Leave it to Michelle Malkin to compile a good list {are you listening, New York Times?} of things our very own MSM has to be thankful for.

In between breathless condemnations of the Bush administration for stifling its free speech, endless court filings demanding classified and sensitive information from the military and intelligence agencies, and self-pitying media industry confabs bemoaning their hemorrhaging circulations (with the exception of the New York Post), my colleagues in the American media don’t have much to time to give thanks. Allow me:

Read her list here.

Today’s Mark Steyn, linked here in JWR, is definitely a masterpiece!

Right now the Democratic Party needs the senator to move. Preferably to the South Sandwich Islands, until Tuesday evening, or better still, early 2009.

He won’t, of course. A vain thin-skinned condescending blueblood with no sense of his own ridiculousness, Senator Nuancy Boy is secure in little else except his belief in his indispensability. We’ve all heard the famous “joke” now: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” (Rimshot!) Yet, tempting as it is to enjoy his we-support-our-dumb-troops moment as merely the umpteenth confirmation of the senator’s unerring ability to SwiftBoat himself, it belongs in a slightly different category of Kerry gaffe than, say, the time they went into Wendy’s and Teresa didn’t know what chili was.

Heh, heh. You must read the entire column…

You know, the one Germany and some other Euro countries got us into because they wanted more EU say-so in the Balkans? You know, the one in which the late Mr. Milosevic, the one they tried for five years in the aftermath and could convict of nothing was “ethnically cleansing” the Muslim population while the Muslim population did the same to non-Muslims? Yeah, that one, the one way street where Clinton felt it was just fine for Muslims to ethnically cleanse to their hearts’ content, as long as Milosevic could not?

We and several other countries really did the Muslims a favor there, helping them to practice their Islam on Christian Serbs with a minimum of interference.

Julia Gorin’s got a present day perspective up at JWR’s Political Mavens, done in her own uniquely humorous-yet-to-the-point style that bears a read, here.

So I’m just sort of kicking back at 0400 hours, playing with my new Firefox download — I haven’t yet(after what, 10 months?) figured out how to adjust my blog clock to the east coast, so the time of this post will appear as a zillion hours or so earlier.

I have my MusicMatch library running some Bangles through my great Logitech speakers, stuff like September Gurls and my all time favorite song by that awesome group, Return Post.

I’m thinking about the present situation in Israel — the Hamas rejects and Fatah squaring off to blow each other away, both sides arming up. Okay, so this isn’t as unusual among Arab Muslims as it might be among normal, 21st Century human beings — we discuss, they destroy. Western diplomacy consists mostly of a bunch of over-educated assholes sitting around a table engaged in two-faced, multisyllabic dialogue, but at least they usually come to some sort of agreement that preserves the peace. Arabic diplomacy is just a bit different: It usually means a lot of explosions and hot lead flying in many directions, and lots of people “expiring”. The diplomats that most effectively get their points across are those that kill the most diplomats on the opposite side of whatever disagreement happens to be on the table are considered the best diplomats, even though they, personally, don’t have to wax anybody.

The flotsam that lives to butcher innocent women and children are the true warriors of Islam.

The very idea that the Bush Administration wants these people to have a sovereign state is beyond me, but GWB is the President, so I suppose he must know what he’s doing. Excuse me, I have to go to the head….

I think I’ll let a great blog I recently discovered and blogrolled called Morning Coffee give us an update.

Meanwhile, the combatively challenged Prime Minister Olmert has agreed to bring a “hardliner” onto his team in order to avoid a slide into ruin for his own ill conceived Kadima party, one Avigdor Lieberman, and thank G-d for him, and his Israel Beiteinu Party. Lieberman’s own point of view as to how to get things done is fractionally different than the politically correct Ehud Olmert’s, maybe a mere 180 degrees, at most. Not too much. Did I say “thank G-d for him”?

My own model scenario would be for Fatah and Hamas to kill each other off in the civil war that seems to be brewing between the two corrupt terrorist factions that are the sum total of the so-called “Palestinian” entity, leaving a few necessarily reasonable Arabs who might be willing to assimillate themselves into the Israeli population and allow the Jewish State to get on with living in peace and prosperity, but that’s probably too much to hope for….

… Of course, Ed Koch is the kind of Democrat that once comprised that party before the liberals bought it.

This OpEd is titled The Pope, Islamics and Me.

As I have repeatedly written, take Islamic radicals at their word — they want to convert us or kill us. They are killing one another, Shia against Sunni and Sunni against Shia. Often before decapitating their enemies in the ongoing civil and religious strife in Baghdad, they torture their victims, according to The Times, by drilling holes in their bodies and heads so death is slow and cruel until the merciful bullet is fired into the victim’s head.

Can any independent state threatened with acts of terror, unless it changes its policies, domestic or foreign, ever submit to their demands and expect to protect its citizens from new demands? Has appeasement ever worked?

There are those in every Western democracy who are losing their resolve, their willingness to standup to the Islamic terrorists. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) deplores the use of the term “Islamic fascists,” sometimes used by the White House. The terrorism we face is worldwide and has an Islamist goal — the restoration of the caliphate, one Islamic state including Spain, North Africa, the Middle East to the Far East, including Indonesia. Take them at their word. The words of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, now dead and heretofore leader of Iraq’s insurrection and terror, are, “Killing the infidel is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute.”

Feingold, who definitely is not the same sort of sane, realistic, old style Democrat as is Hizzonor, needs to wake up and then start giving wake-up calls to the rest of those neuveau Democrats, sooner rather than later.

