Video Post

Well, I've had some videos sitting up there in my favorites bar for a while now, and I think it's time to get them out and post them here.

But first, remember America Rising? it's such a good video I'm going to repost it:




Personally, I thought this follow-up video was enjoyable:



The following song was written by a Tennessee football coach, who got together and made it with a friend. he emailed it to his student's families and promptly got in trouble for it. I hope he can keep his job.

But the song, I think, is still a good one. Enjoy.

When Your Holdin' a Hammer (Everything Looks Like a Nail)



We The People



There's one more video on my list, but that one will wait for a different day. In the meantime, please enjoy these.

Project 2,996 Tribute - Pamela Chu

It bothered me when I saw her name on the list of unclaimed victims on the website. It bothered me even more when I typed her name into Google and found nothing. The entire world at my fingertips with Google and I couldn't find a trace of this 9/11 victim anywhere.

but a bit of further looking turned up one hit for her: a profile printed by the New york Times and later reprinted in the book Portraits Of Grief.


According to this profile, Ms. Chu was born in Korea, but moved to America with her parents when she was two years old. She graduated from the University of Buffalo and went to work for Cantor Fitzgerald shortly afterward. According to a friend, she was cool under pressure and never stressed out over things. She was both the only Asian and only woman in her department.

And she was only 31 when she died.

May the victims of 9/11, their families, those who died trying to save them, and those who survived, never be forgotten. may we never forget teh soldier who protect us, even now. And may we never stop trying to defend our freedoms.

NEVER FORGET 9/11/2001

Click here for the tribute to Christopher M. Colasanti.

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.

Muslims: We're victims too!

The AP is determined to make sure that this 9/11, you realize that Muslims are victims too!

Don't buy it. Just don't:

American Muslims are boosting security at mosques, seeking help from leaders of other faiths and airing ads underscoring their loyalty to the United States — all ahead of a 9/11 anniversary they fear could bring more trouble for their communities.

Now I can't get inside these Muslims' heads, but they are probably lying. The Koran permits Muslims to lie to unbelievers, so all those ads claiming loyalty are probably defective merchandise.

Their goal is not only to protect Muslims, but also to prevent them from retaliating if provoked.

Given how violent Muslims actually are, eh, good luck with that one.

One Sept. 11 protest in New York against the proposed mosque near ground zero is expected to feature Geert Wilders, the aggressively anti-Islam Dutch lawmaker. The same day in Gainesville, Fla., the Dove World Outreach Center plans to burn copies of the Quran.

"We can expect crazy people out there will do things, but we don't want to create a hysteria," among Muslims, said Victor Begg of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. "Americans, in general, they support pluralism. It's just that there's a lot of misinformation out there that has created confusion."

What misinformation exactly? This is a really important question to ask here. What is this misinformation about? What's in the Koran? We know the truth and now it needs to be suppressed? I wish I knew what this guy was talking about.

On Tuesday, the Islamic Society of North America will hold a summit of Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders in Washington "to address the growing tide of fear and intolerance" in the furor over the planned New York mosque.

Islamic centers in many cities are intensifying surveillance and keeping closer contact with law enforcement. Adding to Muslim concern is a fluke of the lunar calendar: Eid al-Fitr, a joyous holiday marking the end of Ramadan, will fall around Sept. 11 this year. Muslim leaders fear festivities could be misinterpreted as celebrating the 2001 terror strikes.

I sure hope those rabbis and pastors back out of that meeting: going to that is asking for trouble. And we don't need to see that you're celebrating: we saw it when the towers destroyed: Muslims were happy.

Separately, groups are distributing ads to combat persistent suspicions about Islam. One spot, called "My Faith, My Voice," features American Muslims saying, "I don't want to take over this country."

Yes you do want to take over this country. Don't lie to me. The goal laid out in the Koran is that there will only be piece in the world when Islam is spread throughout the entire world. Don't even bother to lie.

I could keep going, but I don't feel like it; I'm really annoyed. The AP tried to pull this stunt last year too: "don't blame the Muslims! They're just as much victims as we were!" Which is simply not true. Yes, Muslims were killed when plane the planes hit the WTC, just like members of every other ethnic group, but it doesn't matter. According to the Koran it doesn't matter if "innocent" Muslims are caught in the crossfire of a suicide attack. If they were good people they'll go to heaven. (The ultra-cynical view is, "Blow up everyone around you and let Allah sort 'em out.")

And it irritates me. I am not concerned about the feelings of living, breathing, let's-build-a-mosque-near-ground-Zero Muslims. I am more concerned about remembering the people who lost their lives on 9/11.

But hey, what can you expect from the anti-American press?

Obama needs his License Revoked

"After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. You can't drive. We don't want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out."

- Barack Obama, attempting to prove that his party should be re-elected (And proving that he thinks you, the average voter, has no idea what's going on.)

Someone should go tell Obama to go take a look at his poll numbers. He's not doing so hot - and neither is Congress. He had this cute little metaphor that if you want to go forward you put the car in 'D' not 'R'. In this little metaphor, Obama is saying that if you vote Democrat, he can get you out of the ditch, but not if you vote Republican. Of course, this little metaphor might work better if he hadn't put the car into gear and then drove it into the ditch.

Obama has once again proved how out of touch with reality he is. The economy failed in the latter end of George Bush's term largely because of the housing bubble, which was built up by Democrats to start with! Then Obama came along promising change and put the car even further in the ditch by killing job wherever he found them and terrorizing the economy.

He's attempted to kill drilling jobs with his oil drilling moratorium. He's killed jobs at tanning salons by raising new taxes on them. He's trying to limit how many fish fisherman can catch and therefore reduce the profits the fishermen get. And those are just a few examples of what he's done to ruin this economy.

Back when he was running for President, Obama made another incredibly stupid remark, this one about wanting trickle-up economics. It's been a while since I took economics and heaven knows I'm no businesswoman, but even I know a dumb idea when I hear it. That dumb statement doesn't just defy economics, it also defies gravity.

In nature, when water flows down from a lake, it waters everything on the way down. It never trickles back up to where it came from. And the same principle works in economics. (Which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Obama failed.) Rich people have money, and when they're not running scared that the government will take their money away from them, they invest it in the stock market. This gives companies more money which allows them to expand and hire more people. As money trickles down it helps everyone. It can't trickle up; poor people don't invest in the economy enough to make a difference.

So thanks for nothing Obama. You did NOT ever get that car back out of the ditch, you got it stuck in there deeper, and you're happy about it because it lets you push your dumb socialist agenda.

It's time to revoke Obama's licence. November 2012 can't come fast enough.

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.