Europeans may be waking up to the mayhem born from radical Islam. FINALLY.

Europeans are increasingly lashing out at the construction of mosques in their cities as terrorism fears and continued immigration feed anti-Muslim sentiment across the continent.

The latest dispute is in Switzerland, which is planning a nationwide referendum to ban minarets on mosques. This month, Italy’s interior minister vowed to close a controversial mosque in Milan.

Some analysts call the mosque conflicts the manifestation of a growing fear that Muslims aren’t assimilating, don’t accept Western values and pose a threat to security. “It’s a visible symbol of anti-Muslim feelings in Europe,” says Danièle Joly, director of the Center for Research in Ethnic Relations at the University of Warwick in England. “It’s part of an Islamophobia. Europeans feel threatened.”

Liberal dolts like Ms Joly love to throw the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the discussion to automatically couch and frame their argument. As if to say: the peasant hordes are overreacting…how stupid and oafish!

Well guess what you pandering moral relativists- it’s a fear based on facts. And people are DAMN tired of the terrorism- you boorish sycophants.

Some moderate Muslims say those against building more mosques sometimes have legitimate concerns.

My God….someone give THEM a platform. That’s a refreshing voice in the wilderness!

Finally, I’m living in a state where they take the death penalty seriously, have a constitutional amendment supporting marriage, and know the meaning of the word “Conservative.” I’m back home.  Many thanks to Craig for keeping this site going while I made the transition to a new job, a a new home, a new dog, and a new internet provider. As I’ve watched in horror the continuing foolishness of Osama Obama, a 5-4 decision granting rights to the very terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11, and the apparent mad dash back to September 10th, 2001 by the Left, I’ve been unable to post as I’ve been doing over the past eight years.

Now, I’m back.

Just in time for the Fall campaign. While I disagree with so much of what John McCain says he believes, he beats the heck out of Obama.  Obama’s positons on judges are enough to make me run for the polls to pull the lever for McCain in November.  We’ll deal with McCain foolishness regarding “torture” and so-called “global warming” after the election.

McCain has shown a willingness to change his views as new facts assert themselves. Hopefully, as he comes to realize his “friends” on the Left will rip him apart this summer and Fall, he will be more open to some different views on other issues as well.

The Supreme Court decided yesterday that the Monsters of Muslim get to challenge their custody in an American civil court.

In a stinging rebuke to President Bush’s anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces - the administration’s justification for the detentions - but he declared, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

Justice Scalia would be absolutely correct. In fact, the proof is in the pudding (isn’t it always!)…a former detainee was a suicide bomber in Mosul….a little over a month ago. He successfully killed 6 innocent Iraqis. Go figure.

Now it’s only a matter of time before these murdering psychopaths head back to Iraq to finish what they started.

Lately, the term ‘War on Terror’ has been…uh..coming under fire. (yes, pun intended) Now a Department of Homeland Security official has decided it creates…are you ready for this?…it creates ANIMUS!

The west needs a more comprehensive strategy to counter al-Qaeda propaganda and the US should stop using the term “war on terror”, according to a top intelligence official. Charles Allen, the senior intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security, says the phrase is counter-productive because it creates “animus” in Islamic countries.

“[It] has nothing to do with political correctness,” Mr Allen said in an interview. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this.”

Animus?

Okay class….how many of you use the term ‘animus’ to convey your ill will towards someone? Hmmm…just as I suspected. Zero. Yep…another OVEREDUCATED ivory tower academician who has decided to roll out an English word used by exactly 2% of the population to describe the hostility we may or may not have created in the Muslim world by using the phrase: War On Terror.

Um….Earth to Homeland Insecure bubba…where does the word ‘Islam’ appear in that phrase? Is the phrase: War On Islam? Uh…no. Is the phrase: Terror By Islam? No.

And I would bet the FARM that a straight interpretation of ‘War On Terror’ in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu or Pashto doesn’t have ‘Islam’ in it!

Frank Cilluffo, a terrorism expert at George Washington University and former special assistant to Mr Bush for homeland security, says the US government can take a series of steps to help counter al-Qaeda. He agrees that the US should abandon the concept of a “war on terror” – which “fuels the adversaries narrative” – and “decouple religion from ideology”.

With Muslim homicidal maniacs, Islamic psychopaths, and Koranic Jihadists- you could call it: Battle Against the Bad Guys…and it would STILL ‘fuel the adversaries narrative”. Because in their warped minds…most assuredly, they would begin screaming and shouting that Americans were calling them….

‘The Bad Guys!”

People hear what they want to hear. Always have and always will. As I’ve said a hundred times…not every Muslim is a terrorist….but 90 percent (or more) of all terrorists are Muslim- and until that wicked paradigm changes….

The War on Terror is quite befitting.

…I endorse John McCain for President.

(This endorsement, and $1.85 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts.)

I don’t really have a choice, now do I?

In the end, I always ask myself:

Who would Al-Qaeda pull the lever for in November?

Of the three possibilities, the one least likely to get Al-Qaeda’s vote is John McCain.

I don’t speak for Craig or Matt. They have to post their own opinions.

But now that the battle for the White House is truly joined, you’ll hear no more disparaging remarks from me about Mr. McCain. Is he the best choice? Nope. But, he’s the only choice now.

As this, from Jack Kelly, so clearly states:

We’re floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it’s too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we’re hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.

No, I’m not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I’m channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe. Al-Qaida had little presence in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. But once he was toppled, al-Qaida’s chieftains decided to make Iraq the central front in the global jihad against the Great Satan.

And that central front has decidedly turned against Al-Qaida:

Jihadis, money and weapons were poured into Iraq. All for naught. Al-Qaida has been driven from every neighborhood in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, the U.S. commander there, said Nov. 7. This follows the expulsion of al-Qaida from two previous “capitals” of its Islamic Republic of Iraq, Ramadi and Baquba.

Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.

Al-Qaida’s support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group’s lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida’s attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.

“Iraq has proved to be the graveyard, not just of many al-Qaida operatives, but of the organization’s reputation as a defender of Islam,” said StrategyPage.

Canadian columnist David Warren speculated some years ago that enticing al-Qaida to fight there was one of the reasons why President Bush decided to invade Iraq. The administration has made so many egregious mistakes that I doubt the “flypaper” strategy was deliberate. But it has worked out that way. It may have been a mistake for the United States to go to war in Iraq. But it’s pretty clear now it was a blunder for al-Qaida to have done so.

But, wait. I thought we were losing, that we couldn’t win. That’s the media talking. That’s the Democrats talking. Both have much to lose should the American people come to believe the Iraqi front of World War IV is a success. If you’re reading as this and consider yourself a liberal, I would ask you to examine your emotional first reactions. Your first thought was that this can’t be true. Your second thought was probably that someone is believing propaganda.

I would agree with you on the second thought. The question you must ask yourself is, which of us is buying propaganda, me…or you?

Courtesy of the GOP, for the Clinton “Public” Library, where all of Bill and Hill’s private, secret, not-to-be-revealed papers are stored. You too can own such a certificate, by clicking on the link.

Last night, I watched a special on children.
One of the kids was a real bully. She pushed all the other kids on the playground around, and everyone knew not to get on her bad side. She hung out with this kinda dumpy, glad-handing former class president. Nobody trusted him, but he sure knew how to pass out favors. And, if you crossed him, you had to deal with the girl who protected him.
All the other kids were scared to death of her, but figured they had to do something about it. They’d been saying things behind her back for a couple of weeks, ever since she had showed some weakness at a school assembly.

One day, seven of the kids all came at her at once. They were gonna take the bully on this time.

They had an audience of all the geeky kids who talked alot egging them on. I think the geeky kids all wrote for the school newspaper.
The seven started out saying brave things.

This one really good looking rich kid tried to take her on, but you could see the fear in his eyes.

One kid was clearly out of his league. Heck, he’d just come along because everyone said he was popular. He’d been a really good athlete in a small school in the midwest. But since moving to this big school, he kept losing every race.
The other four or five kids, realizing this could go really bad, began to cozy up to the bully. They were all pretty scared anyway, and really didn’t want to fight.

Pretty soon, they were all talking about this kid that scared all of them, even the bully and her glad handing boyfriend. Boy, they sure hated that kid! He had been class-President for awhile, and had outsmarted all of them.
In the end, even the rich kid and the small-town jock were saying nice things about the bully, and piling on the current class-President.

Next day, all the geeky kids from the school newspaper went on and on about what a “fight” it was, and how brave the bully was to stand up to it all.

And those six or seven kids that took her on didn’t sleep well for days. They all had nightmares, afraid the bully would come after them if she ever became class President herself.

Joe, the last and only reason i’d vote for a Democra…_(cough) Independant.

He seems to be the only man speaking from a point of sanity.

Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.

But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

_{-more @ The Weekly Standard}