OK, let’s stipulate right up front that not all Muslims are terrorists.  No serious person has suggested that anyway, but the accusation that Americans, especially conservatives, believe it is the progressive default response whenever anyone points out that modern terrorism is largely an Islamic phenomenon which, of course, it is.  Since 9/11, there have been nearly 28,000 Muslim terrorist attacks worldwide.  No other group comes close.  So it doesn’t matter that most Muslims are not terrorists.  It does matter that most terrorists are Muslims.

Allowing thousands of young, fighting age, male Muslim Syrians into America is a very bad idea.  We’re told that opposing this uncontrolled flood of (mostly) young men is an insult to Muslims and a recruiting tool for ISIS.  But our president and Hillary both have assured us that ISIS isn’t really Islamic.  Never mind all those shouts of “Allahu Akbar” right before the shooting starts.  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

But if terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, then how exactly are we insulting Muslims by condemning terrorism?  How can such condemnation cause moderate Muslims to become terrorists if terrorism is not Islamic?   Obama does refer to Iran as the “Islamic Republic of Iran.”  So it’s apparently not insulting to refer to a regime which executes girls for the crime of having been gang-raped as “Islamic.” The progressive mind truly is a labyrinth.

What a great distraction this crisis has been.  It lets the Obamedia flacks talk about how racist and lacking in compassion Republicans are, how we’re afraid of widows and orphans, and how we hate immigrants, while avoiding any discussion of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy which caused the refugee crisis in the first place.  It began with the red line that Obama didn’t enforce in Syria and with the ousting of Khaddafi in Libya with no thought to what would come next. Oh, and that’s another reason, Mrs. Clinton, why what happened in Benghazi does make a difference.

Instead, we hear constant assurances about the robust vetting process (stop laughing!) combined with syrupy appeals to the spirit of Emma Lazarus.  Curiously, or maybe not, few seem to remember that President Obama himself blocked the admission of Muslim Iraqi refugees into the country for several months after two known terrorists, men who had killed Americans, were discovered living in Bowling Green, Kentucky.  They were vetted refugees!  So why wasn’t it an insult to Muslims and an ISIS recruiting tool when Obama did it?

Ted Cruz has suggested that we allow only Syrian Christians into the United States.  Naturally, that was met with howls of indignation and cries of “Islamophobia!” by the left.  In fact, however, it would address our completely justifiable concern about terrorists disguised as refugees.  Christian refugees would be more easily vetted through contacts with their church leaders in the region.  More to the point, it would show real concern and compassion for people who not only have been displaced and largely ignored but who are being deliberately exterminated by none other than Islamic terrorists.

Charles Krauthammer had another good idea; admit only women, children, and men over 50.  Neither Cruz’s suggestion nor Krauthammer’s is perfect but, together, they do provide some basis for an actual policy to address an actual threat.  Some combination of the two should be seriously considered.

But it won’t be.  Not by a president who, the day before the Paris attacks, declared that ISIS had been contained and who just named a Hamas sympathizer to oversee our anti-ISIS policy.

As for compassion, America is the model for the rest of the world.  In 2014 alone, we took in over two-thirds of all the world’s refugees.  But misguided sentimentality does not make good policy.  We can help – are helping – Syrian refugees without accepting the flood of military age males who already are causing problems in Europe.  We should stop this invasion while we still can.