Rhode Island Police Receive Threat to Behead Elementary School Students

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Before the advent of the global jihad, beheadings were unheard of. Now news of that form of Islamic ritual slaughter comes daily. This threat is very evocative of the Islamic attack on Beslan, years ago in Russia.

The era of the savage.

Rhode Island Police Receive Threat to Behead Elementary School Students
‘There was a specific mention of elementary schools in this letter’ Associated Press,  October 9, 2014

Police in Rhode Island said they received a letter that contains threats to behead children in the state.

The letter specifically threatens elementary school students, according to WPRO.
Col. Steven McCartney tells WPRO-AM that the threat specified that “beheading is planned.” He called the nature of the threat...

Read the whole entry »

     

• Email to a friend • Article Search •

David Horowitz: The Islamic State’s beheadings show the truth of the warnings conservatives have sounded for years

Robert Spencer /Jihad Watch

 

And the Left responded with ridicule and smears. But now they’re scrambling to shore up their ridiculously counter-factual position.

“Thank You, ISIS,” by David Horowitz, October 9, 2014 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us. Yet despite the intentions of their perpetrators, they have had an unexpected utility. Their gruesome images have entered the living rooms and consciousness of ordinary Americans and waked them up.

The barbarity of the Islamic movement for world domination has actually been evident for decades: in the suicide bombing of the Marine compound in Lebanon in 1982, in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the suicide attacks on Jews — men, women, and children — during the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000, in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, and in the beheadings perpetrated in Iraq by al-Qaeda’s Abu al-Zarqawi and the Salafist group known as Ansar al-Islam during the Iraq War.

Unfortunately, the response to these barbarities on the part of the Democratic party and the liberal elites has been to condemn and marginalize anyone who called them barbarous. In their eyes, it is racist to use the word “barbarism” to describe the acts of any Third World people. To associate Islam with the Islamists was Islamophobic.

President Obama is still trapped in this time warp, denying in so many words that the Islamic State is Islamic. For America’s commander-in-chief to make such an obviously moronic statement about his country’s enemy in wartime reflects how deeply settled is the ideology of protecting the Islamists (and jeopardizing the innocent). Even Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, could not bring himself to describe the enemy as Islamic.

Settling on “War on Terror” as a descriptive term was a way of eliding the fact that the savagery was motivated by not by nihilism but by Islamic faith. The Obama Democrats have gone even deeper into denial, eliminating “War on Terror” from the government vocabulary and replacing it with “overseas contingency operations.”

For more than a decade, a handful of conservatives, of whom I was one, tried to sound the alarm about the Islamist threat. For our efforts, we were ridiculed, smeared as bigots, and marginalized as Islamophobes. In 2004 I published a book called Unholy Alliance about the Islamist movement and the support it was receiving from the American Left.

For my concern, Harvard professor and Islam expert Noah Feldman dismissed me as a “relic” in the New York Times Book Review. It was the last time the Times mentioned one of my books.

In 2006 and 2007, I organized nearly 200 “teach-ins” on American campuses, which I called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” weeks. The idea was to legitimize the term “Islamo-fascist” as a description of the enemy confronting us. These demonstrations were attacked by the Muslim Students Association, which is a recruiting organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, and by Students for Justice in Palestine, a front for the terrorist party Hamas. They also inspired the contempt of the liberal Left. Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo devoted two YouTube videos to ridiculing me for holding the demonstrations. Campus leftists called the students who organized them racists, bigots, and Islamophobes.

Resolutions denouncing critics of Islamic misogyny and terror as “Islamophobes” were unanimously passed by leftist-run student councils at UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, and a dozen other elite schools. Lengthy reports on the menace of Islamophobia targeted me and other speakers at our campus demonstrations, including Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes. These reports, costing tens of thousands of dollars to produce, were published by FAIR, CAIR, the egregious Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for American Progress — the brain trust of the Democratic party.

