuing to give Islamic extremism a pass but also noticing liberals beginning to normalize elements of it.

And he needed to point no further than the much-heralded Women’s March, which hit the streets the day after Trump’s inauguration — and featured speaker and march organizer Linda Sarsour, a “Palestinian Muslim American” who’s come under scrutiny for threatening statements she made against Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali several years back.

“Ms. Sarsour is not interested in universal human rights,” Ali told the New York Times, adding, “she’s a defender of Sharia law. There’s no principle that demeans, degrades and dehumanizes women more than the principal of Sharia law.”

Despite this, Spencer said liberals continue their “glamorization and glorification” of Sarsour — as well as their “vilification of anyone who points out her ties to Hamas, vicious hatred of Israel … even in publications such as Elle.”

Other normalization examples include the “the proliferation of World Hijab Day events, which ignore the many women who have been brutalized or even killed for not wearing the hijab, and the spread among Western leftist feminists of the idea that the hijab and Sharia restrictions on women’s rights are a beautiful sign of cultural diversity, to be celebrated rather than condemned.”

Spencer agreed, too, that left-wing bias against Christianity and Judaism finds a kindred spirit with radical Islam, as both share “hatred for Judeo-Christian Western civilization.” Furthermore, radical Islam’s goal of bringing down “the West” taps into a kind of liberal self-loathing that wouldn’t mind seeing America brought low, given it’s viewed by some liberals “the source of all the evil in the world.”

Another tool the left tends to use — and Affleck’s “Real Time” appearance spells it out — is the characterization of Islam criticism as “racism,” despite the fact that Islam isn’t a race.

“Racism is our national trauma,” Spencer added to TheBlaze. “The endeavor to portray Muslims as ‘brown’ and foes of jihad terror as disliking them solely for racial reasons is a cynical and dishonest enterprise that has the effect of intimidating people into being afraid to oppose jihad terror. Of course, many leftists are so poorly educated and unable to think critically that they no doubt believe all that.”

So, what — if anything — might possibly turn the tide on the left?

Spencer noted that it very likely would take something at least as terrible as another 9/11-scale attack, as “with with every jihad attack some people wake up.”

But the “leftist intelligentsia knows that,” he said, which poses an issue, since “after every attack, there is a strenuous effort to exonerate Islam from any responsibility for it.”

Here’s Spencer discussing Islam and the left’s assault on free speech in 2009 — and you might say his words have proven rather prophetic in America over the last several years:

Obama's Biggest Lies

Washington Post catalogues the biggest lies Obama ever told

Sara Gonzales Jan 19, 2017 4:33 pm

In this photo taken Jan. 18, 2017, President Barack Obama speaks during his final news conference in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

122Follow

• SHARE
• TWEET

The Washington Post marked the end of the Obama administration with a list Thursday that likely didn’t please the outgoing president’s supporters.

For the last five years, the Post has made its political Fact Checker a staple of the publication. Ranked by “Pinocchios,” contenders receive one Pinocchio for a little lie and can earn up to four Pinocchios for the most outrageous of fibs.

Though the Post ran its trademark Fact Checker during President Barack Obama’s first campaign, it wasn’t until 2011 that it became a fixture there, so admittedly the publication missed some blatant dishonesty.

But the newspaper has fact-checked more than 250 statements made by the current president. On his last full day in office, the Post published a catalogue of Obama’s 10 biggest lies.

Included on the list, unsurprisingly, was Obama’s statement to the American public while rallying for Congress to pass his signature health-care legislation, Obamacare: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

“If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it”
This memorable promise by Obama backfired on him in 2013 when the Affordable Care Act went into effect and at least 2 million Americans started receiving cancellation notices. As we explained, part of the reason for so many cancellations is because of an unusually early (March 23, 2010) cutoff date for grandfathering plans — and because of tight regulations written by the administration. So the uproar could be pinned directly on the administration’s own actions.

Another whopper was Obama’s claim that all but 10 percent of the federal deficit was due to former President George W. Bush’s policies. Pushing back against criticisms of running up the deficit at an unparalleled rate with stimulus packages and bailouts, Obama made this claim during his 2012 campaign.

