This is a Thing of Beauty

You all remember those stupid remarks made by Flimsey Grahamnesty useless stupid RINO Lindsey Graham, don't you? You know, where he bashed Terry Jones for burning a Koran and said that "freedom of speech is a great idea but we're at war"? If you don't, then click here and read all about it. Well, one lady over on Youtube has had enough Grahamnesty. These videos are a thing of beauty. There is a language warning, as she freely cusses the old RINO out. Hurry and watch the vids before YouTube takes them down!!

I nominate this woman for president. Somehow, I sense she might have the cajones to stand up to the Islamofacists.

The Tucson Tragedy Blame Game

Well, what can I say about this that you all don't already know?

First, my condolences to the families of those who were killed in this terrible crime. Fourteen people were injured, and six people were killed when lunatic Jared Loughner opened fire.

The deceased are Judge John Roll, 63; Gabriel Zimmerman, 30; Phyllis Sheck, 79; Dorthy Murray, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Christina Greene, 9.

Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the target of the attack, is alive but still in critical condition.

And as one Conservative put it, "before the blood had even dried" down there in Arizona, the Left was rushing to assign blame.

To the Tea Party, of course.

Never mind the hate-filled rhetoric of the Left. Never mind all of the statements from President Obama himself inciting violence, which includes, but is by no means limited to

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Extra thanks to Gateway Pundit for this list. GP has worked tirelessly to keeps us informed of breaking developments in this sorry mess.

Now, liberals are running around screaming that this is the fault of the Tea Party and that angry rhetoric cause Loughner to snap and start shooting. Never mind all the stuff Obama has said.

Liberals passing through will say, 'oh, but that was just rhetoric. The president was being metaphorical.' Yeah? Well you've accused me of spouting rhetoric that caused Loughner to snap, and I'm a little out-of-the-way blogger. I don't have a public stage like Obama does. Tell me who's rhetoric Loughner would have been hearing. And yes, I referenced myself, because if you blame the Tea Party, you've blamed me.

But nevertheless, the Dems still planned to blame this on the Tea Party. In fact they planned it almost as soon as they heard about. From Politico via Gateway Pundit (emphasis added):

One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

I think that speaks for itself.

Besides the Tea party, there was a great liberal rush to blame Sarah Palin for the attacks. The reasoning behind this was a picture that Palin had on her website before the election, which showed Rep. Gifford's district in cross hairs.

Never mind that Brad Ellsworth, who's district was also in cross hairs, is still alive, not to mention the other politicians who were in cross hairs. Help me out here, liberals, what are you trying to prove? After the Fort Hood shooting, we were all told not to rush to judgement, but after Tucson, you all went running to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Which leave me asking, what gives?

Never mind all the Leftist rhetoric against Sarah Palin, which Michelle Malkin has detailed here.

Never mind the fact that Loughner has been fixated on Rep. Giffords since 2007, long before Sarah Palin became famous nationwide and before the Tea Party even existed.

Today word came that only 32% of America thinks that rhetoric had anything to do with the tragedy in Tuscon. Sorry Democrats.

Jared Lee Loughner is not a Tea Partier. He is insane, and he has had run-ins with the law before. However, far left loon and Tuscon Sheriff Clarence Dupnik did nothing about those threats. Via The Cholla Jumps:

The sheriff has been editorializing and politicizing the event since he took the podium to report on the incident. His blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Mr. Dupnik knows this tragedy lays at his feet and his office. Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it. He needs to step up and start apologizing to the families of the victims instead of spinning this event to serve his own political agenda.

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation. My sympathies and my heart goes out to her and the rest of Mr. Loughner’s family. This tragedy must be tearing them up inside wondering if they had done the right things in trying to manage Jared’s obvious mental instability.

Every victim of his threats previously must also be wondering if this tragedy could have been prevented if they had been more aggressive in pursuing charges against Mr. Loughner. Perhaps with a felony conviction he would never have been able to lawfully by the Glock 9mm Model 19 that he used to strike down the lives of six people and decimate 14 more.

This was not an act of politics. This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.

Emphasis added.

So a loony liberal sheriff - and most likely a bleeding heart liberal at that - allows an insane man who has been making threats against all types of people walk free, and then six people wind up dead.

I guess this doesn't have anything to do with Palin or the Tea Party, does it?

I'm tired of hearing liberals screech. Enough of this blame game.

