Smoky Mountains Sunrise

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

'Hundreds of al-Qaeda Militants Planning Attacks from Yemen'


When Islamic countries like Yemen are asking the international community "to help train and equip counter-terrorist forces," and the President of the United States dismisses an attempt to blow up an American airliner as nothing more than a holdup at the local 7-11, one must ask on which side is the President in the war on terror.

From TIMESONLINE (UK)
Hundreds of al-Qaeda militants are planning terror attacks from Yemen, the country’s Foreign Minister said today.
Abu Bakr al-Qirbi appealed for more help from the international community to help to train and equip counter-terrorist forces.
His plea came after an al-Qaeda group based in Yemen claimed responsibility for the failed Christmas Day airliner bomb plot.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, alleged to be behind the attempt to blow up an American-bound aircraft, spent time in Yemen with al-Qaeda and was in the country only days before the failed attack.

Dr al-Qirbi said: “Of course there are a number of al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen and some of their leaders. We realise this danger.
“They may actually plan attacks like the one we have just had in Detroit. There are maybe hundreds of them — 200, 300.”

Isolated Extremist Calls Nigerian Terrorist "Isolated Extremist"


From CNSNews


President Barack Obama, in his first public comments on the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit, described the suspect as “an isolated extremist,” despite reports that the 23-year-old Nigerian had been trained in Yemen, a country he visited twice.

The Associated Press, quoting a Yemeni government official, said Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab lived in Yemen for two different periods of time -- a year from 2004-2005 and again from August-December this year. He apparently was in Yemen a few weeks before the attempt to blow Flight 253 out of the sky over Michigan. (See timeline)

And a statement posted online Monday by Al-Qaeda in Yemen (also known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) said its “manufacturing sector” had provided Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with the explosives he took onboard the aircraft. (The United States has not yet authenticated the Web posting, but Abdulmutallab's connection to Yemen is not in doubt.)

Read the rest of this entry >>

Monday, December 28, 2009

Melanie Phillips: 'Londonistan' is Still the Weakest Link


Melanie Phillips, one of our favorite columnists, asks in the following column "how did Abdulmutallab obtain a U.S. visa when he had been on an American watch-list of people with known terrorist connections?" Was the Department of Homeland Security too busy frisking children and blue-haired elderly ladies in the airports? Or are such matters just not a priority for the Obama-Clinton State Department? When The One returns from his "native" Hawaii, we hope there will be some explanations.

"So here we go again. Another international Islamic terrorist plot — and yet another British connection.

The attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up an American plane was averted only by luck and courage.

The incident obviously raises alarming questions about gross lapses in security. In particular, how did Abdulmutallab obtain a U.S. visa when he had been on an American watch-list of people with known terrorist connections?

But the deeper and more urgent issue for Britain concerns the key role this country has once again played in a Muslim’s trajectory to radicalisation and terror. Abdulmutallab, who claims to have been working for Al Qaeda, was an engineering student at prestigious University College London for three years until 2008.

He was actually refused an entry visa to Britain earlier this year, but only because the institution at which he said he wanted to study turned out to be non-existent.

How, people might well ask, could such a radical have been educated in Britain without the authorities jumping on him? Did MI5 know anything about him - especially since he was on a U.S. terrorism watch-list for two years?

As yet, we still don’t know much about this man’s history. It appears he became a religiously extreme Muslim at a school in Togo, but was further radicalised while studying in London before apparently going to Yemen and linking to Al Qaeda.

Who can be surprised? After all, this is ‘ Londonistan’ — the contemptuous term coined by the French security service back in the Nineties as they watched Britain become the central hub of Islamic terrorism in Europe.

Radicals flocked to the UK, attracted by Britain’s toxic combination of criminally lax immigration controls, generous health, education and welfare benefits and the ability to perpetuate their views through the British veneration of the principle of free speech.

Despite 9/11, the 2005 London Tube and bus attacks and the dozens of other Islamist plots uncovered in Britain, the astounding fact is that Islamic extremist networks are still allowed to flourish in Britain, largely through the obsession of its governing class with multiculturalism and ‘human rights’.

As a result, Britain remains — to its eternal shame — the biggest hub of Islamic radicalisation outside the Arab and Muslim world.

Extremists are still slipping into the country. The courts are still refusing to deport terrorists in order to protect their ‘human rights’ abroad.

London boasts the shameful reputation of the world’s premier money-laundry for terrorism, which shelters behind a label of ‘charity’ that the authorities choose not to challenge.

Not only is no action taken against extremist mosques and madrassas, but many British universities have been turned into terrorism recruitment centres.

More than four years ago, the intelligence expert Professor Anthony Glees listed 24 British universities which he said had been infiltrated by militant jihadists.

Indeed, the long list of Islamic terrorists who were educated at universities in Britain should in itself have raised concerns about radical Islam on campus. Yet Professor Glees was instead undermined by university authorities determined to bury their heads in the sand.

Last year, a poll by the Centre for Social Cohesion found — horrifyingly — that almost one in every three Muslim students in the UK said that killing in the name of religion was justified, with one third also in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or empire, based on Islamic sharia law.

The Centre also noted on campus the presence of extreme Islamist books in some prayer rooms, appearances by militant Islamist speakers, and links between extreme Islamists and the student Islamic Societies.

Yet the government refuses to outlaw Hizb ut-Tahrir, one of the key groups that is radicalising students on campus by infiltrating and taking over these student societies and preaching its subversive message of Islamising the free world.

But it’s not just in the universities that Britain seems unable to recognise, let alone deal with, highly manipulative Muslim extremists. Astonishingly, similarly radical speakers are regularly invited into the very heart of the defence establishment, on courses teaching intelligence officials as well as soldiers and police officers about radical Islam.

The Government is funnelling money into extremist Islamist groups, and even employs Islamist radicals within government as advisers on — wait for it — ‘combating Islamic extremism’.

All in all, Britain’s defences against radical Islamism now resemble nothing so much as one giant hen-house over which a pack of ravenous foxes has been placed in charge.

The root cause of this madness is that British ministers and officials refuse to accept that what they are facing is religious fanaticism. They insist that Islamic extremism and terrorism have got nothing to do with Islam but are rather a ‘perversion’ of Islam. And they believe that the antidote to this is ‘authentic’ Islam — which they then use taxpayers’ money to promote.

But what they fail to grasp is that ‘authentic’ Islam is currently dominated by a deeply politicised interpretation which promotes holy war to conquer ‘infidels’ and insufficiently pious Muslims.

And although many such Muslims abhor this and have nothing to do with violence or extremism, it is an interpretation backed up by Islamic theology and history and currently supported by the major religious authorities in the Islamic world.

That is what the government often ends up inadvertently funding — with catastrophic results. For when exposed to this, even many hitherto secular Muslims become radicalised.

So it is hardly surprising if, when Abdulmutallab came to Britain, the country’s ostrich-like denial of Islamic fanaticism helped turn him from a religious extremist into a terrorist.

If Britain is ever to get on top of its terrorism problem, it has properly to acknowledge and tackle this radicalisation process. That means giving no quarter to this politicised interpretation of Islam.

And that means junking its current idiotic definition of an ‘extremist’ as merely someone who is committed to violence. It must outlaw instead the religious fanaticism that also threatens the British way of life.

Certainly, it is important not to demonise those British Muslims who pose no threat to this society.

So the Government should say that Muslims are welcome to live here on exactly the same basis as all other religious minorities - that they accept the principle of one law for all, and do nothing to threaten or undermine the prevailing culture.

That means an end to the increasing toleration of Islamic sharia law as the effective jurisdiction in Muslim areas, which so badly threatens in particular the safety and well-being of women, homosexuals and converts from the faith.

It means giving no quarter to the Muslim Council of Britain and all the other organisations and individuals who support Islamic extremism but are currently wooed by Whitehall.

It means outlawing Hizb ut-Tahrir. It means prosecuting the anti-West fanatics in mosques and madrassas. It means profiling Muslim extremists at airports.

None of these things is currently being done. Instead, radical Islamism is being appeased on the grounds that Muslims must not feel targeted in any way.

But in fact, this merely cuts the ground from under the feet of genuinely moderate British Muslims. For it is their friends and relatives, and worst of all their children, who are being radicalised through such a wrongheaded strategy.

The urgent question now has to be asked how many other Islamic terrorists in Britain are, like the quiet, studious, privileged Abdulmutallab, also lurking beneath the radar.

For in the defence of Western society against militant Islam’s war of conquest, the activities of the Christmas Day bomber show that once again Londonistan is the weakest link in the chain."


Sunday, December 27, 2009

Senate Finance Chairman Drunk on the Senate Floor


When you're the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee during an administration that is bankrupting the country with a staggering debt now at $12 trillion, interest payments to China, Japan and other nations that are about to balloon, housing foreclosures confronting 10.7 million households, and the leader of your party and his goons are forcing even more costly socialist takeovers of the private sector, you might be driven to drink. Such appears to be the case with Senator Max Baucus, Democrat-Montana.



