What about the threat of terrorism from Canada?

John R. Schindler writes at Observer,

Thanks to large-scale immigration, a permissive environment that emphasizes multiculturalism over assimilation and overwhelmed security agencies, Canada now possesses a domestic radicalism threat that Americans need to be talking about.

...Ottawa’s security agencies have repeatedly warned the public since the late 1990s that their country is a haven for dozens of terrorist groups, though they have had difficulty keeping the citizenry’s attention. Over a decade ago, a respected Canadian journalist published a detailed book that explained just how significant a terrorist haven the country had become. Yet matters continue to worsen, and last year a well-regarded Toronto think tank published a research paper titled “Is Canada an Unofficial State Sponsor of Terrorism?”

...For Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, Canada is especially attractive because it’s so close to the United States. Jihadists are well aware that Canada takes in large numbers of refugees, and Ottawa’s benefits are generous. Moreover, newcomers can get a coveted Canadian passport rather quickly, which enables easy travel all over the world. With a Canadian passport in hand, access to America is no problem, since U.S. border enforcement isn’t eager to detain Canadians without reasonable cause, since we don’t want Canadian authorities doing the same to Americans.

... most of those 10,000 terrorists in the Toronto area are still there, an hour’s drive from the American border, and it’s a safe bet most of them hold Canadian passports.

...Worse, the Liberals have just returned to power in Ottawa, and Justin Trudeau, the country’s youthful new prime minister, has gone out of his way to court Muslim votes. Mr. Trudeau has often castigated alleged discrimination against Canadian Muslims, which he used to good effect in recent elections. His early actions in power, including pulling Canadian fighter-bombers out of the U.S.-led air campaign against the Islamic State, do not inspire confidence that he grasps the seriousness of the situation.

Read more here.

Pointless

Why is the media asking the presidential candidates all the wrong questions? Pete Hoekstra writes in the Washington Examiner,

Asking presidential candidates whether they support or would change past foreign policy decisions is the most common line of questioning among members of the media. It's also the most pointless.

Should President Clinton have killed Osama bin Laden when he had the opportunity in 1990s? Should President Bush have sent the U.S. military into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003? Should President Obama have withdrawn all troops from Iraq in 2011?

Such questions provide no real insight into future considerations. Whether or not they would have done anything differently no longer matters. Besides, since when is hindsight not 20/20?

Here is today's reality: Iraq is aflame, Afghanistan rests on perilous ground, Yemen has descended into chaos, Libya has devolved into a failed state and the Islamic State not only threatens many parts of Africa but also inspires pledges of solidarity from around the world, including in the United States.

Earlier this month, jihadists from Arizona drove to a Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, to massacre hundreds of people. They might have succeeded if not for an off-duty traffic officer who skillfully killed them before they could harm anybody.

Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated — if not outright angry — as they read daily headlines such as "Enemy Inside: ISIS the 'Greatest Threat since 9/11,'" "DHS Secretary: 'New phase' in the global terrorist threat" and "Former CIA official cites agency's failure to see al-Qaeda's rebound."

The U.S. is losing the war against radical Islamists, and Americans want to know if there is anybody capable of doing anything about it. They are pleading for a commander in chief who can shine in the following three areas.

First, the next president must identify and define the Islamist terror threat. It is the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla that too few politicians seem to want to acknowledge. We can no longer stumble along with different descriptions of who the terrorists are and what motivates them or debate whether they pose a serious danger at all. The task becomes more urgent by the day as their sphere of influence broadens beyond the Middle East and North Africa.

Second, we need a leader who is willing to examine the successes and mistakes of the last three administrations — and to do so honestly and without political bias. All three are guilty of serious policy errors that have cost us dearly. Nobody today would describe Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria or Libya as success stories. Some today, including me, describe them as abject failures. An effective leader of the free world will understand the need to step back and fully absorb the lessons they provide.

Third, we need a president who can unite the country and build a consensus about the menaces we face and how to defeat them. We also need other public officials who will eschew partisanship and work for the common good.

The media should probe and challenge candidates to help voters understand their views on foreign policy. Questions should include: What lessons have you learned from past foreign policy decisions? How will they shape your vision as commander in chief? What is America's role in the world?

No president can amend the past, and the public is tired of candidates who simply point fingers instead of offering their own solutions. They want a leader who will describe the threats as they are and rally the country behind a strategy to defeat them.

We cannot know how current decisions will affect the future. But we know that if we don't confront our current threats, the leaders of tomorrow will turn around and rightfully ask: "What were you thinking?"