Jack Webb Schools Obama

After seeing these videos, I firmly believe bulletpeople deserves a medal. If I ever get the chance to see some Dragnet reruns on one of those satellite channels we have, I'll have to watch it.

But for now, enjoy these videos, and spread 'em around!

Jack Webb Schools Obama on America



Jack Webb Schools Obama on Democracy



And, one not involving Obama: Jack Webb Schools Eric holder on Arizona



Is this good or what?

Koran Burning: Media Late to the Party

It's so hilarious to me that over the last four days, it's come to the media's attention that hey, someone's burning something other than an American flag! I've known this for like two weeks now.

As predicted, Muslims have proved once again that they are not a religion of peace. Where is the peace in threatening to kill people for burning a Koran? Adding to the irony is the fact that Muslims use the Bible as toilet paper. Hmm, which of those two things is less offensive again? Me personally, I'll take having a book burning.

A lot of things have happened around this story over the past few days. First, General Petraeus came out and said that having a Koran burning will make things worse for the soldiers in Afghanistan. the only thing is, NOTHING will make Afghanistan easier. The best thing to do would be to bomb the place and leave. It's a waste of taxpayer money to give those people roads and infrastructure and oh by the way, the Taliban will really appreciate all that when they come back to power. Yes, I do think they'll come back. And I think that after we waste billions of taxpayer dollars to improve roads over there, it'll be easier for the Taliban to move missiles around. Three cheers for being stupid.

Barack Obama only cares about freedom of religion/speech when it comes to Muslims building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. When it comes to a church's right to burn Korans, he's against it all the way. While we're on the subject of that mosque, the Imam in charge of it said that if it isn't built Muslims will attack. A little late for that, I'm thinking. Here's what the nutjob had to say:

“If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world…. If we don’t handle this crisis correctly it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.”

Wow. I'm terrified. Except it doesn't take much to set Muslims off, so I'm used to this now. Gateway Pundit had this response:

Imam Rauf, in all sincerity sir, you can take your victory mosque and shove it.

Ditto.

On the 9th of September, and about four pm, the pastor of the Florida church, Terry Jones, agreed to meet with the (Florida?) Imam, who promised that the Victory mosque would be moved. After that promise, Jones called off the burning of the Korans.

About four hours later it came out that the Imam had been lying all along and wasn't going to move the mosque. (Apparently the Imam was following the principle of taqqiya, or lying to nonbelievers.) This lie, however, was soon found out, and Jones declared the Koran Burning back on.

The media, of course, is having fits over this. No one should ever the malign the "religion of peace" but of course it's okay to malign every other religion. and freedom of speech is only for Islam, as they were in favor of this mosque and against the Koran burning.

This story just gets more and more bizarre. According to at least one report, the Westboro Baptist church has threatened that if the Dove Outreach Center doesn't burn any Korans, they will, and they claim to have done it once before. (For those of you who need a refresher, the Westboro Baptist church was the one protesting outside a soldier's funeral, and they got dragged to court for it.)

In another story, Donald Trump has offered to buy out one of the mosque investors in an effort to ends the whole controversy. You can read the whole story here.

Soldiers have already shot some protesters for throwing rocks at their base. Apparently there's no word on whether or not the soldiers were American or Afghan.

This story just gets more bizarre all the time.

FL Church Promises to Burn Korans, Muslims Respond in Typical Fashion

1 Corinthians 6:12a

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful."

First of all, Pastor, none of those things you listed are isolated incidents. Not one. they are all part of the Islamization of America. And I do agree that it needs to be stopped.

Second, if this doesn't make those idiots in the media shut up about 'religion of Peace' already, nothing ever will. See how this pastor is receiving death threats? You get two guesses as to who is sending them, and I'll give you two hints:

1. Not Christians.

2. Not Jews.

Christians don't send death threats. Muslims do, though.

Now this is controversial for many reasons, and I probably won't get to them all here. First of all, the question is, Is it a good idea for this church to do this? Part of me desperately wants to say yes because I'm tired of creeping Islam. Yes, this should be done. Everyone out at that book burning should be carrying a gun in case CAIR tries something and why are you just burning Korans? You haven't gone far enough. You'd better serve ham at this thing - bonus points if you cook it over the fire you make from the Korans, and you need to have instrumental music playing in the background, too. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, or something.

But the other part of me wants to know if this is the right thing to do. Is this a good testimony for us Christians? I don't know. But I do wonder, particularly when I remember the Crusades.

How much longer are we going to sit down and take it while Muslims demand that we
give them everything they want? I've blogged on here about the idiot Muslim cook who tried to sue his employers when they wanted him to cook pork. If you don't want to cook pork, then maybe you shoulda been a desert chef or something. Muslims are creeping into our culture and they are not assimilating - they expect us to assimilate to them.

I'm tired of Islam. Right now they're trying to build a VICTORY MOSQUE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON 9/11. Let's not beat around the bush, we'll call the Hamasque of the Usual Suspects what it is: a VICTORY MOSQUE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON 9/11. Okay? And I'm tired of it. Building a mosque in a business district - it's not because you need a place to worship, it's because you want to COMMEMORATE THE DEATH OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, well, you get the point.

And then, Bibles. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to own one of these. Oh, yeah, real tolerant religion going on there. Burn a flag, burn people to death, burn a church, burn a Bible, Muslims don't blink. Burn a Koran, and they scream like stuck pigs.(By the way, I think it's worth mentioning that church burning is the second-favorite pastime of Muslims.)

Now, there is endless debate going on now about whether or not this is the right thing to do. There is no easy now. The easiest thing to do would be to not let any more Muslims over here, ever. After 9/11 immigration from the Middle East should have been stopped, with the only exception being the Jews. Only Jews, not Muslims who lived in Israel.

Now, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful." It falls under free speech laws that these people can burn Korans, but is it helpful? Or will it be another black mark against Christians? At this point I would have to say that there's not much you can do that will make Christianity look any better in the media's eyes. Determined to make Islam the religion of peace, they've left Christianity to be transforming into a 'violent religion.' We're not, by the way. but the media will never listen to that.

As to whether or not the church should burn Korans, because I'm still evenly divided over what to do, I'll leave that one up to them. But one thing that I think is worth mentioning is the Crusades. At this rate, we're going to need a few more of these.

Contrary to what you've heard from your teachers or from watching Kingdom of Heaven, the Crusades were not a bunch of Christians going out to terrorize Muslims. the Crusades were a bunch of Christians going out to stop Muslim aggression and prevent said Muslims from taking over Europe.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.

Huh. No response until the crusades. The media won't acknowledge Islam for what it is, and it'll take Crusades now to stop this spread of Islam. Methinks history might be slated to repeat itself.

Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?

Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.

In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.

Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.

Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.

Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the tax on non-Muslims -- jizya -- that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.

Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years 30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.

In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In 1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.

Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.

It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This effort was largely unsuccessful.

Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099.

The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime -- particularly in light of the
religious and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.

In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city.

This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period -- since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.

In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination."

Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.

There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."

However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."

During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions."

This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.

Don't think for one minute that if the Muslims could force us all to stop worshiping God and teaching each other - even each other! - about the Bible, they wouldn't do it. It would not surprise me if very shortly we are in for the fight of lives just to keep our freedoms.

I'm glad the Pope didn't apologize. At least someone has a brain.

In Europe things have already started to reach a breaking point. No one over there wants the Muslims anymore simply because of the way act and how they demand to be treated better then everyone else. Whether this is because their skin is brown or what I don't know or honestly care.

These people are already trying to infiltrate our culture and force us to play by their rules, and I don't appreciate that much. The Muslims are consistently doing outrageous things, so maybe it's time that the rest of us be just as outrageous.

Maybe. Maybe doing this isn't right at all.

Or maybe it's what we need - the beginning of another Crusade.

I'm Still with Israel

Guess what's ba-ack? The pro-Israel banner. 'Cause I still support Israel.

In case you missed the news, a bunch of "peace activists" tried to run a blockade in Gaza. IMAO put it best when they said these are "the sort of peace activist who want nothing more than war." Because that's exactly the kind of peace activist that tried to get into Gaza.

All sorts of things have come out about this flotilla attack. Hillary Clinton had to go open her big mouth:



"We support, in the strongest terms, the security council's call for a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation."

From the U.N.? Don't make me laugh, lady. You and I both know that the U.N. hates Israel and can't do jack squat right.

"We support an Israeli investigation that meets those criteria."

Boy, I wish I could lie like that without my conscious driving me up a wall. Maybe it's a bit early to be calling her words a lie, but I just this feeling that I'm gonna be right. We'll deal with Gaza here in a minute.

(Palestinian authority, what Palestinian authority? Yes I know I'm supposed to keep going but I couldn't help that one.)

One more for good measure:

"Ultimately the solution to this conflict must be found through an agreement based on a two-state solution negotiated between the parties."

Okay. My friend Ron Mossad had a lovely post on the two-state solution so I won't deal with it here. You can go here if you're interested in more on that. Okay, back to the point.

So Mrs. Clinton wants a fair investigation. I wonder, will that investigation include this video:



For the first few seconds of this video you can some soldiers boarding the boat. Then you see a "Peace activist" tossing a rock at a soldier. And the subtitles take care of the rest.

Wow. That's about the same kind of peace I expected from the religion of Islam - oh wait....

Gateway Pundit, through YNet News adds this statement from the soldier who was thrown over the side of the ship:

R. was the soldier who was thrown from the deck, as shown in the footage distributed by the IDF. "I was in front of a number of people with knives and clubs. I cocked my weapon when I saw that one was coming towards me with a knife drawn and I fired once. Then another 20 people came at me from all directions and threw me down to the deck below."

"Then I felt a stabbing in my stomach. It was a knife. I got the knife out, then somehow got down to the lower deck where there were more people. This was when the soldiers had got control of all the boat except the lower deck. Me and another soldier managed to get to the deck, and we jumped into the water, from where our forces collected us. Another soldier who was beaten hard lost consciousness. Other soldiers covered him until we managed to get him out."

Hmm. That doesn't sound so peaceful to me.

Obama came out and condemned Israel. Then again, they did put his friends in danger (Not that that's an excuse):

Former Weather Underground leaders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, helped organize the Free Gaza Movement, which launched the six-ship flotilla from Turkey to Israel that ended in a violent clash with Israeli Defense Forces, BigGovernment.com reported.

... This wasn’t the first time that the Free Gaza Movement, whose board of directors include well-known leftists Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, sent vessels to Gaza to deliberately provoke a reaction from Israel.

... And if there’s any doubt that this was a political set-up instead of a humanitarian mission, the fact that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised to join a future convoy should dispel any doubts.

Well isn't that some interesting food for thought. So now that we know this was set up and now that we know that those peace activists weren't peace activists - unless stabbing someone in the stomach is now 'peaceful' - who's fault is it now?

Here's a hint: not Israel.

__________________________________
Further reading:

Ron Mossad: 10 Dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza Freedom Flotilla
Ron Mossad: More info on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
Gateway Pundit: Netanyahu: This was no Love Boat
And for the people who think that this incident took place in 'International Waters': Click here.

Project 2,996 - Tribute - Christopher M. Colasanti

Name: Christopher M. Colasanti

Age: 33

Home: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA

Occupation: Bond trader for Cantor Fitzgerald

Location: World Trade Center, North Tower

As I read through this article, I start to get a picture of who Christopher Colasanti was. In my mind, I can see him. He's a kind person, who loves his wife and two children, and who "enjoyed the contradictions in his personality and his life. "

...Christopher M. Colasanti smiled a lot during his 33 years, but the smile he saved for his two daughters always had something extra on it.

It was a look of quiet, contented amazement, like he couldn't believe how lucky he was.

"When he was around his girls, he just had that smile on his face all the time," said John Nulty, who grew up with Mr. Colasanti in South Orange. "You could tell he was having that perfect-moment feeling."

On Sept. 11, Mr. Colasanti kissed his wife, Kelly, and children, Cara, 4, and Lauren, 1, before catching an early train to arrive by 7:30 a.m. at Cantor Fitzgerald, where he worked as a bond trader on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower.

His plan was to get in early so he could return early to his family in Hoboken. Every night, he gave his girls a bath, then tucked them in.

"He put us first always," Kelly Colasanti said. "He was a great father. He had such a great relationship with both the girls."

Still, he was the guy who maintained ties with the mob of kids he grew up with on West End Avenue in South Orange; the guy who married his high school sweetheart, having met Kelly when they were juniors at Columbia High; the guy who made sure his friends from Dartmouth College got together for dinner several times a year.

He enjoyed the contradictions in his personality and his life.

He was a bow-legged, skinny, bespectacled kid who grew up to be athletic and captain of the high school soccer team and later a triathlete.

He loved playing golf, even though he was lousy at it. He rooted for sports teams that were mostly terrible, like the Nets and Jets, just so he could pull for an underdog.

He gave himself the tongue-in-cheek nickname "The Dominant Force" -- or "Dom" for short -- in the seventh grade, and it stuck with him into adulthood because it was so contrary to everything he was.

"We got along because we ripped each other so well," said John Lynch, his best friend from Dartmouth. "There wasn't anything about each other we wouldn't make fun of. He was just someone you looked forward to having around for a long time."

In addition to his wife and children, Mr Colasanti is survived by his father, Anthony, and two brothers, Gregory and Andrew.

Profile by Brad Parks published in THE STAR-LEDGER.

An aquaintance of Mr. Colasanti added these thoughts as a tribute:

Chris was one of my closest friends in Jr. High and early high school. He always knew how to have fun. He loved Kelly the minute he met her and although their time together was cut short, the love they shared must have been incredible. I pray for her happiness and the ability to move forward with life.

May the victims of 9/11, thier familes, and those who died trying to rescue them never be forgetten.

Rest in Peace, Christopher.

I'm a Terrorist!

Who'da thunk?

Anyway, here's the deal. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a report calling all sane, rational, patriotic Americans, in effect, terrorists. If you are against any of the following things, you are a now a right-wing extremist (List from Bare Naked Islam):

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

-Opposes restrictions on firearms
-Opposes lax immigration
-Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the
expansion of social programs
-Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
-Opposes same-sex marriage
-Has paranoia of foreign regimes
-Fear of Communist regimes
-Opposes one world government
-Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
-Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
-. . . and the list goes on

Do you see this? Do you see this? These people have violated almost every aspect of the U.S. Constitution. Right off the bat I can pick off that it violates the first and second amendments.

I fit most of the things on this list, therefore I am, if not a terrorist, at least a right-wing extremist. (I know this is the liberals doings. Barack Obama is a left-wing extremist, and they haven't issued a memorandum against him.)

Let's look at that list again:

[X] Opposes restrictions on firearms

Check.

[X] Opposes lax immigration

Check.

[X] [X] Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

Double check.

-Opposes continuation of free trade agreements

I don't know what that means, but if it's what I think it is (or if it involves any Communist country in any way), I'm against it.

[X] Opposes same-sex marriage

Check.

[X] Has paranoia of foreign regimes

Check

[X] Fear of Communist regimes

Absolutely. Especially with the freakin' communist regime Obama's trying impose on me!

[X] Opposes one world government

Check.

[X] Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.

[X] Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India.

Check and check.

So, this is a hit list against Conservatives, violating the core principle of the Constitution of the United States. Here, I'll make it easy for you. This is what you should have said:

"To all law enforcement officers. Today is tax day; be on the lookout for tea partiers protesting the money The One has spent. He is the president, and he must not be questioned.

We expect these Conservatives and Tea baggers to be out in full force today, and they may get out of hand. [Ironically, I'd like to interrupt this fictitious narrative to point out that no one did. Except CNN.]

Protesting what the president is doing is a violation of federal law. Be prepared."

Or something like that. When, once again, ironically, protesting anything the government does is not a federal offense in this country!

Fortunately, this story has a somewhat happy ending. This Right-wing risk assessment was released because of the Tea parties, but not everyone the DHS's crap. Michelle Malkin reports:

Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday concerning the DHS conservative hit job:

You can follow the link up there to get the whole letter. It's good stuff.

Well, I'm off to go off and be a terrorist proudly and patriotically support my country.

Is Korean/American History Repeating Itself?

By now, chances are everyone in America knows that North Korea is up to no good. (Everyone except liberals: "There are none so blind as those who will not see.") I don't know about you, but North Korea's making me pretty nervous.

I've never liked North Korea. North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, and please welcome Iran (, the newest member,) are all countries that aren't high on my list of favorite countries, mostly because all except maybe Iran are Communist countries, and I have about as much use for Communism as my European ancestors had for the Bubonic Plague.

Several weeks ago, an article about North Korea planning to launch a "satellite" came to my attention. It interested me because as I read the comments from N. Korea, I noticed they were just getting more and more shrill: "We're going to launch a satellite, and if you blow it up, that will be an act of war. If you blow our satellite up, we'll declare war on you!" And on and on it went, getting more and more shrill. So I read it and sat in my chair, thinking, "Okay, you're up to something. I don't know what it is, but you're up to something." And wouldn't you know, they were.

