He may be back in the office by the time you read this.

Here’s the text of his speech to the Fed Soc convention; audio and video are here.  And here’s his column on what Congress should do re: enemy combatants, in today’s WSJ.

Edward Luttwak’s column in today’s NYT makes what may turn out to be quite an important point.

Disgusting.

on Right Wing News.

Victor Davis Hanson does a great job describing what I consider the weirdest single aspect of the war on terror:

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization. They are so insulated, even after September 11, that they don’t believe there is much connection between liberty, freedom, consensual government, freedom of expression, and the everyday mundane things they depend on — whether excellent medical care, clean water, nice cars, neat electronic gadgets, eating out, or safety in their streets. A nuclear Iran, a missile-laden North Korea, a theocracy in oil-rich Iraq, an unleashed terrorist-sponsoring Syria, and an emboldened Hezbollah — all these still could still never quite take away their good life, so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it.  

And thus the most vehement and angry critics find it possible, even desirable, to nibble away at their own civilization’s efforts, on the understanding that a loss in Iraq would be only an apparent loss. That defeat would not entail any material detriment to themselves, but surely would enhance their own sense of contrarian self-righteousness and self-worth, as they boldly caricature the very culture that so empowered them.

I think it somewhat certain that, although this election was a big victory for the Democrats, it had very little to do with them.  I have yet to hear anything from the Democrats or their supporters other than Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican fervor (some of this criticism comes from Republicans as well, and some is deserved).  Pure criticism might get you elected (once), but at some point to have to take the stage and lead with a substantive plan for the future.  I still wonder what will that be for the Democrats with regard to, for example, the War on Terror? 

I remember with fondness a home-made video (probably on the net somewhere) where a young man with a microphone and a cameraman interviewed various anti-Bush marchers on the streets of New York around the start of the Iraq war.  They were going down the usual list: we are there for oil and money, Bush is Hitler, etc.  The young man did not attack them, he just asked them simple questions like “How would you deal with Saddam/the terrorists?”  In every single case, there was no real response.  One said something like “Talk to them” or “Leave them alone,” some were simply stumped (probably because their worldview nixed the possibility of war in a priori fashion).  This is the Democrats’ real problem, and it has been acknowledged by some of them.  What is your agenda?  The economy?  It is going through the roof.  The War on Terror?  How would you fight it differently but effectively? It will be interesting to watch, because the voters will not stand for continued Bush-bashing in lieu of a plan.        

In case you don’t check Drudge every hour or so, that’s the headline story.

FoxNews has this AP story about Muslim gangs, the increasing violence they are producing in France, and the growing re-assessment of post-modern multiculturalism occuring there and elsewhere. The particular incidents are awful, but the resulting “awakening” might be the best thing to happen to France and many other European nations in a long time.  Modern man (who does not think that mere “ideas” are worth dying for — little is) just cannot understand why or how people would fight for such notions, especially religious notions (we are now Enlightened folks — wars were for the medeival Church barbarians who just wanted to plunder and control, right?).  He had better wake up. 

A portion from the article:

The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighborhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year.

One small police union claims officers are facing a “permanent intifada.” Police injuries have risen in the year since the wave of violence.

….

More broadly, worsening violence in France testifies to Europe’s growing struggle to integrate its ethnic minorities. Some mainstream European politicians — adopting positions previously confined largely to far-right fringes — are suggesting that the minorities themselves are not doing enough to adapt to European mores.

In Britain, former Foreign Minister Jack Straw, now leader of the House of Commons, this month touched off a wide debate about the rights and obligations of Muslims by saying that he asks devout Muslim women to remove their veils when visiting his office. Prime Minister Tony Blair said Islam needs to modernize.

In France, a high school teacher received death threats, forcing him into hiding, after he wrote a newspaper editorial in September saying Muslim fundamentalists are trying to muzzle Europe’s democratic liberties.

Ethnic integration and violence against police are both becoming issues in the campaign for the French presidency. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the leading contender on the right, said this month that those who do not love France do not have to stay, echoing a longtime slogan of the extreme-right National Front: “France, love it or leave it.”

