The DHS Is Fighting Islamic Terror with Political Correctness — Will They Ever Win?

Written by Kevin Fobbs on June 17, 2016

Political correctness is putting America and its citizens at risk and the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) may have revealed the method being used and embraced by the Obama administration. Several days before the horrific terrorist attack by Omar Mateen, who massacred and injure over 100 in an Orlando gay club, HSAC submitted a highly disturbing report to Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The DHS Countering Violent Extremism report revealed that it was instructing that DHS not to use any language that might be “disrespectful” to Muslims, including (but not limited to) the words “jihad,” “sharia” and “takfir.” This is not necessarily any different than President Barack Obama’s fanatic reluctance to use the phrase “Radical Islamic Extremist” when describing terrorists who have murdered innocent Americans.

Can you imagine how absolutely ridiculous this belief of Obama is or the instructions in the intelligence report is? One can only imagine the societal backlash to this lunatic pacification method this would have met if during WWII President Roosevelt had instructed his war department to not use NAZI in any of its communications?

Pacification and political correctness is the first step to simply putting ones hands up in the air and surrendering. What type of war machine of any nation would consider not using the very words and phrases that describe the enemy? Does it make any sense that the goal should be to not offend those whose only mission is to destroy you? This is the height of Obama’s unleashed absurdity that is masquerading as a viable plan of defense.

To say that this reported HSAC plan is meritless is definitely an understatement. Even the report accepts the logical premise that there is disagreement between government officials and activists as well as certain scholars about the appropriate way to term these murderous fanatics. Why should the government be concerned about the correct lexicon it should be using in fighting to destroy an enemy that has murdered its citizens in cold blood?

Yet, in the Obama world, the White House and the occupant in the Oval Office embraces the notion that it is better to seem engaged than to be engaged in the battle to combat radicalized Islamic extremists. The report supports Obama’s philosophy and stresses “Under no circumstance should we be using language that will alienate or be disrespectful of fellow Americans.”

The assumption that the report makes is that somehow the uses of the words that describe the enemy would upset the sensibilities of Americans who are Muslim and Islamic. Yet, at the same time it acknowledges that these same people are, yes, American.

Well, as American citizens, it would seem that their allegiance should be to the nation that they immigrated to or were born a citizen in. It would seem that as citizens they too would be interested in naming the Islamic terrorist movement that has callously planned, plotted and carried out a mission to murder its fellow citizens in the name of extremist Islam beliefs.

Again, one can harken back to the traumatic period of World War II, and wonder if President Roosevelt had considered pausing for a moment and decided to fight the German Nazi and Japanese war machine by using a softer gentler verbal approach to dealing with the Japanese and German leaders.

The result would have been predictable. America and its allies would have lost the war and the only point of contention would be whether or not American school children would be learning German or Japanese in elementary classrooms.

photo credit: Jeh Johnson via photopin (license). Gage Skidmore

Share if you think speaking the truth about Islamic terrorism is kind of important.

Kevin Fobbs
Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, widely published writer, and national lecturer. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries.