Michelle Malkin catches daily flak for standing up to multicultural tyrants and politically correct logic-twisters. She’s controversial, and I don’t care what people say about her. I admire her courage (and she reads my blog).
Michelle is a patriot who is doing America a great service: standing up for the protection and defense of our homeland. (She does a great job defending her book, In Defense of Internment, too. I highly recommend this post.)
Conservatives don’t run the nation’s newsrooms, so it’s important to have people like Michelle and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh out their on our side. Our frustration over the media’s politically correct coverage of the good-for-nothing murderous thugs in Russia, for example, doesn’t go ignored or unmentioned, thanks to conservative writers and talk radio.
In her latest column, she asks the same questions all American patriots are asking: Why do the media refer to Islamic terrorists as “militants”, “guerrillas”, “rebels” and “activists”? Followers of Allah just can’t seem to get along with the rest of the world’s inhabitants. That ’s the real story. Michelle writes:
It wasn’t no-name militants or wayward guerrillas who have butchered, beheaded and slaughtered thousands of innocents over the last three years alone. Anniversary reality check:In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Russia stabbed babies to death, shot toddlers in the back, forced children to eat rose petals and drink their own urine, raped teenage girls, executed their teachers and blew themselves up in a crowded school gymnasium. Death toll: 338.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Spain detonated bombs on four commuter trains during Madrid’s rush hour. Death toll: 190.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Bali blew up a beach resort with an electronically triggered bomb at one bar and a car bomb hidden in a van at another nightclub filled with young Western tourists on holiday. Death toll: 202.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Pakistan kidnapped and beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia kidnapped and beheaded American engineer Paul Johnson.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and beheaded American independent contractor Nick Berg.
The list goes on and on.
By the way, Michelle will be appearing at the Heritage Foundation (214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at noon. Contact Lisa De Pasquale of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute by September 13 to reserve your seat.
Her e-mail address is depaslj-AT-cblpolicyinstitute-DOT-org. I’ll definitely be there. 
(Photo swiped from S-Train)
Update: I just got word that Michelle Malkin’s apprearance at Heritage has been canceled. No further details.
Update II: Malkin on media bias.
Great short article by Michelle. Well worth reading it all. Here’s the ending:
“In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in America hijacked and incinerated three planes full of men, women and children, trapped pregnant women and firefighters in smoke-filled stairways, and forced office workers to leap 99 stories to their deaths after saying final prayers from the ledges of the World Trade Center on a peaceful September morning. Death toll: 3,000.
They tell us to ‘never forget.’ First, let’s stop misremembering.”
To fight this terror it helps to identify and name it. Unlike the politically correct media, Michelle does.
Comment by Jim R — 09.09.04 @ 8:18 am
Michelle is always a good read.
Comment by Mad Mikey — 09.09.04 @ 9:58 am
Hey LaShawn,
I’m out! Leaving today for Kanakuk Institute in Branson, Missouri. You can check it out at http://www.kanakukinstitute.com. They have the nation’s largest Christian sports camp. Just wanted to say thank you for everything. You have been a great inspiration to me and my work. I will not be blogging for awhile, but I will check out your blog from time to time. You have my support in all you do. Keep Jesus Christ first and He will do wonders through your life. He already has! God Bless
Comment by ajhankin — 09.09.04 @ 10:03 am
We misremember the recent past when we demonize our opponents in the war on terror to the point that we encourage ourselves to pretend they are no longer human enough to reason with, and that our own principles of universal human dignity and liberty must change in order to effectively counteract their perspectives. Michelle Malkin’s column forgets that even the terrorists hold political perspectives that are reasonable to some people. For some anti-American persons worldwide, they are “freedom fighters” and “guerrillas”, sadistic murders with an honorable cause.
It goes without saying that those people hold a warped view of human dignity and the sanctity of human life, but to ask our media to reinforce through repetition the belief that their side of the argument has no merit to all people anywhere is as useless as if the thirty-nine reputed historians and researchers who found In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror a “reckless presentation”, “contradicted by several decades of historical research, including works by an official historian of the United States Army and a official U.S. government commission, as well as acts of Congress,” (Denver Post, Sept. 2, 2004) advocated the revocation of Malkin’s First Amendment rights along with public burnings of her book, all the while interning her without due process and labeling her revisionist history ‘domestic terrorism’. That’s not how Americans should behave.
All points of view are not equal, but to engage in the fantasy that American media of every ideological slant should denote Middle Eastern advocates of anti-American terror policies, ‘terrorists’ or worse, ‘Islamofascists’ (?), every time they appear to speak or wreak havoc leaves us coldly reactionary, unflinchingly militant, and senselessly partisan whenever any other nation attempts to alleviate our worldwide conflict by opening lines of communication with these violent criminals. This is the same sad position of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, who earlier this week raged against the Bush Administration’s continued advocation of a political solution to militant Chechen insurgency. “Would you meet Osama bin Laden? … You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these b——s, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers?” (Vladimir Putin, CNN.com, Sept. 7, 2004)
There is no hope for honorable, peaceful diplomacy made relevant by the unceasing threat of overwhelming military force from such a position; “frustration over the media’s politically correct coverage of the good-for-nothing murderous thugs in Russia” should not encourage such steadfast resolve that Americans can no longer speak softly and carry a big stick. Our discourse should help prevent conflict, not exacerbate war.
Again, apologies for the lengthy post. I edited as much as possible.
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.09.04 @ 10:42 am
For Americans and now, for Russians, people who murder children in the name of Allah are ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS.
I do not care what other people in the world might think that they are. I care what WE think they are and the American media should reflect that. If you for one moment think that the majority of people in the Chechnya region of Russia is for the terrorists, think again. They are out in the streets demonstrating not only against the terrorists, but against the gov’t who failed to protect them from the terrorists. I cannot blame them.
With your ‘logic’, Lamb, we should have never called Hitler a fascist ruthless dictator because there were Europeans who believed he was the savior of the world. Puhlease. These murderers are Islamo-fascists terrorists, and I will call them that and the media should call something other than “insurgents” “rebels” or “militants”. TRY TERRORISTS.
For the record, I think Putin is right.
Comment by RepJ — 09.09.04 @ 11:33 am
That is so stereotypically incorrect, James, I’m wondering if it’s satire!
Anyhow, the foundational issue here is good versus evil, in an absolute sense. Evil must be destroyed. Evil is not something to be understood; it is not something to appease. We must destroy the terrorists, and those who support them.
If you dispute the notion of absolute good and absolute evil, then you have destroyed your own argument; for if there is no such thing as absolute good and evil, then there is no such thing as good or evil whatsoever- the concepts of moral relativity, good and evil, human rights, sanctity of life, and so forth would simply be evolutionary illusions conferring a selective advantage. And nothing would matter at all. Racism or environmental destruction would be neither good nor evil, for instance- merely quantities of random, meaningless life in a random, meaningless universe, which would eventually perish in heat death anyhow.
One key problem with liberalism in general is that it attempts to legitimize degenerate behaviour by destroying absolutes, not realizing that by doing so the moral impediments to any behaviour are thereby logically removed. I believe that is one factor in the recent prevalence of school shootings- something that did not happen a century ago- despite more readily available firearms, and children who used them much more frequently.
Comment by Philip Nelson — 09.09.04 @ 11:35 am
Mr. Lamb, how does killing children and innocent people express a political view? All Hope for any honorable, peaceful diplomacy is lost when “terrorists” decide to kill innocent bystanders in the name of Allah. Responding with force is the only responsible solution, to react in a so called “peaceful” or “diplomatic” manner is and will be perceived as cowardice by the terrorists. A good example is the elections in Madrid being manipulated by the terrorist bombing. Actually attempting to negotiate with murderers and those who advocate such acts of terror only poses to legitimize the tactics that we are trying to prevent. As a result, whenever these people do not get their way, it will be followed by an act of terror. To put it in simple terms, it is like the school yard bully, reasoning with, or talking out a problem with him on his terms, does not prevent this bully from any future acts of bullying. Standing up to the bully does.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 09.09.04 @ 11:39 am
James,
Advocates of anti-american terror policies are terrorist or terrorist supporters. By definition.
For that matter, it is not just anti-american terror policies… any terror policies.
As for the monsters in Chechnia, they become terrorists, not insurgents or freedom fighters, when they captured, raped, killed and commited other terrorist acts on CHILDREN. Innocent CHILDREN. Any nobility they could have claimed for their cause went up in smoke when they did this. Any right to have their side heard was lost as well. Their goal isn’t to be heard anyway, their goal is to be feared.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.09.04 @ 11:50 am
Phil…absolutely correct! I applaud your response to Mr. Lamb. Excellent! Bravo!
Giving those who do these things any respect as human beings is out of the question. They will reap what they sow.
Comment by Jeffe — 09.09.04 @ 1:14 pm
Stopping the Islamic terrorists is a matter of survival.
We can take measures to keep them out of our country or to disrupt individual cells, but the terrorists are still out there, waiting.
By their actions, these people show over and over that they do not value human life, even their own. By their own words and deeds, they define themselves as anti-life. That they do it in the name of a higher power does not justify or sanctify it. They embrace death and destruction because of their system of beliefs. As such, I believe they have remove themselves from the human race, and should be exterminated like the vemin that they are.
Meanwhile, those who are responsible are the fat, arrogant mullahs who sit in their fancy shrines and send young, brainwashed men off to murder and die. They sit there in their sublime arrogance or their passionate hatred and envy, and manipulate their followers into ever-increasing acts of evil.
Are they evil because they are followers of Islam? No. Once upon a time, Catholics did the same things, with the Popes and Cardinals in Rome sending off young men to kill, rape, and pillage in Crusades in the Holy Land, in the name of God. That was equally vile, and I consider that those leaders of the Catholic church in that time were just as subhuman in their anti-survival, anti-life actions as today’s Islamic terrorists.
Religion was just an excuse to indulge baser instincts and behaviors, and it can never justify hatred and killing.
Comment by Claire — 09.09.04 @ 2:44 pm
I realize that it is PC incorrect to mention this - but she’s rather attractive too. Okay, okay, I’ll crawl back into my PC shell now.
Comment by mike from oregon — 09.09.04 @ 2:48 pm
“Chivington (a former Methodist minister) became violently angry at them and brought his fist down close to Lt. Cramer’s face. ‘Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians.”
“In a public speech made in Denver not long before this massacre (Sand Creek), Chivington advocated the killing and scalping of all Indians, even infants. ‘Nits make lice!’ he declared.”
Comment by stan — 09.09.04 @ 3:21 pm
Michelle Malkin represents a true line between real conservatives and pseudo-conservative weenies (PCW). A PCW will read her and start wringing his hands and say “Golly, gee; she shouldn’t say that”. A real conservative will go “All RIGHT!”.
Comment by Mark Slater — 09.09.04 @ 3:38 pm
[…] o have the courage to speak the truth about Islam, recently highlighting Dennis Prager and Michelle Malkin.
Comments
»
The […]
Pingback by Crowhill — 09.09.04 @ 4:30 pm
Reading and considering fully Jenn’s comment posted on 9.9.04 @ 2:46 pm, I appreciate and agree with Philip Nelson, RepJ, Jerry McClellan, SCSIwuzzy, and Claire’s comments even more than ever before about calling islamofascist ISLAMOFASCIST. Thanks guys and gals. And so thank you, Jenn, for indirectly reinforcing my view (perhaps to your distain).
Comment by noah — 09.09.04 @ 5:49 pm
Urgent!
It has come to my attention that the Philipines are rife with communist and Islamic terrorists. Because so many Filipinos are well-connected to the U.S. and especially the U.S. Navy, I am today calling for the immediate internment of all Americans of Filipino ancestry. It is quite possible that the Navy has been infiltrated by various Filipino terrorists that would have access to and information about Navy military installations. This is especially true in San Diego, which has a large Filipino population. In addition, since only about 5% of all containers coming into the U.S. are inspected, it is quite likely and even probable that containers coming from the Phillipines are hiding concealed weaponry and WMDs. Terrorists themselves may be concealing themselves in containers, also.
Having visited Manzanar recently, I believe it is ready for at least 20,000 Filipinos immediately. The Japanese grew enormous amounts of produce there and as I am told that Filipinos are very skilled landscapers and gardeners, I am sure they can do the same. Vast amounts of land are still available in the Southwestern deserts, where hundreds of thousands could be relocated. In addition, with the de-population of the Great Plains and the re-introduction of the buffalo, great amounts of grassland are available and the buffalo can provide most food, clothing and housing needs itself. Surplus hides can be used to provide tents in most other camps as well. Perhaps the internees can grow a little wheat and corn and some vegetables.
As for time, President Bush has indicated that the war on terror won’t be won so the stay in the camps might be best described as indefinite to extremely long-term. But the Filipinos are a very patriotic folk and pliant and patient as well, many serving in the service industries where these qualities are necessary. I am aware that most of them are citizens but in times of national crisis we all have to sacrifice.
Unfortunately, this will have an adverse impact on the life and career of our own Michelle Malkin, herself a Filipina. We will not be able to allow writing for publication or even letters sent to the outside for obvious security reasons. But if there is one person who understands the situation more than anyone, it is Michelle.
Please be advised that Filipinos can be distinguished from other Asians by their Spanish surnames, dark complexions and wide broad noses. Although they may attempt to disguise themselves as Thai, Burmese or Cambodian the careful observer will note that they speak a different language than those other three groups. Those who know Filipinos are encouraged to report them to the proper authorities if they do not submit voluntarily to deportation. We cannot offer any guarantees of protection of property rights. But being an industrious people, we are fully confident that they will be able to quickly recoup their losses when Jeb Bush brings terrorists to their knees by 2016 at the latest.
Sincerely,
Ann Rush Ingram
(Stan in San Diego)
Comment by stan — 09.10.04 @ 3:48 pm
Cute post, Stan. The purpose of it, I don’t know.
Michelle Malkin, herself a Filipina…
Actually, she’s not a “Filipina.” She’s an American.
Comment by LB — 09.10.04 @ 3:53 pm
The Americans of Japanese descent interned during WWII were Americans, too.
Stan
Comment by stan — 09.10.04 @ 4:20 pm
So were the Germans and Italians interred with them. Your point is?
Have you read Ms. Malkins book, Stan?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.10.04 @ 4:25 pm
Stan, why don’t you take this up with Michelle Malkin? Send her an e-mail. I don’t know why you continue commenting on my blog when it clearly frustrates you. I doubt you’ll change my mind about my beliefs, and I can’t speak for anyone else. Since I discovered blogs, I’ve spent maybe an hour on liberal blogs because it was pointless. Everyone holds firmly to their opinion until they see compelling evidence to the contrary. That’s how we humans are.
Do you comment on blogs that share some of your views? You might find it useful.
Comment by LB — 09.10.04 @ 4:26 pm
Come on out to California sometime, LB, and I’ll take you to Manzanar where the old gym has recently been turned into a museum. Read all the stories, look at the faces, buy some of the books before you subscribe to Michelle’s stuff. It’s all about people. I am a conservative evangelical Christian, too, but you guys just throw so much trash around that its difficult to have any kind of discussions. Doers do, writers write, bloggers blog…but in the end are we reaching out to the poor in the way Christ commanded? Was He a Social Darwinian? The reason people act the way they do is primarily that they’re lost and need to be found. You have such a great opportunity to influence so many but you’re just being lost in the conservative trash talk that is spewed endlessly about. You guys honor Rush, four times married buying THOUSANDS of pills and you let him get away with blaming the pills? Bush says before the election that he wouldn’t do anything about Roe v Wade because its the law and we honor him as pro-life? He won’t close the borders or order containers searched and we honor him as the great fighter of terrorists? LB, there is a DESPERATE need for a third party of integrity . No matter who wins this election, we all lose. Why don’t you use your power and move that direction instead of throwing in with some of these phonies?
Stan
Comment by stan — 09.10.04 @ 4:32 pm
Calling what I do “trash” is your prerogative, Stan, but projecting your frustration - whatever you call it - on me is getting close to the line.
I won’t address the rest. If you don’t like what I say or do, the door is wide open.
Comment by LB — 09.10.04 @ 4:34 pm
LB,
So, we’re all locked into our own views and not going to change? I’m NOT a liberal. I believe in the literal virgin birth, the sinless life of Christ, His death in my place for my sins and His glorious return. I chair a group that does humanitarian work in Cambodia, whose goal is to bring the Gospel to those who have yet to hear.
Is your blog reverse “politically correct”? Just all cheerleading for the same old stuff, making fun of anyone who disagrees, even respectfully? I posted to this blog re: MM because you recommended an article she wrote about a criticism of her book. As an American citizen of Filipino descent, it could have happened to her, too. How would she like it if her ethnic group was targeted that way?
Stan
Comment by stan — 09.10.04 @ 4:41 pm
Hell, in the name of Christianity blacks were enslaved, raped, sold, stolen, segregated, humiliated, discriminated…etc.
In the name of Jehovah, far more Palestinian kids have died than Israeli kids…
I am a evangelical christian, and I still recognize the inherent bias in criticizing a religion with A BILLION PEOPLE ACROSS THE GLOBE based upon a minority that is less than 1% of that…
Judge not lest ye be judged…
I think that this fringe of radical Islam must be addressed as what it is, radical Islam…
Comment by HiRez — 09.10.04 @ 4:59 pm
Stan,
Despite it’s provocative title, Ms. Malkin’s book does not endorse internment. If you read Ms. Malkin’s blog, she explains the book points out factual errors in common perceptions of what occurred, demonstrates a real risk of Japanese spies, and discusses the folly of our government refusing to recognize that the vast majority of the people who want to kill us today are Arabs and to direct anti-terror actions accordingly. I have seen hear clearly state several times she does not endorse internment.
Randal
Comment by Randal — 09.10.04 @ 5:13 pm
If Stan is not being satirical to make some sort of a point, let me, a Christian first, conservative second, Republican third, firmly denounce Stan and his raving mad comments, and conspiracy theories. Much like the loony extremeists from the left like al gore and michael moore that the liberal left should of in their right mind denounced long time ago(which they never did but inbraced), we should denounce extremists like Stan on the spot, if no so to contrast ourselvess with the liberal leftists. And I will not be PC here: Stan, you are being a racist. I live in Los Angeles. So? I don’t see none of what you are talking about. And Michelle Malkin is an American and a patriot. In this case, a lot more than you (whatever your ethnicity is).
Comment by noah — 09.10.04 @ 5:29 pm
It’s getting tedious, Stan.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.10.04 @ 5:39 pm
Gosh, I don’t see Stan as being rascist. I see him as being a purist. Correct me if I’m wrong, Stan, but I see you as attempting (in your own warm and fuzzy way) to open our eyes to ALL bias. Sometimes you’re slightly on the overly sensitive side, and you make a bit of a mountain out of a molehill, but I think your point (if I’m understanding it correctly) is that we remain cognizant of that which makes us Christians and conservatives. That we should be viewing every situation, no matter the political ramifications, without bias and with our eyes wide open to any who may potentially be harmed through others’ rascism, and through no fault of their own.
I like Stan.
Please let him stay in our playgroup, LB. Unless I’m wrong in my understanding of him, then feel free to show him the door.
Comment by Jeannie — 09.14.04 @ 10:03 am
Stan is still free to comment. I was just getting tired of bearing the brunt of his frustration.
Comment by LB — 09.14.04 @ 10:06 am
After rereading Stan’s first post, I realized that is it a sarcasm of sort, a satire. So I’m sorry for calling you a racist. My fault for not catching your point through the satire. And like La Shawn, I still don’t completely get your point. Like I said, I’m a Protestant Christian first, conservative second, and Republican third. And although George Bush is not the best example of Christ, and is no Billy Graham, he is the best that we have in the Oval Office at this time. Clearly better than his predessesor, and clearly, CLEARLY better than his current opponent. Perhaps if you can straight out put it in simple terms and clearly state your frustration without satires, metaphors, or beating around the bush, La Shawn and some of us will be able to address your frustration better.
Comment by noah — 09.14.04 @ 12:12 pm
Re: the discussion with Stan.
Christ commanded his followers to “love their neighbor.” Contemporary Christians, and not only those on the Left, often conflate that commandment with, or use it to justify, condemnations of intolerance, bigotry, and the like. This connection seems obvious, but is it justified?
My point, I hasten to add, is not that we Christians are somehow allowed to hate anyone—although we may well “hate the sin while loving the sinner,” to paraphrase Augustine. Nor am I saying that institutions like Apartheid are Christianly justificable.
What I am saying though, is that we Christians shouldn’t assume that certain concepts like tolerance, openness, and so forth are adequate translations of what Jesus (really) means by “loving neighbor.”
To put it another way: the only way for us to get beyond both PC and a knee-jerk reaction to PC (which is what Stan seems to object to) is an exercise in theological discernment. We need to sift through the current categories with “the mind of Christ,” in order to free whatever kernel of truth they have (if they have it) from the husk of a merely semi-Christian, or secularized Christian, moral vocabulary that often surrounds them.
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 09.14.04 @ 5:16 pm