“90 percent of the budget deficit is due to George W. Bush’s policies”
During the 2012 campaign, Obama repeatedly reminded voters that he became president during a grim economic crisis. But he went too far when he claimed that only 10 percent of the federal deficit was due to his own policies. About half of the deficit stemmed from the recession and forecasting errors, but a large chunk (44 percent in 2011) were the result of Obama’s actions. At another point, Obama also falsely suggested that the Bush tax cuts led to the Great Recession.

And throughout Obama’s two terms in office, he has been quick to dismiss clear acts of terrorism — using phrases like “workplace violence” or blaming a YouTube video for an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The Post also included his categorization of the Benghazi attack as “an act of terror” and his reference to ISIS as a “JV team.”

“The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism”
Obama did refer to an “act of terror” in the immediate aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but in vague terms, wrapped in a patriotic fervor. He never affirmatively stated that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.” Then, over a period of two weeks, given three opportunities in interviews to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question. So this was a case of taking revisionist history too far for political reasons.

“I didn’t call the Islamic State a ‘JV’ team”
In 2014, Obama repeated a claim, crafted by the White House communications team, that he was not “specifically” referring to the Islamic State terror group when he dismissed the militants who had taken over Fallujah as a “JV squad.” But The Fact Checker obtained the previously unreleased transcript of the president’s interview with the New Yorker, and it’s clear that’s who the president was referencing.

But the Post did leave out some key falsehoods recited by Obama over the years. Here are a few:

“Over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas.”

Playing a semantics game, Obama misrepresented the fact that there have been many terrorist attacks carried out on American soil by those with ties to foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, in the case of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Killeen, Texas, Major Nidal Hasan murdered 14 people on the military base while shouting “allahu akbar” and was shown to be in direct contact with Al Qaeda terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack.

ISIS themselves also claimed responsibility for a 2015 attack in Garland, Texas, when two men were taken down by police officers after they shot up a community center hosting a Muhammad cartoon contest.

Over the last eight years, there were even more terrorist-related attacks in the country, including the San Bernardino attack, Boston Marathon attack, and a 2009 Little Rock, Arkansas, attack when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot two soldiers at a military recruiting station. Muhammad also had ties to al-Qaeda.

---

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

Obama claimed that combat operations would be finished by 2010 and later took credit for ending U.S. combat in Iraq. But his own former Defense Secretary Robert Gates disputed that in 2016, the White House did a “disservice” to troops by engaging in word games.

“I think that it is incredibly unfortunate not to speak openly about what’s going on,” Gates told MSNBC. “American troops are in action, they are being killed, they are in combat. And these semantic backflips to avoid using the term combat is a disservice to those who are out there putting their lives on the line.”

---

“We have not had a major scandal in my administration.”

Obama sidestepped the comprehensive list of scandals that plagued his tenure as president. These scandals include but are not limited to: the Operation Fast and Furious gun walking scandal, the IRS scandal involving IRS workers intentionally targeting Tea Party organizations, and his own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using a private email server.

US Should Be Supporting Pro-Reform Muslims However, We Are Not. Only Radicals Need Apply

A WARPED LEGACY

 June 23, 2016   0 Comment

According to the eminent columnist for National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy, “Sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny by U.S. intelligence, but welcomed into the National Security apparatus.”

The decree for this insanity originates from the White House and from the President and Commander in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

The president, who still has some seven months left to grievously damage America, has used his two terms in office to cultivate and advance Islamist triumphalism in the United States by the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, and its noxious affiliate, Hamas.

Obama cannot stand the term, “radical Islam” nor can the many Muslim officials he has filled the White House and his regime with. That is why he has forced the removal of all references in training material that expose the direct collusion between Islamic and Koranic doctrine and Muslim jihadist terror.

Obama’s decrees have created a departure from reality and replaced it with an Orwellian double speak world in which Islam must be protected from any and all links to its 1,400 year old history of violence and triumphalism over non-Muslims.

Obama and the Democrats have been discomfited by the growing atrocities perpetrated by Muslims in America against non-Muslims – not because of the anti-American horrors now taking place within America itself but because it exposes their illegitimate defense of Islam, or what they call by its novel term; Islamism.

So-called Islamists are simply the overwhelming majority of Muslims who want to impose Sharia (Islam’s repressive laws) upon non-Muslim society.

As Fox’s Richard Baehr recently opined: “… Fort Hood, San Bernardino and now Orlando, to name just a few of the worst horrors of Muslim intolerance and violence against America’s freedoms, have all been cynically used by the Obama administration to call for gun control or to insult the National Rifle Association (NRA).”