Michel Thooris, head of the small Action Police union, claims that the new violence is taking on an Islamic fundamentalist tinge.

“Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of ‘Allah Akbar’ (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned,” he said in an interview.

This concept has resonated with me for a long time. The former ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, views partitioning as an inevitable event (in a very interesting July interview on NPR… here). Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is now publicly tossing the idea around while W has succumbed to the Iraq-Vietnam comparison (if only in a small way). Of course, W is committed to staying the course which will certainly spill into another presidential term. Abrupt withdrawal would likely be a disaster, leaving Iraq to incubate and export every flavor of Islamofascism. So that’s not a good idea. Phillip Carter over at Slate has a plan other than partitioning that, to me, still sounds like a long-haul slog. So what do you think? Chop it up?

How long before the dems start claiming Bush or Rove is responsible for the threat, even though the government is disclaiming it. 

Here is a news story on the signing of the Act. At the very least, the detainees should have been granted rights to counsel, but were not.  The world is watching our handling of these military commission trials and denying these men representation does not speak well of our system.  This Act applies not only to aliens, but also citizens held as enemy combatants.  Aliens are stripped of the right to petition for habeas, but the government begrudingly permitted citizens to retain this privilege. 

The text of the Act can be found here.  

From Reuters:

Chief of the General Staff Richard Dannatt told the Daily Mail newspaper that post-war planning for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was “poor” and the presence of troops there was hurting British security globally.

. . .

Britain should “get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems,” he told the Mail.

“I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them,” he said.

“I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.”

Wow.  Methinks he has a point.

In the October 9, 2006 issue of the American Conservative, James Bovard has a review of John Yoo’s book War by Other Means: An Insider’s Account of the War on Terror.  I like John–I think he is a good fellow, just terribly wrong on some issues.  Here is a taste of Bovard’s review:

Yoo’s claims about the benefits of torture were effectively obliterated on Sept. 6 by Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, the Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence. Kimmons announced at a Pentagon news conference, “no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.” Kimmons has vastly more credibility on interrogation methods than desk warriors like Yoo. (more…)

Still crazy after all these years.

And what’s with this American Flag business? 

Embrace your inevitable destruction.

I’ve posted here before about the fiction of Lars Walker. I didn’t mention that he is a shrewd commentator on political and cultural matters, as well. I offer you a taste of his take on the Pope’s comments and the Islamic reaction:

Any reasonable person would recognize that rioting and murdering people are a self-contradictory means of proclaiming one’s peacefulness. And the fact that a large part of the Muslim world fails to get the joke (such as it is) pretty much says it all.

But the Islamic world doesn’t care. Because they’re not involved in a struggle of ideas, but a struggle of honor.

Honor, and honor cultures, is one of my hobbyhorses. I believe (perhaps wrongly) that my study of Viking sagas has taught me something about the subject.

I want you to go read the whole post, so I’ll leave the rest of it at Lars’ site. Check it out and discover how to deal with honor cultures.

Peter Bergen,  the author of the New York Times best-seller Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, has a good essay up over at Mother Jones.  The essay is actually a couple of years old, but Bergen was right on the money.  Here is a taste:

Even Kenneth Pollack, one of the nation’s leading experts on Iraq, whose book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq made the most authoritative case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, says, “My instinct tells me that the Iraq war has hindered the war on terrorism. You had to deal with Al Qaeda first, not Saddam. We had not crippled the Al Qaeda organization when we embarked on the Iraq war.”

The damage to U.S. interests is hard to overestimate. Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan academic who is regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on Al Qaeda, points out that “sadness and anger about Iraq, even among moderate Muslims, is being harnessed and exploited by terrorist and extremist groups worldwide to grow in strength, size, and influence.” Similarly, Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of counterterrorism at the CIA under presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, says the Iraq war “accelerated terrorism” by “metastasizing” Al Qaeda. Today, Al Qaeda is more than the narrowly defined group that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001; it is a growing global movement that has been energized by the war in Iraq.