Yeah, I know, “Fat Chance”.

… this one by Dennis Prager!

The following comes from an email I received today that puts the War on Terror in perfect perspective.

While I don’t agree with the author on his references to any difference between the ultimate beliefs of so-called peaceful Muslims, for that see “6.” in his narrative below, (if there were indeed such a thing, they would take the risk of speaking out for the sake of their families, their children and their fellow “peaceful” Muslims, declaring their solidarity with civilized society and their belief in liberty — if those who have emigrated to the west don’t cherish liberty and peaceful coexistence, and don’t respect the rights of others to worship according to their own beliefs, they don’t belong in our midst, period) and of those committing acts of violence, the rest of his commentary is right on the money.

Please note, however, that my sole reason for posting this emailed commentary is purely because I agree with the focus of the author’s opinion re the theme of his message — not as a source of statistical reference.

This is written by Major General Vernon Chong, MD, USAF Retired. He’s a highly decorated Air Force Pilot, Flight Surgeon, past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio and Command Surgeon at the Headquarters of the U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. So he is real, is well-connected to Veterans’ affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! Do a Google search on him and you’ll see some of his other though-provoking writings.

This WAR is for REAL!
by MG Vernon Chong, USAFR

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine
(which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let’s examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats* as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.naz is.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm)

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way — their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and wh at they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us “infidels.” I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished, too, in that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims?

If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by “imploding.” That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal. It is because they just don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of Americ an prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners — not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned — totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists’ stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims — not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being ‘arrogant.’ That charge is valid in at least one respect; we are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful an d smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can’t!

If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone — let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-infli cted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful Muslims”?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Well said, General!

* I don’t entirely agree with the author’s assertion that no fault could be laid at the feet of any Democrats for “certain attacks”.

Hat Tip, Brenda.

ADDENDUM

Mustang, of Social Sense, added this insightful, spot-on comment that, due to its length, he was reluctant to add in the comment thread, though it would have been more than welcome therein:

As I commented, a few days ago at Social Sense, there are all kinds of ways to unite the American people – which I agree is necessary IF we intend to win the war on terror. But unlike previous world conflicts, our current challenges include the following: (1) An administration that pursues political expediency, which ultimately gives aid and comfort to the enemy of America, and (2) A myriad of mixed messages that cancel each other out, adding to the confusion of our general population

The White House, in an attempt to avoid any accusation that the war on terror is a “holy war,” seeks to placate the Muslim world. According to Mr. Bush, we are fighting “terrorists,” as if they are somehow separate and distinct from Islam. Nothing could be more confusing, or further from the truth. Mr. Bush has not united Americans – and in the minds of many citizens, there is no clear distinction about “who” our enemy is.

Democrats, using the conflict to further their own political agenda and career path, demand the implementation of a “cut and run” policy that curries favor with the anti-war crowd, those who support isolationist policies, and the enemy themselves. Concurrently, the liberal media, by commission and omission, have set about to whitewash the enemy, the threat they pose to the security of the United States, and the conflict as it reveals itself on foreign shore. Continual harping upon the “failed policies” of the Bush Administration only encourages the Jihadists, not unlike the war in Vietnam.

Conservatives demand a forceful and final resolution to the problem, which is Islam. Since many Americans are not convinced that the enemy of freedom is Islam, conservative chatter confuses them. Note: I believe that a firm solution is within our grasp, but no one is seriously considering it. I believe that there is ample justification for a war on terror, but that there can be no successful half-measures; we are either engaged to win, or we are destined to lose. I believe most Americans are waiting for a leader to stand up, point at someone, and tell us, “THAT is the enemy, and WE are going to kill him.”

Personally, I believe that the “worst thing” happens every single day; Catholic priests beheaded, Christian children crucified, and bombs exploding at the rate of several times a day. But if America is subject to nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks – all of which is entirely possible, will WE allow politicians to continue to play the blame game, or will someone get pissed off enough to begin acting like this is a real war and we’re damn well going to win it?

Finally, we are in a national crisis and it’s time we started acting like it. We have not adequately addressed the threat of a North Korea who is now, or will soon be in a position to sell atomic weapons to Jihadist Iranians. Political posturing is not the pathway to success in any conflict – and unless this changes, and soon, then I think we are likely to continue winning the battles, but lose the war. As for me personally, I think Mr. Bush is part of the problem, and even more worrisome, I do not see anyone waiting in the wings to inspire confidence as his successor.

This comment is also posted at Social Sense.

You want to read the most complete and spot-on commentary you’re likely to run across regarding the hypocrisy beliefs of “our friends” the liberals? Go over and pay a call on Atheling2 at The Pugil Stick.

Talk about timing, it had suddenly occurred to me that I’d been neglecting to comment on one of the prime reasons I originally started blogging, that being the disappointment known as the MSM (mainstream media), and just when I was contemplating a post on those blackguards, along came the venerable Michelle Malkin with an OpEd that is far better than any effort I might have produced.

In the comment thread of my previous post, we were introduced to blogger Mark Alexander. I went over to his site and did some reading, and he is most definitely spot-on. His site, A New Dark Age Is Dawning, will be the newest addition to my blogroll.

In his latest post, he both defines the threat posed by Islam and suggests what is probably the only solution, though the lemming-like forces of political correctness would no doubt fight its implementation tooth and nail.

The post is here.