Of course, all facts are totally ignored in the Orlando gun control narrative either by rank ignorance or by sheer cynicism. An assault rifle was not used. Guns were purchased legally by Omar Mateen and his background screening was checked and passed.

And now Obama has been rattled by Donald Trump’s justified criticism. That is why Obama and his Amen Corner in the benighted Press Corp have turned their ire to unprecedented heights of hypocrisy, not on Muslim violence but on the Republican presidential nominee.

Trump, in particular, pointed out that it is not only ISIS (or ISIL as the president obsessively calls them) which perpetrates appalling violence against non-Muslims. but Hamas, Hezb’allah, Boko Haram, Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and vast swathes of the Muslim world, which accepts brutality and is viciously bigoted against Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Bahai, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists – as well as gays.

Trump gave a speech, some two days after the Orlando Islamist atrocity against gays, many of whom were Latinos. Trump’s address censuring Obama’s failed policies struck a nerve in the President who, as a narcissist, cannot tolerate any personal criticism however justified.

Omar Saddiqi Mateen, the American born Muslim of Afghani descent, even as he was murdering his hapless victims at point blank range, stopped his carnage to pray to Allah and to even call the FBI to declare his allegiance to Islamic State (ISIS) before coldly resuming his reign of terror and mass slaughter.

His wife, an Arab woman who calls herself a Palestinian, is now being investigated as suspicions grow that she scouted out targets for her husband and even dropped him off at the Pulse Gay nightclub.

To quote Andrew C. McCarthy again: ‘Our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our National Security Apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the ‘dangerous excesses’ of real counter-terrorism.

“That is how we end up with such lunacy as what the Left calls, ‘countering violent extremism.’ In other words, don’t ever say radical Islam much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become!”

One stark example of the president’s hostility to those few within Islam who are trying, sadly in vain, to moderate the endemic hatred towards non-Muslims, is Egypt’s President al-Sisi.

No other Muslim leader has tried as he has to defeat jihad either on the battlefield or in the mosques.

Supporting al-Sisi should be a no-brainer for Obama but instead of supporting him our president opposes him by denying the weapons critical to al-Sisi’s fight against ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and all the other Islamic terrorists.

Let us also not forget President Obama’s outrageous support for the leading terrorist enabling regime in the world: the Islamic Republic of Iran.     

We should ask ourselves, why did Barack Hussein Obama turn his back upon the millions of Iranians who rose up against the mullahs in what was called Iran’s Green Revolution?

His silence was deafening and dashed the fervent hopes of the long suffering masses who still groan under the vicious, repressive and obscurantist mullahs occupying Iran’s leadership.

The hopes of those Iranians – who heroically came out into the streets to face the guns of the Mullahs’ goon squads with the desire of installing a functioning democracy including women’s and minorities rights – were brutally dashed by the refusal of President Obama to even issue one word of support to them.   

Instead, our president has enriched the Islamic Republic of Iran with some $150 billion, which will not go to build hospitals and schools for its people but rather enable ever more inhuman violence word wide and empower the mullahs to construct the Bomb.

This will be Barack Hussein Obama’s warped legacy and the world will be a far more perilous place for it.

Victor Sharpe is a prolific freelance writer and published author of several books including the Blue Hour and the acclaimed trilogy: Politicide.

When Will The Americans Awaken To The Damage Islam Can Cause? How Many Events Like Orlando, Fort Hood Or San Bernardino Do We Need? The Common Element Is Islam And Sharia Law.

DENYING REALITY WILL GET US KILLED

PHYLLIS-CHESLER.COM, PHYLLIS CHESLER

 June 13, 2016   0 Comment

President Obama could not bring himself to utter the word “Muslim” (not even “radical Islamist”) in connection with the worst mass shooting murder in American history–one inspired by ISIS, one claimed by ISIS–an attack committed by a home-grown, lone wolf, Muslim-American citizen, whose parents came here from Afghanistan.

Obama focused on the “handgun” issue, on gun violence, as did other members of his administration. Yet, the Orlando shooter was a security guard who had the legal right to pack and carry. He was an armed guard. Think about that for a minute. And he carefully planned this mass murder. Months ago, he became enraged when he saw two gay men kissing in Miami; weeks ago, he tried to purchase high grade military body armor.

Although the FBI had him on their radar, no one monitored his actions. One wonders why.

The LGBT Bar (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender Legal Association of New York) could not immediately bring themselves to say the dreaded “M” word either.

This denial of reality is literally killing us.

Do gay Westerners not know that Sharia law–Muslim law–views homosexuals and apostasy (leaving Islam) as capital crimes? Do they not know that ISIS has been throwing suspected homosexuals off the roofs of very tall buildings? Do they know that Israel is the only country in the Muslim Middle East that grants asylum to gay Muslims, beginning with Arabs in the disputed territories, who are in flight from being honor killed?

I understand that politically correct and culturally “sensitive” Westerners do not want to assign collective blame or judge people up in terms of religion, ethnicity, and race. This is a noble endeavor–but at this moment it may also be suicidal.

This attack may help elect Donald Trump to the Presidency–that's if Hillary refuses to use the “M” word too. She's in a difficult situation since she is counting on Obama's support and no matter what happens–the Boston bombing, for example–Obama will not attribute it to murderous actions on the part of Muslims–Muslims who, in his view, are actually “anti-Islam.”

That's precisely what Hamid Karzai, the former President of Afghanistan. said on Sunday. Karzai said that Omar Siddiqui Mateen, was “anti-Islam.” He said that Afghanistan was doing very well, that the Taliban were not a problem, they are actually “fighting ISIS,” that America should continue “helping” his country. Karzai insisted that life was peaceful, even good in Afghanistan.

Has the world really gone completely mad? Do we believe our own lies? Have we all gone “Afghan?”

Obama Is #1 Terrorist. How Can He Get Away With These Outrageous Actions

OBAMA DHS SCRUBS RECORDS OF HUNDREDS OF MUSLIM TERRORISTS

Exclusive: Pamela Geller asks, 'How is this not impeachable?'

Published: 1 hour ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/04/Pamela-Geller_avatar.jpg

 PAMELA GELLER 

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/08/obama.png

Not only did the Obama administration scrub counter-terror programs of jihad and Islam, now we find out that his administration scrubbed the records of Muslim terrorists. If the enemedia were not aligned with the jihad force, this would be front-page news across the nation.

An agent of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, for 15 years, Philip Haney, reported Friday that after the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to blow up a crowded passenger jet over Detroit, “President Obama threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to ‘connect the dots.’ He said, ‘This was not a failure to collect intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.'”

Haney revealed: “Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material – the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.”

What Haney discloses is truly shocking: “Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to ‘connect dots.’ Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.”

Who gave the order to scrub the records of Muslims with ties to terror groups?

These new shocking revelations come fresh on the heels of whistleblower testimony in the wake of the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, revealing that the Obama administration shut down investigations into jihadists in America (and quite possible the San Bernardino shooters) at the request of the Department of State and the DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. Haney noted: “They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?”

How is this not impeachable? When did foreign terrorists get civil rights?

Haney described how he began investigating scores of individuals with links to the traditionalist Islamic Indo-Pakistani Deobandi movement, and its related offshoots, prominently, Tablighi Jamaat. Read more about that here.

I have reported on this infiltration for years. I reported on it extensively in my book, “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.” Obama has partnered with terror-tied groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society and others. The stealth jihad in the information battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement of blasphemy laws under the Shariah, as Obama ordered that counter-terror training materials must avoid all reference to Islam and jihad. Under Islamic law, it is prohibited to criticize Islam.

The Obama administration is Shariah-compliant at all costs. Its number one priority is to protect Islam, even when it puts American lives at risk. The cold-blooded slaughter of Americans in the homeland by Muslims has not tempered Obama’s Shariah enthusiasm. On the contrary, Garland, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UCMED, San Bernardino, etc., have accelerated it.

My civil liberties and your civil liberties are being abridged in accordance with the blasphemy laws under Shariah. My organization is engaged in 15 different free-speech lawsuits against various cities. Our free-speech lawsuit against Boston is heading to the Supreme Court, because even though truthful, our ads violate the laws of Shariah (“do not criticize Islam”). We are being forced to adhere to Shariah mores, but jihad murderers are given sanctuary and protection – to slaughter Americans.

The moral, or in this case the immoral, of the story is this: Jihad terror works.