William, not to jump overly ugly with a co-blogger here, but your conclusion that “It was a mistake to invade Iraq–Bush ignored warnings and now has simply made the terrorism problem worse” is bunk.

Was it “Dubya’s” invasion of Iraq which gave rise to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? The attack on the Khobar Towers in 1996? The attacks on the African embassies in 1998? The attack on the USS Cole in 2000? The failed Millenium Bombing? The 2001 “shoe bomber”? September 11 itself? (Not to mention, if you believe the overwhelming evidence set out in Jayna Davis’ fine book The Third Terrorist, the Oklahoma City bombing)?

And in the three years since the invasion of Iraq - which you claim has made the terrorism problem worse - the terrorists have staged attacks where exactly? In New York? NO. In Washington? NO. Los Angeles? NO. Chicago? NO. Domestic US air flights? NO. International air flights into or out of the United States? NO. If there are, in fact, a plethora of new terrorists that have been spawned by the war in Iraq, then where are they? And if your answer is “Setting off suicide bombs in Baghdad,” or “Planting IEDs in Ramadi,” then my response is “Better there - where we have 100,000+ troops who can steps to both protect themselves and fight back - than in Jersey City, or Evanston, or Sacramento.”
The fact is that the bureaucracies behind this report are the same bureaucracies who have been wrong about the threat posed by Islamic terrorism for decades. It appears to me that even the Pope has a better understanding of the nature of our enemy than do these agencies. And that is the tragedy.

UPDATE: The Counterterrorism Blog recounts the checkered history of past National Intelligence Estimates:

But it’s also true the NIEs have certainly included some major blunders. The 1997 NIE, the last one before the 9/11 attacks on global terrorism, mentioned bin Laden in only three sentences as a “terrorist financier” and didn’t reference al-Qaeda at all. And of course, it was the October 2002 NIE which was a significant factor in the decision to use force against Iraq by famously asserting, “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”

And Michelle Malkin has a massive roundup, including the text of the White House’s response to the leak.  Also check out Ed Morrissey’s article and the comments thereto, which features this insightful observation:

Unfortunately, [after the first Iraq War] we decided to allow Saddam to survive, and then got caught up in a 12-year war that only occasionally looked like peace. We had to keep tens of thousands of forces staged in Saudi Arabia, the action that prompted al-Qaeda’s formation and mission in the first place, for a dozen years while we allowed Saddam to continually defy both the cease-fire agreement and sixteen UN Security Council resolutions. Either we had to acknowledge defeat in that war and retreat from the region after 9/11, or we had to end that twelve-year war in order to prosecute the war on terror in the region where terrorists lived.

Did that make Islamists more angry? Yes, I’m sure it did, and it probably did give them a great propaganda tool for recruitment. However, here’s the crux of the problem: no matter what we do to fight the Islamists and to establish liberal thinking in opposition to them, they’re going to get motivated because of it. Even an abject surrender and a return to isolationism will not work, because their victory over us will be an even greater motivational force for Islamist expansion.

Indeed.

I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of Americans have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the federal government sanctioning the use of torture as an interrogation technique. And to a certain extent, I understand why this is the case. Americans are, understandably, fearful of another 9/11 (or something even worse).  But we are better than those who seek to destroy us; and engaging in barbarity only serves to transform us into the very thing we claim to be fighting against. 

I discovered last night while reading The Dream of Scipio:

Because civilization depends on continually making the effort, of never giving in.  It needs to be cared for by men of goodwill, protected from the dark.  These people [the Romans] gave in.  They stopped caring.  And because they did, this land fell under the darkness of a barbarism which lasted for hundreds of years.

Either way, it’s a happy coincidence (given my own post of last Thursday) to see that the GOP is thinking properly for once.  Here’s part of the web piece they’ve posted:

“The View’s” Rosie O’Donnell Claims Radical Christianity “Just As Threatening” As Radical Islam And Says U.S. “Bombing” Innocent People:

Rosie O’Donnell Has Contributed To Defeatocrat Candidates Across The Country:

(more…)

On Fox News “Special Report” tonight, the panel was discussing Russ Fiengold’s objection to President Bush’s use of the term ”Islamic Fascism” to describe Al Qaeda terrorists.  Mort Kondracke stated that while he thought the label accurately described the nature of our enemy, he agreed with Senator Fiengold that it was too offensive to Muslims and that the president should therefore stop using it post haste, noting, “I want to do whatever it takes to win this war.”

To which, Fred Barnes quickly replied, “I want to do whatever it takes to win this crusade.”

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) has teamed up with Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to come up with an immigration reform package that, I think, most U.S. citizens can support. They are the authors of an op-ed piece on this subject in a July 26 issue of the Washington Times. In part they say….

…We are putting forth a proposal that we hope can be used as the basis for new discussions. Our plan is tough on border security, but it recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy.
Our plan begins with border reinforcement. The millions who come to our country seeking jobs to support their families are not a security threat to our nation, but the weaknesses in the nearly 7,000 miles of international border and 95,000 miles of shoreline have given terrorists, drug dealers and human traffickers an opening that is being exploited; this is a risk we cannot allow to continue. Part two of our plan is a temporary-worker program that is essential in order to fill jobs in our economy that are in high demand. This program would commence only after the borders are fixed. …

The immigration debate may be wearing thin and many Americans with their short attention spans may be on the brink of tuning out. I confess that I’m getting tired of hearing about it. Not a good idea…. since Islamic fascists are determined as ever to kill us as we are willing to nod off. Getting a grip on border security is essential if we truly want to avoid sporadic domestic attacks. Bush administration officials like to say that we are fighting terrorists abroad so we don’t have to fight them here. Well, although true, if our government doesn’t get its butt in gear on border security we will be fighting at home and abroad.

I’m convinced that it’s the cheap labor lobby that’s bogging down progress. No doubt, chicken moguls like John Tyson and Bo Pilgrim spread enough campaign money around like manure to ensure ICE stays off their backs. In a recent interview, Bo says…

“We’re not looking for cheap labor [OK, yeah, whatever]. We’re looking for available labor,” said Lonnie “Bo” Pilgrim, chairman of Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., the poultry giant based in Pittsburg.

Mr. Pilgrim and other members said there aren’t enough non-immigrant workers willing to do low-skill or labor-intensive work such as catching chickens, milking cows and cleaning hotel rooms.

“How many people can you get to squat down and catch chickens?” Mr. Pilgrim said, noting that his company was short 250 workers at the end of last week.

Again, border security is #1. If the Pence plan can subsequently deal with the real or perceived cheap labor shortage, then maybe Bo and I will both be satisfied.

From CMS: In a move that critics denounce as a ‘backdoor draft,” the US Marines and Army are recalling to active duty thousands of men and women who have been discharged for several years. According to the Associated Press, thousands of Marines are being recalled because of “a shortage of volunteers” to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.

This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 10,000 soldiers since the start of the war.

 John Stevens, former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, caused a stir this weekend with his comments regarding racial profiling in airports. The Sydney Morning Herald gives this summary:

Lord Stevens, whose continuing responsibilities in Britain include the inquiry into Princess Diana’s death, also defended “racial profiling” at airports and other security hotspots, saying resources were being wasted on searching everybody out of a sense of fairness or delicacy.

“I’m a white, 62-year-old, suit-wearing ex-cop - I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of a suicide bomber?” Lord Stevens, who was commissioner of the Metropolitan Police until last year, wrote in the News of the World.

Lord Stevens is not the point person we want on this issue, but he makes a pretty good point.  While everyone should be screened by security, we all know the profile of the suicide bombers thus far in the war on terror.  We would be fools not to use this basic knowledge in decisions regarding passenger security screens. 

Would such measures perhaps embarass or inconvenience many, good law abiding citizens with Middle Eastern heritage.  Unfortunately, yes.  But it would also make it more difficult for the real nut cases to get aboard an airline with a bomb or weapons.  We’d all be safer in the long run.

More treasure from the comments to this post at The Belmont Club, this time from “whit“, who links to this article at FrontPageMag.com by Mark D. Tooley, which in turn quotes from this story by Sharon Sheridan of the Episcopal News Service. Of those, the thing to read is Tooley’s article. In it, he compares and contrasts the ridiculous self-flagellation of the outgoing chief bishop of the Episcopal Church in America over the United States’ bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 61 years ago to the remarkably clear-eyed understanding of the import of that same event expressed by another Episcopal bishop, one Joseph Noriaki Iida. As between the two bishops’ reactions, that of Bishop Iida’s is probably entitled to just a tad more respect, as Iida wasnot only an eyewitness to the event but was a student at the imperial Japanese naval academy when it happened.

Bishop Iida’s reaction has, I believe, tremendous relevance to the current geopolitical situation. Read the following, and you’ll find it impossible not to see the analogy between imperial Japan and the Iranian theocracy:

In contrast to the surreal observations of the American bishop, a retired Japanese bishop spoke of Hiroshima with greater historical and spiritual perception. Bishop Joseph Noriaki Iida, as a teen-age naval academy student, was a witness to the atomic blast and understood what caused it.

“At that moment, I felt I deeply understood that we had chosen the way of death three years ago,” when Japan declared war on America, Bishop Iida recalled to the Episcopal News Service. Viewing a charred Hiroshima from atop a hill 61 years ago, he remembered the Scripture: “Today I lay down two ways: the way of life and the way of death; the way of blessing and the way of curse.” The glowing mushroom cloud over Hiroshima also reminded him of the pillars of cloud and fire that protected and guided the Hebrews out of ancient Egypt.

Iida said the atomic blast at Hiroshima was a cause of jubilation for the Koreans, Southeast Asians and American soldiers whom the Japanese were killing. But even for the Japanese themselves, the bombings provided freedom from totalitarianism, militarism, colonialism and racism, he said. The bomb “was God’s judgment and God’s mercy at the same time.”

Remembering a blackened Japanese history textbook at the time, in which only sentence fragments remained, Bishop Iida compared it to his realization that what he had been told about his country by Japan’s militarist dictators was “totally wrong.” After learning of Japan’s atrocities and of the Nazi Holocaust, and absorbing the Japanese Emperor’s denial of his own previously professed deity, Iida considered turning to communism.

Iida read the Bible so that he could refute Christianity. But instead he succumbed to the “love of God.” While communism had urged hatred of the bourgeoisie, he said, the “Bible said unconditional love, love against those who persecuted you, who hate you.” The Japanese bishop concluded: “Christianity is superior. That’s why I became a priest of the Anglican Church.”

Christianity is superior over communism? Do not look for such triumphalism from any U.S. mainline church official, least of all from an Episcopal bishop. Unlike the U.S. bishop, the Japanese bishop has no multiculturalist illusions or inflated notions about humanity. In a fallen world, where choices are often between bad and worst, the U.S. chose to end World War II and Japanese fascism with an atomic weapon. “God can use not only the good thing but also bad things to do his will,” Bishop Iida observed.

Amen, Bishop Iida.

Props to the Brits for stopping the latest bunch of cowards from blowing up innocents on planes.  While we need to raise a toast to the Brits, let’s not forget just who the terrorists are and why there are so close at hand:

 Many of the 24 suspects arrested in Britain were said to be British Muslims, and neighbors said at least two of those arrested were converts to Islam.

British police official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said the suspects were “homegrown,” though it was not immediately clear if all were British citizens.Tariq Azim Khan, the Pakistani minister of state for information, said “these people were born and brought up in the United Kingdom. Some of them may have parents who were immigrants from Pakistan.”

Tony Blair and other British “progressives” are known for touting multiculturalism.  According to the PM: “We celebrate the diversity in our country, get strength from the cultures and the races that go to make up Britain today.”  Not to be unfair to the Brits, all of the West has taken this attitude.  What we have failed to realize is that some cultures are (1) superior to others, and (2) certain cultures are incongruent with the deep-rooted values that made the West, well… the West. 

In its embrace of multiculturalism, the UK has opened its doors to many of the very people who would murder her citizens.  Look at these results from a recent poll of British Muslims:

nearly a third of British Muslims, 32 per cent, are far more censorious, believing that “Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end.”

nearly one British Muslim in five, 18 per cent, feels little loyalty towards this country or none at all.

The solution to this problem would be an end–at least for a period of time–of Muslim immigration to the UK.  Otherwise, the 18 and 32 percent folks mentioned above will only grow in numbers.  That can’t be good for the UK or any Western nation.  Unfortunately, because halting or restricting  immigration from Muslim lands is incongruent with the multiculturalism the progressives hold so dear, nothing will be done to address these problems. 

It’s a mark, I think, of how disaffected Professor Bainbridge is these days with the Bush administration that he has gone over to the Kerry position on the “War on Terror”:

As the plot to blow up planes en route from the UK to the USA and the Ohio arrests in fact illustrate, however, preventing terrorism is mostly a job for the police and intelligence agencies. Not even Bush is going to send the 82nd Airborne to Heathrow, let alone Ohio, to deal with a few dozen terrorists acting alone and hiding in a sea of innocent civilians.

Words matter. War implies military solutions and massive national commitments of attention to the virtual exclusion of all else. Police action implies that we deal with terrorism as one of many social ills. We deal with it and move on.

What we need is neither the rhetoric of war nor the resort to military solutions. We need a strategy for managing what is sure to be a decades-long problem using police, intelligence agencies, and global cooperation. And we need to then get about the business of dealing with all our other problems.

Get that?  This isn’t a war, no matter what the other side says.  It’s just another social ill.  And, heck, it’s not even a really serious one, since we just need to “manage” it so that we can get on with “all our other problems.” That’s some winning analysis.
The problem here isn’t that police and intelligence capabilities aren’t important - of course they are in our own countries.  But that’s not enough.  Bainbridge conveniently makes war out to be just when we send big armies (e.g. the 82nd Airborne) to invade and occupy other countries.  But when we send special ops to kill bad guys , when we send UAVs armed with missiles to hit camps, when we support governments and groups fighting radicals, that may not be war in the 19th/20th century way of thinking about it, but it’s war, all right.

If you’re not reading The Belmont Club, the online home of blogger wretchard, then you’re not as informed as you should be about Islam’s war against the West. While you’re there, don’t skip the comments, as they are frequently as interesting as the posts themselves. Today’s post by wretchard, in which he traces the connections among and between many of the events of the past 36 hours, illustrating one of his conclusions with a reference to, of all things, The Great Gatsby, drew this comment from “allen”:

I don’t know about you, but I’d feel more secure if Muslims were barred from flights instead of toiletries.

Obviously, if we just must permit travel by Muslims, other than by foot to concentration camps, how about installing special screening for admitted Muslims and stereotyping the scofflaws. Stereotyping!? You bet. Stereotyping has impeccable evolutionary credentials.

The pictures I’m seeing are more of the same nonsense. Perfectly harmless European, American, and Western travelers are discarding their person property, docilely, so the governments of the West don’t have to admit the obvious: Muslims are not to be trusted unattended in airports any more than an uncaged Rottweiler.

Security should be looking for young men of obvious Muslim descent. And if we really want to be diverse, add young Muslim women to the mix as well.

Some will immediately scream, “That’s not fair!!!”

They are so right – so what?

And did I say “concentration camps”? Yes, I did. What I did NOT say was death camps.

Since Muslim families and the Islamic “community” cannot police themselves, society must take up the burden. These people have to be constantly watched and supervised. I’d prefer that happen somewhere other than in the airport, freeway, mall, and arena.

For those unwilling to accept Western accommodations, I suggest a mega-garage sale and a return to place of origin.

What do you think?

Yep, you guessed it…kinda sucks.

Times like these are great “teaching moments” for the President. I hope he takes advantage of it…