And then came ISIS. The horrific images of the beheadings, the reports of mass slaughters, and the threats to the American homeland have accomplished what our small contingent of beleaguered conservatives could never have achieved by ourselves. They brought images of these Islamic fanatics and savages into the living rooms of the American public, and suddenly the acceptable language for describing the enemy began to change. “Savages” and “barbarians” began to roll off the tongues of evening-news anchors and commentators who never would have dreamed of crossing that line before, for fear of offending the politically correct….

Democrats on Defensive Over Role of Government

Michael Barone / Townhall Columnist

 

Things are spinning out of control. Out of control, at least, by government, and by the United States government in particular. You don't have to spend much time reading the news -- or monitoring your Twitter feed -- to get that impression. Armed fighting in Ukraine. Islamic State beheadings in Iraq and Syria. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Hong Kong.

Ebola spreading from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea to Dallas, Texas, where 100 people were exposed to the Liberian who lied to airport screeners and arrived in the United States with the disease. Or the Spanish nurse who came down with the disease.

No wonder embattled Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., stumbled when asked whether the Obama administration was handling Ebola well. He ran an ad in August accusing his Republican opponent, Rep. Tom Cotton, of somehow leaving the nation unprepared for the epidemic. But Pryor had nothing coherent to say this week.

The Ebola death in Dallas and the beheadings in the Middle East illustrate how what happens elsewhere in the world doesn't stay there. It comes back to strike the United States sooner or later -- sooner and sooner, it seems, these days.

It is a misreading of history to believe that Americans typically have been unconcerned with what happens across the oceans or south of the border. Since the 1790s, when the Founders split into two political parties -- one sympathetic to revolutionary France in a world war, one sympathetic to British royalists -- Americans have recognized they are affected by foreign developments.

In the last century, after seeing threats rise from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, they have come to expect their presidents to prevent things from spinning out of control abroad.

And they have come to expect that government should perform competently at home. More competently than, say, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Internal Revenue Service or the Secret Service have been performing lately.

Barack Obama came to office believing that in a time of economic distress, voters would want an even larger government to respond to financial crisis and bolster the economy. In 2009 and 2010, he and his congressional supermajorities believed that their major policies -- big spending increases in the stimulus package, Obamacare, and higher taxes on high earners -- would be popular. People would be happy if a competent government gave them more of what Mitt Romney infelicitously called "free stuff."

Turns out that's not the case. The stimulus package and Obamacare were unpopular when proposed and, even after the bills were passed so that we would know what was in them, they have remained unpopular ever since. As for higher tax rates on high earners, voters just don't seem to care.

That's why it is Republicans and not Democrats who are running ads this campaign cycle on Obamacare. It helps explain the apparent trend toward Republicans in most seriously contested Senate races, as well as why the House Democrats' campaign committee is pulling money out of races to unseat Republicans and putting it into races to protect incumbent Democrats.

Undermining the case for big government is an increasing perception that big government just doesn't work very well -- even at things nearly everyone agrees government should do, such as providing health care for veterans or protecting the president and his family.

The deterioration in government's competence is not just a recent or American phenomenon. That's a point made in three recent books by the Economist's John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, Yale law professor Peter Schuck and New York lawyer Philip Howard. It's also a major topic in Francis Fukuyama's recently released "Political Order and Political Decay."

But it is a process that has gained speed under a president who doesn't seem much interested in the mechanics of government and whose confidence that more spending will produce better results keeps being undermined by events.

Democrats this year are running not just against the trend that presidencies usually (though not always) grow stale in their sixth year. They are in the uncomfortable position of defending policies that work against the grain of change in an Information Age, and for putting more trust in a government that isn't competently performing basic tasks.

That's an uphill climb as the world spins out of control, government keeps floundering and the president seems unable to master events.

The White House Dogs

Erick Erickson / Townhall Columnist

 

There are two dogs living in the White House other than the Obamas' pet dog. The first of the two dogs is the one that eats all the homework. It has been let loose across government agencies.
 
The Internal Revenue Service had an encounter with the dog. Lois Lerner, in charge of the division accused of harassing conservative groups, suddenly had her hard drive crash. All her emails were gone. Then six other employees mysteriously had their emails vanish. All seven were relevant to the congressional probe of the IRS.

The emails appear not to be on any servers. They do not seem to have been backed up, or the back ups were destroyed too. The emails have simply vanished. It is just awfully convenient that they were emails involved in a congressional probe.

Once the dog finished eating emails at the IRS, it moved over to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a request for certain emails and text messages from or to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. According to the Washington Times last Wednesday, the EPA now says thousands of text messages related to Ms. McCarthy have simply disappeared. Her emails too are gone. The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the EPA are involved in a lawsuit, making the disappearance of the emails even more serious.

Now it is not just congressional Republicans looking at disappearing data. A federal judge is involved, too. Congressional Republicans can be dismissed far more easily than a federal judge in a black robe with a gavel.

It seems the IRS and EPA are not the only government agencies visited by this hungry dog. The Securities and Exchange Commission has lost hundreds of computers with information on them that could be used for insider trading purposes. Unlike either the IRS or the EPA, the SEC is not currently under an investigation or in litigation relating to how it treated opponents of the Obama administration (yet).

That leads us to the other dog living in the Obama White House. In "Silver Blaze," a short story about Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a prized racehorse went missing the night before a major race. Holmes, investigating the disappearance and the related death of the horse's trainer, refers "to the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime." The curious incident was that the dog did not bark. The dog at the stables made no sound as the thief stole the horse because the dog knew the thief.

The Obama administration has not barked in these cases. Internal Revenue Service emails from employees under investigation by Congress have been deleted. The Obama administration's best guess is that there was just an unfortunate coincidence of timing with an obligatory reference to "partisan witch hunts." The same holds for the EPA and now the SEC.

The Obama administration has expressed little concern, mostly taking the opportunity to blame Republicans. Government data has been deleted, and no one in the White House seems concerned.

The dog is not barking.

The dog is barking, however, at two new scandals. Leon Panetta, who had been Barack Obama's CIA Director and Secretary of Defense, has out a new book. In the book, Panetta claims the president mishandled the support of Syrian rebels and that the president's actions led to the rise of ISIS. The White House has pushed back vigorously. The New York Times editorial board too, also largely silent on the IRS and EPA, has joined the attack on Panetta.

The Washington Post just reported on new details about the Secret Service's prostitution scandal in South America. It appears a White House staffer might have been involved. But senior staff at the White House, concerned about the president's re-election, put any who raised red flags on administrative leave. Sources are strongly hinting at a coverup, and the White House is barking loudly at the leakers. The White House, again, is barking at this story.

The matters on which the White House dogs are willing to bark and be quiet should direct the attention of an objective press. The silence on the IRS and EPA is very telling.

NIDAL HASAN, Convicted Fort Hood Terrorist writes threatening letter espousing jihad to Pope Francis

Jihad Watch

Convicted Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan has written to Pope Francis promoting violent “jihad,” in his latest correspondence aligning himself with Islamic doctrine. Despite efforts by the Defense Department to label the 2009 massacre as workplace violence, Hasan has described himself several times, and again in the new letter, as SoA, or ‘Soldier of Allah.’

FOX News  Hasan directed his attorney John Galligan to mail the undated, six-page, hand-written letter to the pope. A copy of the letter – titled, “A Warning To Pope Francis, Members Of The Vatican, And Other Religious Leaders Around the World” – was provided by the attorney to Fox News. (Why was this Muslim savage allowed to send a letter to the Pope? Why the Hell hasn’t he been executed yet?)

Hasan appears to make multiple references to the Koran in the letter, and includes a bulleted list of guidelines for “believers.”

 

In one subsection titled “Jihad,” Hasan praises “The willingness to fight for All-Mighty Allah,” describing it as a test that elevates the “mujahadeen” who “are encouraged to inspire the believers.” He states that “fighters … have a greater rank in the eyes of Allah than believers who don’t fight.”

 

There is no reference in the letter to the Fort Hood massacre for which Hasan was convicted on 13 counts of premeditated murder, and 31 counts of attempted murder, but no terrorism charges. Hasan currently is on death row at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

 

In late August — as part of ongoing reporting on homegrown terrorism, “Fox Files: The Enemy Within,” which included a special investigation into Fort Hood– Fox News obtained a separate Hasan letter where he pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

 

Asked to comment on the latest letter, Hasan’s attorney said it “underscores how much of his life, actions and mental thought process are driven by religious zeal. And it also reinforces my belief that the military judge committed reversible error by prohibiting Major Hasan from both testifying and arguing how his religious beliefs” motivated his actions during the shooting.

 

Neal Sher, an attorney representing the Fort Hood families and their relatives, also said Hasan is “thoroughly dedicated to jihad.” The lawsuit against the Defense Department and Justice Department now involves 150 individuals.

“His jihadist leanings and willingness to commit jihad were known for years before the 2009 atrocity,” Sher said. “And ever since then, he has made it abundantly clear he believes in jihad and has attempted to justify the slaughter that took place at Fort Hood.”

 

During the trial, Sher said Hasan attempted to testify and offer a “defense-of-others plea, in other words, he killed Americans at Fort Hood in defense of his brothers, al Qaeda and now ISIS. Yet again, it demonstrates he wasn’t shying away from [the shooting], he was proud of it.”

 

Sher likened the approach to “putting [the administration's] head in the sand. They do not want to acknowledge a terrorist attack took place on their watch on American soil. And layered over that is a good dose of political correctness.”

 

Op-ed:
Ineffective Bombing Raids as per an Ineffective President                                              
By: Diane Sori

“They aren’t flying B-1 bombers, bombing American cities...But they are going to be bombing American cities coming across from Mexico… All you have to do is ask the border patrol.”
- Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

From a purely military standpoint, bombing alone has always proven to be ineffective and a waste of time, money, and resources for the simple fact is that it has to be backed-up by 'boots on the ground'...especially in a campaign where it is difficult to find targets worth destroying...targets that actually make a difference in helping to stop the forward march of the enemy.

And the enemy known as ISIS is even more difficult to stop because they accrue sympathizers and supporters even as they savagely wipe out the indigenous populations. And to make matters worse, as all eyes remain focused on Iraq and Syria, ISIS is making inroads of another sort in Afghanistan as Taliban fighters are planning to merge forces with ISIS in support of their joint goal of establishing a strict islamic caliphate.

And many of us knew this was coming as barbarians have a way of seeking each other out as they are cut from the same moldy cloth...a cloth that is tightly wrapped with a neat bow around this White House.

So as it now becomes apparent that the war against ISIS cannot and will NOT be won from the air...as it becomes apparent that Obama's 'NO strategy' strategy is the failure we knew it would be...for he ignored facts that the generals tried to tell him...facts that while airstrikes might temporarily slowdown the effectiveness of an enemy...even an enemy like ISIS...the enemy quickly learns how to adapt to the bombings. But the thing is that Obama just does NOT care...does NOT care that now ISIS has morphed into warriors of a different sort...warriors of cowardliness who hide and fight from within civilian populations...heightening the meaning of the words 'collateral damage.'

And the undeniable fact is that only 'boots on the ground' can deny this enemy...deny ISIS...the ability to operate and the ability to kill.

And kill is all they want to do...as many as possible and in the most barbaric and inhumane of ways. And it all goes back to what seems to be a never ending saga of war between Sunni and Shia with the end result being the setting up of a strict Sunni islamic caliphate...a caliphate governed by laws laid down by a perverted madman in a vile anything but holy book over 1400 years ago..

So as Obama knowingly bombs empty warehouses and long deserted training camps, the media still pushes the Obama lie that we are effectively bombing ISIS, but truth be told we are actually bombing Khorasan...a tentacle of al-Nusra who in turn is a tentacle of al-Qaeda. And by our bombing of bombing al-Qaeda we might take-out a few in ISIS' leadership who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but al-Qaeda itself through groups like ISIS (who has NOT broken their ties to al-Qaeda stories to the contrary), al-Nusra, and Khorasan will continue to grow even stronger. And as they do they will mount 'payback' terrorist campaigns against the West...campaigns that could have 9/11 paling in comparison.

And as Obama keeps bloviating that al-Qaeda is on the run, just remember that NOTHING could be further from the truth as al-Qaeda is the one orchestrating and pulling the strings in preparation of their takeover of the Middle East. And again Obama knows this and again he just does NOT care for if he did 'boots on the ground' would have been revisited and implemented weeks ago...if he actually wanted to take out the enemy that is.

'Boots on the ground' is key to stopping ISIS for without 'boots' ISIS will sadly most likely win for while airstrikes are well and fine...carpet bombing would be even better...the fact is you have to have people in key areas to direct the raids and to be sure the right targets are hit...as in making sure NO empty warehouses and deserted training camps are wastefully hit.

'Boots on the ground'...and hell must have indeed frozen over for even ex-President Jimmy Carter... the second worst president in American history...knows that 'boots' are the key to success against ISIS. Saying, “If we keep on working in Iraq and have some ground troops to follow up when we do our bombing, there is a possibility of success," he added that,“...we waited too long. We let the Islamic state build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria.” And so like a broken clock that is right twice a day, Jimmy Carter is right on this one, and most of the American public agrees...in fact more than twice as many voters polled believe defeating ISIS will take ground troops as opposed to airstrikes alone (57-24 percent).

'Boots on the ground'...former CIA head and ex-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta also agrees that 'boots' are needed, and he too has criticized Obama’s failure to follow through with a winning strategy concerning ISIS. Citing Obama's failure to act against Syria if the country dared to cross his own put in place 'red line ’in the sand...referring to al-Assad's 'supposed' use of chemical weapons...we all know how that turned out now don't we. "And what we're doing with the Free Syrian Army is militarily unsound...this mythical Arab army that we're trying to get up to go in on the ground in Syria will need a lot of American hand-holding. And if it takes a year before we can go to Mosul, I can only imagine how strong [ISIS] will be" Panetta added. And he should know as he originally was onboard with arming the anything but 'moderate' Syrian rebels.

'Boots on the ground'...much needed to clean up the 'human garbage' that bombings leave behind...clean up the 'garbage' as in every ISIS soldier and ISIS member needs to be killed or captured...period. 'Boots on the ground' to assure that NONE escape to return again another day for these are NOT soldiers finding a 'just war' but are barbaric savages out to kill us all...out to kill us all and what does Obama do...drop a few bombs here and there forgetting what our military has always known...that if we get involved in a war we need to be prepared to win that war and that means putting 'boots on the ground.'

And we most assuredly need 'boots on the ground' in order to win against ISIS...in order to secure a lasting peace. And here's why Obama is reluctant to deploy those 'boots'...summed up simply in two words...midterm elections. The man who ran for president with promises of bringing our troops home now is vehemently opposed to redeploying said troops to theaters of war as it will than expose yet another of his foreign policy failures. NOT caring that ISIS has taken over a country where so much American blood was shed and treasure was spent, Obama now wants Iraqi forces and Kurdish Peshmerga forces to fight this battle, as he refuses to accept the fact that these forces are NOT ready to do battle with any enemy...let alone an enemy the likes of ISIS.

And that is so sad for it was Obama himself who said before announcing to the enemy that we would be pulling out of Iraq...and giving them the time frame for which we would do so...that Iraqi forces were well-trained to keep the peace. Just another in his long list of lies...just something else Democrats are running hard and fast from for Obama's policies have now become poison to their re-election bids.

And so as Obama keeps saying out of one side of his mouth that he will NOT send 'boots' back to Iraq to fight ISIS...out of the other side of his mouth he keeps insisting that ISIS will be a threat to the homeland if NOT stopped.  But I say he cannot have it both ways for isn't it better to fight ISIS 'over there' than to have to fight them 'here' on American soil...just simple logic that escapes this president... simple logic that escapes the man who sides with the enemy every chance he gets.

Just saying and just sighing in total disgust for the truth is ISIS is already here.