Barack Obama has been accused of hampering America’s efforts to protect itself from the attacks of Islamic jihadis – a threat that is becoming more and more real in today’s world of sniper attacks on police, bombings and mass murder by truck.

It comes in a Freedom of Information Act action that has been launched by the American Center for Law and Justice, which has submitted a FOIA request for information about the Department of Homeland Security’s decisions to “revise training material, other documents, and/or ‘lexicon’ by removing or editing Islam-related terms or references.”

The letter was dispatched to Karen Neuman, chief privacy officer at the federal agency and others.

In its announcement about the move, the ACLJ said, “The Obama administration, in lockstep with groups like Muslim Advocates and CAIR, is hamstringing our ability as a nation to combat jihadist terror. How? By prohibiting the use of ‘offensive’ religious, legal, and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘Shariah,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma.’

“That’s right. The government is honoring demands to ‘purge’ these words from its ‘lexicon’ – including law enforcement and intelligence training material and other government documents,” the group said.

The federal move seems to align with Obama’s persistent refusal to say “Islamic terror” or “Islamic terrorism,” and the ACLJ said it wants to uncover “who was involved in these decisions, what outside groups were influencing these decisions, when these decisions were made, and why. The American people need to know, and they deserve to know.”

The free WND special report “ISIS Rising,” by Middle East expert and former Department of Defense analyst Michael Maloof, will answer your questions about the jihadist army threatening the West.

It became obvious that such a move was needed when, during a hearing earlier this summer, Farhana Khera, a representative of Muslim Advocates, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the subject of “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism,” that there should be “mandatory retraining” for every law enforcement official subjected to “biased” trainings from the federal government.

“Disciplinary action” also should be imposed on those who include “biased,” information, said the witness, who continued, “Far too many of our nation’s public officials and political leaders engage in hateful and blatantly bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric. Public officials must understand that such rhetoric carries grave consequences for American Muslims and those who are perceived to be Muslim in the U.S.”

“These demands are not isolated. Instead, they follow two letters sent by a coalition of Muslim and left-leaning advocacy organizations (including CAIR – which was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror financing case) to the White House in 2011 and 2014 making these same demands,” the ACLJ reported.

John Brennan, who now is CIA director, responded then that he already knew that officials were collecting all training materials that contain information related to Islam.

And just last month, a Department of Homeland Security council calling for various actions to control the “tone” of government documents.

For example, the council said terms like “jihad” and “Shariah” should be eliminated.

But the ACLJ cited indications that Orlando, Florida, shooter Omar Mateen had been under investigation by the FBI, but those investigations ceased and that decision could be “connected to the sensitization’ of its training materials.”

“The Obama administration’s word-war has to stop. Fight the enemy, not allegedly offensive terms identified by some special interest groups. The willful blindness is baffling and the consequences are staggering. An ill-advised sensitivity simply cannot trump our national security,” the ACLJ report said.

Such a “willfully blind” philosophy, imposed on law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts, would be troubling, the group said.

“Just last week, an Islamic jihadist pledging loyalty to ISIS (the Islamic State) was arrested near our nation’s capital because the FBI investigated his ‘newerajihadi’ social media accounts and found that he supported terrorists who ‘love Islam so much that they are willing to die as martyrs for Islam’ and wanted to carry out a terrorist attack in D.C.,” the ACLJ report said.

“But what if ‘jihad,’ ‘martyr,’ and ‘Islam’ were off limits. The results could be disastrous.”

The FOIA document itself noted that the DHS previously released a “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Extremism Lexicon” that cited anarchist extremists, animal rights extremists, environmental extremists, racist skinhead extremist and many more.

“Yet somehow, ‘radical Islamic extremists’ were nowhere mentioned. … Similarly, the FBI’s ‘Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon’ makes no reference to ‘Islam,’ ‘radical Islam,’ ‘jihad’ or any other such term,” the FOIA explains.

The free WND special report “ISIS Rising,” by Middle East expert and former Department of Defense analyst Michael Maloof, will answer your questions about the jihadist army threatening the West.


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.