James Carroll Exploits Holocaust, Lies Again About Catholic Church



From NewsBusters
By Dave Pierre

Leave it to the web site The Daily Beast to publish a lie-filled attack on the Catholic Church the day before Christmas. The author of the hate-filled piece is James Carroll, one of the country's foremost haters of the Catholic Church. He is an anti-Catholic zealot. Period. (Is it any surprise that he also writes for the Boston Globe?)

Carroll's piece takes issue with Pope Benedict's decision earlier this week to declare World War II-era Pope Pius XII "venerable." In the Catholic Church, this declaration is a step toward sainthood.

In his article, entitled "The Pope's Big Holocaust Lie," Carroll repeats several falsehoods about the Catholic Church and the actions of Pope Pius XII during World War II and the Holocaust.

Among Carroll's lies:

1. "The case against Pius XII is well established: He knew early on of Hitler’s plan for the Final Solution of the 'Jewish problem,' and never raised his voice against it."

Wrong. Carroll's falsehood is flat-out debunked in many places (see my list below), including the book The Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David Dalin. Even before he was pontiff, Pius XII, as Cardinal Pacelli, branded the Nazis as "false prophets with the pride of Lucifer" (Dalin, p. 65).

Pius' "pro-Jewish" policies angered the Nazis so much that Hitler actually planned to kidnap and imprison the pontiff. Records from a July 1943 meeting reveal that Hitler openly discussed invading the Vatican. After the war, Nazi General Karl Otto Wolff testified that he had received orders to "occupy as soon as possible the Vatican and Vatican City." (Wolff talked Hitler out of the plan in December 1943.) (Dalin, p. 77)

Meanwhile, the memoirs of Adolf Eichmann detail that the Vatican "vigorously protested the arrest of Jews, requesting the interruption of such action" (Dalin, p. 84).

And in a December 25, 1941, editorial, the New York Times wrote,

The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.

Additionally, a August 6, 1942, headline in the Times read, "Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France."

In his book, Three Popes and the Jews, Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide has asserted, "The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." Lapide adds that this "figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined."

Jewish historian and biographer Sir Martin Gilbert has documented that Pope Pius was one of the first to publicly condemn Nazi atrocities and speak out on behalf of Europe's Jews. Gilbert has also asserted, "Hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved by the Catholic Church, under the leadership and support of Pope Pius XII" (Dalin, pp. 13-14).

The truth is that Pius XII spoke out several times against the Nazi regime. Carroll is lying. (For more specific examples, see the sources I've listed below.)

2. "[I]n October 1943, more than a thousand Jews were rounded up in the Roman Ghetto at the foot of Vatican hill, within sight of the pope’s windows, and still [Pope Pius XII] did nothing. That is a fact. Those Jews died in Auschwitz."

The truth is that Pius took immediate and decisive action as soon as he heard of the roundup. According to the research from Rabbi Dalin, Pius personally protested to Germany's ambassador Ernst von Weizsacker and demanded that the Nazis stop the arrests. Pius himself gave sanctuary within the Vatican to hundreds of homeless Jews. He also asked that convents and churches throughout Italy shelter Jews.

Michael Tagliacozzo, "the foremost authority on the October 1943 Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews" and "a survivor of the raid himself, " said Pius' actions helped rescue 80 percent of Rome's Jews. Said Tagliacozzo,

"Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on October 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us." (Dalin, p. 83)

And in the June 21, 2009, edition of Carroll's own newspaper, the Boston Globe, Mordechay Lewy, Israel's ambassador to the Holy See, is quoted,

"It is wrong to look for any affinity between [Pius] and the Nazis. It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church."

James Carroll lies again.

Learn the truth:

In addition to falsely characterizing Catholic doctrine, Carroll additionally smears Pope Benedict by grossly misrepresenting the pontiff's 2006 address at Auschwitz.

The bottom line: Carroll is exploiting the Holocaust for his own angry agenda. And this fact has been noted before:

"The anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills and John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope), of ex-priests like James Carroll, and of other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today. This hijacking of the Holocaust must be repudiated." (Dalin, pp. 2-3)

There you have it.

Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.


A Homily by Father Franklyn M. McAfee - "The Word Was Made Flesh and Dwelt Among Us"




Homily of Reverend Franklyn M. McAfee, D.D.

Pastor Emeritus

St. John the Beloved Catholic Church

McLean, Virginia


December 29, 2007