Time passed, and it went from "satellite" to rocket. And, by the way, the first one has been launched. Rumor has it that there are three rockets, but I can't deny or confirm that...yet.

North Korea shot off its rocket tonight at 10:30 EST.FOX News reported:

North Korea defiantly carried out a provocative rocket launch Sunday that the U.S., Japan and other nations suspect was a cover for a test of its long-range missile technology.

Liftoff took place at 10:30 p.m. EDT Saturday from the coastal Musudan-ri launch pad in northeastern North Korea, the South Korean government said. In Washington, the State Department also confirmed the launch.

"We look on this as a provocative act," U.S. State Department spokesman Fred Lash said.The rocket flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific Ocean, the Japanese broadcaster NHK said, citing its government.

That stern finger wagging by President Obama didn't seem to deter them much, did it?

But wait, it gets better. North Korea launches rocket, D'Obama decides everyone in the world should disarm, starting with America. Oh, by the way Mr. Lash, are you going to do anything about this provocative act? I didn't think so. Here's a hint: The dictator of N. Korea could really care less what the U.N. has to say. But I digress; back to NObama:

Just hours after North Korea launched a long-range rocket, President Barack Obama called for "a world without nuclear weapons" and said the United States has a “moral responsibility ” to lead the way, as the only nation ever to use them.

Ummm, What the crap? "N. Korea fired a rocket. Quick! We have to hurry! Pull out! Pull Out!!" That's actually how China's in the mess it's in, but I'll get to that in a minute. Let's continue:

“Now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons,” Obama said to a crowd estimated at 20,000 in the cobblestone square at the elegant Prague Castle, in what was the largest audience of his five-country, eight-day swing.

“All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.”

Oh yeah, 'cause that worked so well the first time we tired it. I refer to the first quote in this blog post: "North Korea defiantly carried out a provocative rocket launch." I don't think Kim Jong Il's feelin' the pressure.

Now, let's look at the Korean War. This often overshadowed by World War II, before it, and the Vietnam War, after it. And apparently, it wasn't actually a war, and least not from the American viewpoint:

In North Korea, while commonly known as the Korean War, it is formally called the Joguk haebang jeonjaeng or Fatherland Liberation War (Hangul: 조국해방전쟁; Hanja: 祖國解放戰爭). In the United States, the conflict was officially termed a police action — the Korean Conflict — rather than a war, largely in order to avoid the necessity of a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.

Strange. I'm used to "Korean War" instead of "Korean Conflict", so I will be referring to it as a war. I got out my history book and looked this up, and found it pretty interesting, if not with some scary comparisons. Here's the shortened, paraphrased version.

(The president when the Korean War happened was the Democrat Harry Truman.) After WWII, Korea was divided with the north half controlled by Russia and the south half controlled by America. Both countries were supposed to let the Koreans establish their own government in a unified country, but the U.S. and Russia didn't trust each other.

The United States set up a democracy in South Korea, and the Communists Russians set up a puppet Communist government over in N. Korea. Meanwhile, over in China, the Nationalists (the good guys) were fighting the Chinese Communists in attempt to take control of China. A U.S. general went over to try and negotiate peace between the groups, but that didn't happen. Dissatisfied, the general recommended that U.S. troops be withdrawn from China. Without U.S. support, the Nationalists were overwhelmed, and were forced to escape to the island of Taiwan. (Remember this fact; Taiwan will reappear later.)

With China and N. Korea controlled by Commies, South Korea was in trouble. The brilliant U.S. State Department decided to appease and contain Communists (Because that worked so well when dealing with Hitler.) Finally, the Secretary of State said the U.S. would protect the Philippines and Japan but wouldn't get involved on the Asian mainland.

Sure, just hand the Commies an invitation. But that was what the Commies saw, and they took it, and invaded S. Korea on June 25, 1950. N. Korea went in after S. Korea.

Now, look. This was tried prior to WWII, when dealing with Hitler. Appease, appease, appease, contain, contain, contain. It was used with Nazism (which is just an extension of Communism.) Hitler wanted part of Czechoslovakia; France and Britain negotiated with the Czechs and gave it to him. He claimed it would be his last conquest; one bloody war later....

History lessons one and two:

1) Never try to appease Communists.
2) Never trust a Communist.

Now back to Korea. Appeasing the Communists by pulling out didn't work. The United Nations demanded N. Korea stop; N. Korea (surprise, surprise) ignored them. The Commies made it all the way to Seoul before the U.N. finally did something. By July 1st, the U.S. Army was back in Korea under the command of General MacArthur. S. Korea, the U.N., and America were still outnumbered. Finally, MacArthur moved part of his forces up near Seoul, cut the N. Korean supply lines, and then recombined the army and basically overran the place.

This alarmed the People's Republic of China Communism, who immediately sent 300,000 soldiers to help N. Korea. The U.N. troops were pushed back, but before MacArthur could carry out his next plan of attack, Truman replaced him with a different general.

See, MacArthur wanted a complete victory. He didn't just want to appease and contain. Truman didn't want an all-out confrontation with Communism. The Chinese Nationalists offered to come help South Korea, and he sent American ships to prevent them from leaving Taiwan. Technically, the Korean War may not be over, since all that came from it was a truce and not a peace treaty.

Now, look. Here's my point. Do you see what Truman did? He wanted to appease and contain, not eliminate the problem. Obama wants to appease and contain, not confront N. Korea. He's as much as said it. Obama would rather pressure N. Korea to stop, and that didn't work. The United Nations is worth nothing. They have no power, and can do nothing.

Obama thinks America ought to disarm to inspire N. Korea to do the same. Really? Does this idiot remember America has these things called 'enemies'? And they want us dead? Freedom is a bane to Communism, and I cite the Berlin wall to back that. Russia built that wall to keep people from escaping to freedom.

North Korea seems to be itching to start something. The question is, will Obama do anything about it? The American people seem to want something done. Obama, however, doesn't seem to feel that way.

We know Obama lacks the will to use the military for pro-active measures (like securing American interests abroad), but did he even bother with defense? The U.S. has developed a missile defense shield to protect ourselves and our allies from precisely this sort of attack, but one of the key pieces of that defense -- an extremely powerful radar system -- was floating idly at Pearl Harbor. I'm sure our ally Japan really appreciated our help as North Korea's missile rocketed straight toward it.

I hope our allies will forgive us for what Obama has done. Is it to much to ask that we at least intimidate N. Korea with a show of strength? There's also this thing called a "preemptive strike."
North Korea doesn't care what the U.N. says. Communists don't play by the rules. So why does Obama insist that the rest of us play by the rules? Ace of Spades put it pretty well:

After Obama acknowledges that the N. Koreans ignored UN Resolutions, he calls on the N. Koreans to abide by them. This is smart and tough diplomacy?

That is a rhetorical question. I hope no one gets hurt while Obama flubs his way through foreign policy.

Begun 4-5-09
Ended 4-6-09

To Kill An American

Cross-posted from Faultline USA, who cross-posted it from Right Truth.

Well, I was hoping to post up, "What part of Massive Economic Woe do you not understand?" first, but I saw this and had to pass it along. Check it out:

To Kill an American

You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)

"An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan . The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.

When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. Americans welcome the best of everything...the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least.

The national symbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America.

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 , 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other bloodthirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American."

Please keep this going!
Pass this around the World.
Then pass it around again.
It says it all, for all of us.
Please do not just delete.
Pass it on first.
Thanks!

Amen. If you agree, pass it on.

Happy New Year!

And so I return, back from vacation. Happy New Year everyone!

The blog is mostly back to normal... one of these days I'll get around to putting my proper banner back up. Eventually.

And I'd like to start off this year by clarifying something that's had me confused for a long time.

You know the Iraq War, right? America Won.

We might not be through over there, but we won the war.

Great News!

And the left said we'd fail. Thank you President Bush for never giving up, and thank you to our troops, who make it safe for us to live here.

And that's all for this round.

L8R PPL!!

A Reason Not To Care

Today I was shown a letter written by a woman from Louisiana, and I must say, this woman is correct. She did not sign her name to it. If you agree with what you see here, pass it on.

Letter from one 'Angry Woman'

'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 ?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was 'desecrated' when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care..

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don't care !!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem' -- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this.

'If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.' Also by.. Ronald Reagan

One last thought for the day: In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said: 'A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in.. And how many want out.'

The last thing, by the way, that we should do is to elect a muslim as President of the United States, someone who claims to love America yet, WILL NOT salute the flag, WILL NOT pledge allegience to our flag, and sat in a church listening to a 'pastor' that HATES America! Are you Freakin' kidding me?

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM.