Tag Archives: Terrorist

Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport Bombed, at Least 35 Dead

At least 35 people have been killed and more than 130 wounded by a bomb blast at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport. Domodedovo is the city’s largest and busiest air facility.

Unnamed sources say that a Chechen Islamic terrorist group, the Caucasus Emirate, is believed to be behind the attack. The same group employed women as female suicide bombers in the bombing of the Moscow Metro subway last March. 40 people were killed.

What, did the airport put up a picture of Mohammed or something?

The “religion of peace” is spreading sunshine and rainbows as usual. Makes me want to hug an Imam and sing “Kumbaya.”

Meanwhile, here in the United States, Evangelical Christians are celebrating “Sanctity of Life Week.”  That’s an interesting contrast.  (Remember Rosie O’Donnell’s comment?  “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”)

Islam doesn’t have the market cornered on bloodthirsty, murderous terrorism; the abortion industry has racked up some 53,000,000 killings since Roe V. Wade.

Watch and pray, Believers…

“Moses” and the Mosque

By Jim Bennett
Daily Review Atlas

On April 20, 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris shot 12 students, a teacher and themselves to death at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colorado.

That year, the National Rifle Association convention had been booked for the end of the month at the Adam’s Mark Hotel in Denver, 14 miles from the site of the tragedy.

The event had been planned and paid for long before the massacre, but Association President Charlton Heston swiftly cancelled all of the convention’s various seminars, luncheons, ceremonies and the sprawling firearms exposition anyway.

The NRA voluntarily reduced their traditionally festive three-day assemblage to a few hours, long enough for an austere membership meeting (which they held only because it was required by law under their non-profit charter) and a brief, low-key reception.
Even though neither Harris nor Klebold was a member of the National Rifle Association, Heston went to extraordinary lengths to extend kindness to those who had lost their loved ones in the mass slaying.

This is called “simple human decency.”

On Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists hijacked four airliners and purposely smashed two of them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The two skyscrapers collapsed a short time later. The third jet was intentionally flown into the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., and the fourth, which the hijackers had directed toward Washington D.C., crashed in a field in Pennsylvania as passengers and crew were courageously attempting to regain control of it; 2,976 people were killed in the attack, along with the hijackers. More than 6,000 people were injured.

In December 2009, Islamic Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf announced plans to build a 13-story mosque and Muslim cultural center just two blocks from the site of the Twin Towers atrocity. When some family members of 9/11 victims bristled at the suggestion and cried out for sensitivity, Rauf and his backers just pressed forward.

Simple human decency? Hello?

But what did the NRA get for their sacrificial and sympathetic gestures in 1999? They were pilloried by the press anyway; many media outlets continued to report the story as if the organization had simply shaken a defiant fist in the face of the families of the Columbine victims and gone ahead with their convention as planned.

The mayor of Denver at the time, Wellington Webb, a Democrat, demanded that Heston and his conventioneers stay out of the city altogether.

In contrast, the New York Times calls the Ground Zero mosque a “monument to tolerance,” and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks of the project in supportive, glowing terms. He believes the mosque will “help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam.”

That’s an interesting statement, considering that Imam Rauf has refused to condemn Hamas as the terrorist organization it is. Bloomberg’s support shouldn’t surprise us though; the May Day car bomb discovered in Times Square left His Honor the Mayor speculating that the bomber was some right-winger upset over Obama’s health care plan. Later, police arrested Faisal Shahzad, a Muslim terrorist from Pakistan.

When federal officials weighed in on the NRA convention controversy in ’99, Congressman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, called the group “merchants of death” while then-First Lady Hillary Clinton smiled and nodded in agreement.
When it comes to the Ground Zero mosque, however, even President Obama himself has inexplicably endorsed it. Shamelessly pandering to Muslims at the second annual White House Ramadan dinner Friday night, He called for the development to proceed, in spite of the pain it’s causing.

After the Columbine murders, NRA President Charlton Heston immediately called upon his constituents to show their “profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss.” Again: Simple human decency.

Compare that statement to what Imam Rauf said on the Sept. 30, 2001, edition of CBS’ “60 Minutes”: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened [on 9/11], but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

But the Soetoro Administration’s fondness for Rauf could have no greater affirmation than his selection by the government to be sent abroad on a month-long junket (funded by you and me, taxpayers) to various Muslim countries. His mission, says State Department spokesman C.J. Crowley, is “to foster a greater understanding and outreach … among Muslim majority communities … to help people overseas understand our society and the role of religion within our society.”

We’re talking about a guy who once told Ed Bradley that the U.S. has “been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”

I’m not sure this is the man we want “fostering a greater understanding and outreach” among Muslims, let alone building anything near Ground Zero.

Perhaps most disconcerting is the murky funding behind this $100 million development. Rauf and his partners have been eerily evasive about that, yet calls for an investigation into the Imam’s financial backers have fallen on deaf ears. Mayor Bloomberg says undertaking such a probe would be “un-American,” but now comes word that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is actually calling for an investigation into the funding of those OPPOSING the construction of the mosque!

“Simple human decency,” indeed.

Jim Bennett is the pastor of Rozetta Baptist Church in rural Henderson County.

Copyright 2010 Daily Review Atlas. Some rights reserved

The Weatherman and The Catholic

By Jim Bennett
Daily Review Atlas

Historically, the lecture halls of academia have been seedbeds of free thought and expression. The intellectual rigors of classroom discussion and the spirit of open inquiry on university campuses have served young scholars well.

But I’ve been reading about two professors recently and as I compare their stories, I can’t help but conclude that an ill wind is blowing.

William Ayers and Kenneth Howell have a lot in common. They both hold doctorate degrees, they’re popular with their students, and they work for the University of Illinois.

During the Vietnam Era, William Ayers helped found a communist revolutionary terrorist group called The Weather Underground Organization (WUO). Ayers and his pals were opposed to war, what with all the violence and bombs, so they took the obvious, logical step of declaring war and setting off bombs in a bid to violently overthrow the government.

It was June 9, 1970, when a WUO bomb planted in a men’s room rocked New York City police headquarters. On March 1, 1971, the Weathermen blew up a U.S. Capitol building bathroom. The following year, on May 19, they set off an explosive device in a ladies lavatory in the Pentagon. On Jan. 21, 1975, they bombed a washroom in the U.S. State Department.

The lesson here? When William Ayers steps out of the little boys’ room and warns, “Don’t go in there,” you really, most definitely, should NOT go in there.

While Ayers’ continued to prosecute his ongoing War on Plumbing, he collaborated
with other Weathermen to write their Marxist-Leninist manifesto, “Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism” in 1974. It was dedicated “To all who continue to fight” and “To All Political Prisoners in the U.S.” Named among the “fighters” and “political prisoners” in that dedication was Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin who murdered Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

But that’s all in the past. Surely a venerable institution like the University of Illinois
would not retain him on their faculty unless he had categorically renounced all his incendiary rhetoric and the violent terrorism perpetrated by the group that he co-founded and led, right?

Wrong. In Ayers’ interview with Dinitia Smith, published in the New York Times on, oddly enough, Sept. 11, 2001, he is quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs.” In January of 2004, speaking to the Television Critics’ Association Press Tour in Hollywood about the Weather Underground bombings, Ayers said, “Did we do something that was horrendous, awful? I don’t think so.” A true master of the Non-pology, Ayers’ public statements of “regret” for his crimes ring with all the sincerity of Eddie Haskell complimenting Mrs. Cleaver’s housecoat. In a New York Times op-ed piece published Dec. 5, 2008, Professor Ayers actually characterizes the Weather Underground’s attacks as “severe vandalism.”

Now come on, son.

Where I come from, “severe vandalism” means a car has been keyed rather than egged, or a Ding-Dong-Ditch assault has escalated to include a flaming bag of you-know-what left on the porch. But when Ayers’ group bombed NYPD Headquarters, they used 15 sticks of dynamite, injured eight people and took out much of the building’s second floor. Calling that “severe vandalism” is like calling Chernobyl “an unscheduled interruption of utility service.”

William Ayers currently holds the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Monmouth College, my alma mater, gushes like a schoolgirl at any opportunity to provide this man with a platform.

Dr. Kenneth Howell, on the other hand, just got sacked at the end of the Spring semester. A Religious Studies professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since 2001, Howell’s course on the tenets of Catholicism included lectures explaining the church’s teachings on sexuality. In preparation for an upcoming exam, Howell, a Catholic himself, sent an e-mail to his students on May 4, clarifying some points from classroom discussion about natural moral law as it relates to homosexuality.

An unidentified friend of an anonymous student in the class cried, “hate speech” to the department chair and Howell was terminated. A distinguished 10-year academic career was snuffed over someone’s hurt feelings. Howell has been fired for teaching the subject matter of the course he had been hired to teach.

Meanwhile, though, the U of I can’t get enough of William Ayers.

Oh, there’s an ill wind at work for sure. And you don’t need a Weatherman to know which way it’s blowing.

Jim Bennett is the Pastor of Rozetta Baptist Church in rural Henderson County.

Copyright 2010 Daily Review Atlas. Some rights reserved

“A Grieving Father’s Plea For Our Troops” By John Bernard

Last week, I told you about the tragic combat death in Afghanistan of  Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard, and the abuse this remarkable Marine’s family has endured. Over the Bernard family’s pleas and objections, the Associated Press distributed a gory battlefield photo depicting Joshua, mortally wounded, just after a Taliban RPG had blown his leg off. Joshua’s father is John Bernard, 1st Sgt. USMC (ret.), and I’ve asked him to share from his heart. He wrote the following thoughts on Sunday, upon returning from the service that awarded his son’s posthumous Purple Heart medal. Please read and carefully consider what he has written. — Jim Bennett, The B.H.   

JBernardThe last few weeks since our son’s death have found me embroiled in a battle for the soul of the country and the lives of our Warriors. Both are inextricably linked because both are in the hands of some of the most immoral men and women in our history. I can say this with certainty because no one with a functional conscience would place a fellow American in a place where they knew they would be attacked, only to deny them the tools – or opportunity — to defend themselves.  Sadly, this is exactly what has happened, and both the political machine and the majority of the population seem to be unconcerned.I am alluding to the current Rules of Engagement (ROE) that have been in place since the end of June in Afghanistan. These rules govern the who, when and how our Warriors can engage in combat. The current rules force our Warriors to ‘break engagement’ with the enemy if there are civilians present; they also deny them the ability to prosecute a battle with the enemy if there is a possibility of civilians in the area; they further deny them the ability to chase the enemy or to seek to engage them if they cannot be absolutely sure there are no civilians in the area. The impetus for these rules is a philosophy fostered by the current administration. It essentially says that we, as Americans, are primarily to blame for the poor relations we are experiencing with the Muslim world community. Further, this philosophy insists that repairing those relations is paramount – even at the expense of the security of this nation and certainly the lives of our Warriors. I DO NOT SHARE THAT VIEW. Nothing should be more sacred to the elected officials of this country than the security of Americans. Anything less is sedition. We have a historical and biblical precedent for exporting violence to defend these shores. We are in violation of conscience and our many sworn oaths if we don’t.

The fruit of this philosophy and its ROE can be measured in body bags filled with the lifeless forms of our honorable Warriors, of whom my son was one. Another side ‘benefit’ of this philosophy is the forced integration of Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan Police among the ranks of our Marines and Soldiers. There have already been two well documented ambushes in the past four weeks, in which it has been suggested that either/both ANA and Afghan Police have either initiated ambushes or informed Taliban forces of impending plans. In both cases Marines were killed.

This save-the-civilians-at-all-cost policy is short-sighted and self-destructive. The point is that we are there, according to this current administration, to safeguard the civilian population from the Taliban, but we can’t fire at the Taliban if there are civilians in the area. Predictably, Taliban forces have exploited this weakness in our strategy and they now choose to engage us exclusively from civilian population areas where, of course, we are forbidden from engaging them. We are forced to patrol these areas to keep out the Taliban, but we can’t kill them when we find them. We are regularly denied the air and artillery support we need to protect the civilian population (which, again, we can no longer protect because we can no longer chase and kill the enemy, get it?)  The result is Marines and Soldiers being forced into killing zones without so much as the ability to defend themselves.

Your elected officials are to blame for this. They are to blame because they are kneeling at the altar of the White House in obedience, either with blind, reckless disregard for the lives that are being lost needlessly, or because they remain willingly ignorant. Add to this that only 20 of the sitting members of Congress have ever worn a uniform and what you have is a political institution making moral decisions about things they are not invested in or, even worse, they are complicit in, for personal gain, in spite of the cost to our Warriors.

Our Warriors are the best in our society. They always have been. They do the unthinkable, under the worst possible conditions, for the worst possible political motivations, simply because they have sworn an oath to do so. In the end, they are four years behind their peers and often come back into society with physical disabilities directly attributable to their service. Even more often they suffer mental maladies from the horrors they have witnessed. Add to this that now they are being led into killing fields laid by the Afghan forces they are ordered to work with (and who have been given carte blanche by our own politicians).

It’s time to get off the couch and hold these people accountable. I don’t want any more parents to take the trip to Dover Air Force Base that my wife, daughter and I had to take four weeks ago to receive our Joshua’s remains.  May God have mercy on us all.  


“I’d agree, but then we’d BOTH be wrong: An Answer to my Critics” By Jim Bennett

Last week, I condemned the Associated Press’ decision to release a grisly photograph of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard. The photograph depicts, in ghastly detail, the mortally wounded Marine just after his leg had been blown off in a Taliban ambush. The AP distributed the photo despite the repeated protests of Bernard’s family. I characterized the release of the picture as an unthinkably cruel assault on the Bernards, and I excoriated the AP for ignoring the most fundamental conventions of human decency. I stand by those convictions, but many readers wrote me with opposing viewpoints, and I feel I should address them.

A reader I’ll call “Bill” insisted that the First Amendment gave the AP the right to publish the photo, and he is unquestionably correct. The AP has every right to distribute the image, but having the right to do something doesn’t necessarily obligate one to do it. I am a firm believer in the adage, “The best way to preserve our rights is to exercise them.” But I also believe that the best way to exercise them is to do so judiciously, guided always by the Golden Rule.  

I also heard from “Stephen” who insisted my statements were tantamount to a call for censorship. While I do find the sight of it personally disagreeable, my objection to the picture’s distribution was not provoked by its subject matter. If the Associated Press had an identical photograph of a mortally wounded serviceman, and if his family gave their blessing to its publication, I certainly wouldn’t have grounds to object. But the Bernards pleaded with the AP not to release the image. My suggestion is for Associated Press leadership to grow a conscience and then use it to police themselves, conducting their business responsibly and with decorum. A grieving family’s wishes should trump the AP’s dubious and self-interested defense of “the public’s right to know.”  

Finally, “Gina” sent me an emotional e-mail, championing the AP for “recognizing that, by publishing the tragic picture, they may help end the fighting by engendering American opposition to the war.” I reject this notion on its premise, because journalists aren’t supposed to influence, they are supposed to inform. Real journalists must be dispassionate, and agendas should have no place in what they do.

But the main error in Gina’s argument is her assertion that undermining American support for the war would expedite an end to the hostilities. The eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11th attacks was just last week; have we forgotten who attacked whom? Even in the unlikely event that such photographs could hasten the withdrawal of American forces, this would serve merely to restrain our own troops. Because the initial attack on us was unprovoked, it seems unlikely that a “unilateral armistice” would pacify our enemies.

But here, in my view, is all one really needs to know: Jihadists are already using the image in question to fan the flames of anti-American hatred and violence. For example, I visited an Islamic extremist Web site last week, where the photograph had been posted. The headline gleefully declared: “Death of Coward Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard.” The caption reads, “In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, 2009, coward Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard is tended to by fellow coward U.S. Marines after being hit by a rocket propelled grenade during a firefight against the Taliban in the U.S.-occupied village of Dahaneh in the U.S. occupied Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Bernard was transported by helicopter to Camp Leatherneck where he later died of his wounds and stupidity. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)”

The Web site’s owner, Yousef al-Khattab, is a resident of New York City. He is a devotee of Sheik Abdullah Faisal and he uses the Web site to promote the Sheik’s teachings. Faisal is the Muslim hate preacher who was convicted seven years ago of inciting the murders of Americans, Jews, and Hindus in London. British authorities say Faisal exerted extraordinary influence over Germaine Lindsey, one of four terrorists responsible for the July 7, 2005 bombings in London. Fifty-six people were killed, 700 were injured.

Now that the photograph in question is serving as a propaganda tool and morale booster for domestic jihadists, can anyone still defend the actions of the Associated Press as somehow serving the public interest?

AP CEO Thomas A. Curley can. He’s still clinging to his absurd rationalization that the “news value” of the picture somehow outweighs both the anguish its release caused the Bernard family and the aid and comfort its distribution has given to anti-American jihadists.

Keep telling yourself that, Mr. Curley. Whatever gets you through the night, right?

%d bloggers like this: