Sikh Temple Investigated As Domestic Terrorism, Ft. Hood Shooting Is Still Just “Work Place Violence”

Image Credit: Mike De Sisti/Journal Sentinal

They’ve identified the shooter in the Sikh temple shooting in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. From Fox News:

CUDAHY, Wis. – The man authorities say killed six in a Milwaukee-area Sikh temple before police shot him was a heavily-tattooed, 40-year-old ex-Army soldier, sources told Fox News, but what triggered his rampage remains unclear.

Sources identified the dead suspect as Wade Michael Page, who was at one time attached to the Fort Bragg Army installation in North Carolina. Local authorities have scheduled a 10 a.m. press conference, where more details may emerge about Page and what the FBI is treating as an act of domestic terrorism in the temple, in the Milwaukee suburb of Oak Creek. Six people were killed and four wounded, including a police officer, before the man being identified as Page was shot dead by a police officer.

Satwant Kaleka, president of the temple, was one of those killed. Sources told Fox News he attempted to tackle the suspect as he sprayed gunfire inside the temple

Last night the L.A. Times reoorted:

Tattoos on the body of the slain Sikh temple gunman and certain biographical details led the FBI to treat the attack at a Milwaukee-area temple as an act of domestic terrorism, officials said Sunday.

Stacy McCain gathered up a collection of local reports showing what was known (and not known) about the deceased subject. For the most part it turned out to be pretty accurate.

It’s safe to say at this point that the shooter doesn’t appear to be an extremist, but rather a somewhat down on his luck ex-military guy in his early 40′s who just broke up with his girlfriend.

Now we may find out the perpetrator here was some sort of white supremacist or skinhead, but I’m operating from the position that the more we learn about the shooter the more troubled he’s going to sound. Given all that, let’s compare with this:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

“The documents attached illustrate how the Department is dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence,” read the letter, which was obtained by Fox News.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

Everyone except the Obama administration knows that Nidal Hasan was (and is) a terrorist.

The case in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, while tragic, just doesn’t seem like terrorism.

Update: Wade Michael Page was a member of a racist skinhead band, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. More on that at Huffington Post.

Occupy Oakland Trashes Obama Campaign Office
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • Pingback: ‘Who’ Is First of 5 W’s; ‘Why’ Is Last UPDATE: Wade Michael Page : The Other McCain

  • Commander_Chico

    Whaaa!! A white folk is getting blamed for terrorism!! It’s not fair!!

    • jim_m

      I think that people would be a little more accepting of this being called terrorism if the government would simply call mass murdering islamists, who scream “Allahu Akbar!” while murdering their victims, terrorists.

      It’s the unwillingness to call muslims terrorists when they murder innocent people that pisses people off.

      But then the muslims are on your side so you wouldn’t want that, would you?

      • Hugh_G

        “….the muslims are on your side…” What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

        • jim_m

          The left has taken common cause with radical islam. You ignore their oppression of women and gays but you castigate everyone else but them for far more minor offenses. You leap to accuse conservatives of terrorism but you bend over backwards to avoid making any such accusations against muslims in the US. You ignore their anti-democratic and anti-US ideology because, basically, it’s the same as yours except that you generally do not advocate murder.

          If you treated muslim views like you did conservative’s you would have a lot to complain about, but because radical islam hates America and hates democracy you remain silent because you are after the same thing.

          • Hugh_G

            Oh, OK. Just your ranting insanity once again “counselor.”

          • Commander_Chico

            “The left” living in Jim’s mind again.

          • jim_m

            Hey, you complain that the conservatives are anti-gay because we object to gay marriage. Islamic governments are putting people to death for being gay and you say absolutely nothing. You won’t call Major Hasan’s act terrorism, but you were calling this pone terrorism before we even knew who the guy was.

            I’m just calling you on the double standard.

          • Hugh_G

            You’re so hateful, delusional, irrational and bigoted that you remind me of those people out there hurting others. Hopefully you have no automatic weapons.

          • jim_m

            I don’t hate you. I just point out your hypocrisy.

            I understand if you consider people who disagree with you as being “haters”. You have little option but to demonize and dehumanize people who disagree with you. It makes it a lot easier to take away their human rights.

          • Hugh_G

            You really demonstrate that you hate muslims, progressives and believe me it is you who dehumanizes people of a different skin color, religion or place of birth. You’re scary and I hope you don’t have automatic weapons.

          • jim_m

            You’re funny. I point out your double standard and you launch into a hysterical rant about my being a bigot. You won’t even defend your double standard you just need to destroy me for having the nerve to point it out (which is actually part of my point).

            You are also ignorant because fully automatic weapons are illegal and I am not a criminal.

          • 914

            Imagine what he’d do if he found out you flushed a Koran? Yep Hugh is pretty much a projectionist! Look the other way when a Woman being beat and rationalize the ignorance!

          • retired.military

            Hugh. Why not address the point I made in the other thread about the left saying absolutely nothing against the African American preachers who came out totally against gay marriage (and much more strongly than the owner of Chick Fil A).

          • retired.military

            How has he demonstrated he hated muslims. he clearly stated radical islam. He hasnt used the word hate either. You are lying through your teeth. Also you are not addressing his points and are trying to deflect by calling him a bigot.

          • jim_m

            And what exactly is bigoted about pointing out that you complain about discrimination from one group and ignore serious human rights violations from another?

            I’m a bigot for pointing out that you don’t care if muslims hang or stone homosexuals? Really? Who’s delusional and irrational? The left has been in an uproar over stupid comments by the owners of Chick-fil-a for a week, but cannot get exercised about muslim human rights violations. It’s pretty obvious what you are really concerned about and it sure as hell ain’t gay rights.

          • Hugh_G

            You’re a bigot about people of different color, different religious persuasion and different political beliefs. You demonstrate that on a regular basis. I’d pity you but you’re not deserving of it.

          • jim_m

            You think I am a bigot for pointing out that there is an issue in the muslim world with mistreatment of gays? What do you have against gay people that you think they deserve to be hanged?

            I haven’t even mentioned female genital mutilation but I suppose that you consider that to be a cultural thing and we shouldn’t criticize them over their culture. I guess you would call me a bigot for bringing that up too.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            The problem Hugh has with you is that you ask uncomfortable questions. Therefore, you’re a bigot. You’re supposed to accept things unquestioningly. You’re not supposed to question cultural differences – to do so is bigotry of the highest order to the politically correct.

          • Evil Otto

            Jim, you’re expecting some kind of consistency in leftist thought? To Hugh’s muddled mind, you’re a bigot because you call Muslims out on their horrific treatment of homosexuals and women. The level of cognitive dissonance required to be a progressive is enough to drive a normal person insane.

          • 914

            That is an off color ad hominem attack! Jim merely points out the mistreatment of Women and you get your panties in a wad..,

            Grow up

          • Hugh_G

            It’s a fact. He’s a delusional, irrational hateful bigot.

          • jim_m

            Care to argue about specifics or do you just want to stick with the general ad hom attack?If you want to think that I am a bigot, it would help to know against what group I am bigoted against. It would help to understand what I have said that makes you conclude such a thing.

            As of now the only thing anyone has to go on is that you are upset that I pointed out your double standard.

          • Hugh_G

            ‘The muslims”, “plantation mentality” “you leftists” “gays” – pretty much anyone who doesn’t fit into your tiny, hateful and delusional world view.

          • retired.military

            What should he call thenm?

            The nonchristians? The nonrightists? The nonhetersexual?

          • retired.military

            He wants to stick with the general ad hominem attack as he cant discuss specifics since it shows his blatant hypocracy.

          • 914

            So the abuse of Arabic Women sits well with you then?

            Picking up the slack right where Grumpy left off..

          • Hugh_G

            A silly question from an adolescent at best.

          • 914

            Thought so!

          • jim_m

            A very valid question and your response shows that we are correct that you really don’t give a rat’s ass about women’s rights or gay rights, that what you want is control over society.

            If you actually cared you would address the question. If you actually cared, being called out on your double standard would not lead to your charges that everyone else is a bigot.

          • retired.military

            Why is it when people point our your hypocracy you dont respond to their arguments. When the facts support you argue the facts when the facts dont than attack the person.

          • jim_m

            I’ll be sure to inform my coworker who was at that very Sikh temple on Saturday. I’m sure he will be surprised.

          • Brucehenry

            I feel your pain, Hugh. You have been victimized by Jim’s “boggle their minds with outlandish nonsense” ploy. Been there.

            He’ll vomit up a couple of tidbits like “the left has made common cause with radical Islam,” and “radical Islam hates democracy and hates America and you remain silent because you are after the same thing.” Then, when you respond with disbelief he has said something that outrageous and stupid, he’ll start picking your responses apart sentence by sentence, treating the conversation like a fencing match.

            Like the “double standard” nonsense. Because he hasn’t seen you type, here on Wizbang, something he wants you to type, you are “silent.” Never mind that, unlike Jim, you don’t spend all day every day here, commenting on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE. Never mind that in America one is free to comment or not comment on any subject one wishes. Never mind that you may have expressed at some other time or some other venue the sentiments he finds correct.

            Oh, and the twisting! “What do you have against gay people that you think they deserve to be hanged?” Never mind you never said ANYTHING REMOTELY TO THAT EFFECT, in Jim’s mind he has you in a “Gotcha!ZOMG!”

            This will get you nowhere, dude. I suggest only doing this on brutally hot or rainy Sundays, when you don’t mind wasting hours of time arguing with a guy who will never ever give up. You could be here all night, and he’ll still be spouting outlandish, outrageous craziness.

          • Hugh_G

            Grow up? That’s laughable for someone who acts like a child in a sandbox.

          • retired.military

            Actually Jim pointed out that Muslims also umm stone gays but you failed to mention that.

          • jim_m

            The left has never cared about blacks killing other blacks. The left does not care about muslims murdering muslims. They seriously do not care if brown skinned people kill other brown skinned people. But if a white person kills a minority, look out! Now they have an issue they can use for political purposes.

            The left doesn’t give a damn about people. They really care a lot about their ideology.

          • retired.military

            Since he demonstrates it on a regular basis please point out one example of his blatant discrimination.

          • retired.military

            ” I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation” – Barrack Obama

            “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix” – Barrack Obama

            ““I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage” – Barrack Obama

            Funny how Barrack Obama was never called bigoted by the left after he made those statements. In fact, they elected him president even after he made them.

          • jim_m

            The left has always loved their own bigots.

          • retired.military

            Nor will they address the comments against gay marriage by African American preachers.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’ll call Major Hassan’s act terrorism, but I’m not bitching about others not calling it that.

            I tend to think most shootings like this have to do with guys not getting laid leading to mental illness. But this Oak Creek guy seems like a genuine long-term hater, too.

          • jim_m

            Yes, he does. It’s sad that many people have no problem (like Steve did) in calling a white man’s act terrorism, but they will not call Major Hasan’s act terrorism.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I called it a hate crime as for terrorism, I think more of cells and conspiracies and neither seems to fit that description; however, the Norwegion Breivik is perhaps the classic lone wolf terrorist. Is the Aurora killer not considered within the category of a terrorist because he was too jaded to even have a delusional political, agenda, although his actions were very premediated? In short, they all are dangerous to innocent civilans!

          • 914

            Don’t know his agenda and frankly do not care.. Should have been shot dead at the scene.. Case closed!

          • retired.military

            You arent bitching about it because the left is the one who is not calling it terrorism.

          • retired.military

            He wont say anything about the African American preachers who denounced gay marriage either.

          • 914

            lol

          • jim_m

            You can deny it as much as you like but the fact remains that there must be a reason that you gloss over the deep chasm between your beliefs and radical islamic beliefs. The answer seems to me that the most important issue is control over everyone else and that is something both groups agree upon.

      • Commander_Chico

        I don’t get too concerned about what other people label other people. I make my own judgments. Whining that someone else didn’t label someone else precisely according to their definitions is foolish.

        • herddog505

          I’d say that, when those “other people” are the government, and their labels affect not only criminal charges but national policy, it’s pretty important to care about them, don’t you think?

          • Commander_Chico

            In that case, the less things labeled “terrorism” the better, it’s politicized fear mongering. In the end, murderers can get the maximum penalties, all else is BS.

    • retired.military

      What isnt fair is when a Muslim shouting Allah Akbar kills 13 people and it is classified as workplace violence.

  • Vagabond661

    terrorist act
    noun the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: terrorism]
    I’d agree Mr. Johnson with what we know right now. However shouting “Allahu Akbar” while shooting innocent people would lean more to the definition above.

  • Guest

    Why is the label “terorrism” necessary? Isn’t “murder” an accurate (and heinous enough) label?

    • UOG

      The cynic in my says, “Labels matter because of regional crime stats.” Did you read the story of the guy (now in TX) who found his AH3000, stolen 30 years ago, for sale on ebay? He couldn’t recover the car until someone made up a new crime classification because the city where it was originally stolen wouldn’t re-list his car because they didn’t want to increase the number of cars they listed as currently stolen.

    • herddog505

      I agree. Unless and until it can be demonstrated that this villain had some agenda or motivation beyond carrying out the orders of the voices in his head, it’s no more “terrorism” than the Whitechapel murders or the shootings at the University of Texas back in ’66.

    • DM1499

      By not labeling islamic attackers as terrorists and labeling white extremists as terrorists, Obama’s DHS can maintain the facade that domestic terrorism is committed by all groups, and not just muslim extremists.

      It keeps the statistic in line with their narrative.

  • ryan a

    “The case in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, while tragic, just doesn’t seem like terrorism.”

    Right. It might not seem like terrorism to you, but it probably did to the victims of this shooting.

    “It’s safe to say at this point that the shooter doesn’t appear to be an
    extremist, but rather a somewhat down on his luck ex-military guy in his
    early 40′s who just broke up with his girlfriend.”

    Not an extremist? Just some guy who was down on his luck? What planet are you living on? I’d say that anyone who sprays a bunch of bullets into a crowd of civilians fits into the “extremist” category.

    Part of the problem here is that the term “terrorist” has no single agreed upon definition,and people use it all the time for their own political purposes. If terrorism is about creating fear/terror among civilians among civilians through the use of violence, then this shooting–and the recent shooting in Aurora–fits the bill.

    • retired.military

      Sad that this is considered domestic terrorism and the Ft Hood shooting is classified as workplace violence.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    wizbang was beating me up yesterday, since I said the shootings had all the signs of a “hate crime”. I could have been more specific (I was elsewhere), Now today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s headline is that the Shooter, Wade Page, was Army vet, white supremacist.

    The Southern Law Poverty Center, a group that has studied hate crimes for decades, reported Monday that Page was a frustrated neo-Nazi who had been the leader of a racist white-power band known as End Apathy….Heidi Beirich, director of the center’s intelligence project, said her group had been tracking Page since 2000, when he tried to purchase goods from the National Alliance, a well known hate group. Beirich said there was “no question” Page was an ardent follower and believer in the white supremacist movement. She said her center had evidence that he attended “hate events” around the country.

    “He was involved in the scene,” she said.

    • jim_m

      Your comments were still premature.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        like carbon emissions are linked to global warming and smoking is linked to cancer and so on

        • 914

          Oh? By proclamation? got ya!

      • Commander_Chico

        Given the number of moronic attacks on Sikhs, Steve’s prediction was a good one. I remember that a Sikh guy was arrested on Amtrak on 9/11 and charged with carrying a dangerous weapon because he had the traditional dagger on him.

        • retired.military

          How many attacks on Sikhs have there been? You named one which occurred over a decade ago.

          • Commander_Chico

            There have been several more, including shootings.

    • Vagabond661

      He quoted SPLC….<>

    • jim_m

      Hey Steve: Tell me why there are no Black people in the leadership of the SPLC? They have a problem with minorities?

    • 914

      ‘Hate crime?” Ridiculous term since I don’t see any crime motivated by love of the victim? lol

      • jim_m

        Hate crimes are just the first step toward creating thought crimes. It isn’t the motivation that is criminal it is the act.

    • 914

      “She said her center had evidence that he attended “hate events” around the country”

      Obama fundraisers then?

      Next, you’ll accuse him of being a Tea Party rock star!

    • retired.military

      Do you consider the Ft Hood shooting as a hate crime? How about domestic terrorism?

      • jim_m

        He only hated Americans. That is acceptable to the left.

    • jim_m

      “According to Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s intelligence project, the group has been tracking Page since 2000, when he allegedly attempted to purchase goods from the neo-Nazi National Alliance.”

      How is it that the SPLC is collecting information from perfectly legal transactions? WTF? What kind of fascist/stasi group is the SPLC that it is investigating private citizens for over a decade and tracking their movements?

      Something tells me that the SPLC is a bigger threat to liberty than any group they claim to oppose.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        SPLC also tracks radical muslim extremists, in the USA, exactly what you have been advocating the last few years, jim_m. They have large intelligence file on Louis Farakhhon too. “Louis Farrakhan heads the Nation of Islam, a group he has led since 1977 and that is based on a somewhat bizarre and fundamentally anti-white theology. Farrakhan is an anti-Semite who routinely accuses Jews of manipulating the U.S. government and controlling the levers of world power.” Now do you feel reassurred? Here is their updated page on Page.

        • jim_m

          No, I am in favor of government doing that where there are appropriate controls (theoretically), not some lunatic fringe group like the SPLC that sees everything through the lens of ultra left wing ideology. You would perhaps want the John Birch Society tracking liberals? I didn’t think so.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            so you want the big nanny government to do all your work about tracking terrorists the way the FBI and CIA pooled their information on the 9 11. hyjackers, I have more faith in a charity such as the SOUTHERN POVERY LAW CENTER than the huge and expensive Homeland Security Department, to keep an eye on terrorists.

          • jim_m

            SPLC is a far left scam. They don’t employ any minorities in any level of authority. They are like a NGO version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

            I’m not looking for a nanny state, I am just against an ideologically driven Barney Fife going out and trying to ruin people’s lives.

            It’s not that I trust government (I don’t trust government at all). It’s that I trust the SPLC far, far, far less than I do government.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Read their annual report on what they do, with about a thousandth the budget of Homeland Security and not a taxpayers’ dime.

          • jim_m

            Sorry Steve, I’ve seen their lunatic rants against racism and other bogus issues. They are every bit as big of a fraud as Sharpton and Jackson. Bigger when you look at the fact that they won’t employ blacks in a level of responsibility. They are whiter than obama’s campaign headquarters.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            They can be purple for all I care. I have no idea. I’m color blind I thought , that is what conservatives wanted people just picked on ability, no affirmative action? You surprise me, you’ re for affirmative action in the south, gay rights especially in the middle east ,but not necesarily in the US. military. Pretty soon jim you will be asking for liberals to be appointed to Romneys cabinet if he wins, on the grounds of fair representation.

          • jim_m

            No I hate affirmative action, but I think that people who go forcing racial quotas on everyone else should have to live by their own rules. I think that the left should care about gays being murdered before they should worry about whether they can marry. The left doesn’t really care about people, just what issues they can use to control people.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I also noticed that you talked today a lot about the lack of gay rights in muslim countries. Odd, I never heard you display much sympathy for gays in America. Jay Tea was the only poster who showed any sympathy for gays, shortly before he left ,when he got into a row with Rick Rice..Where were you then jim_m? The SPLC is doing a lot of work on anti-bullying in the schools, including anti-gay bullying? I expect given your full support for gay rights in the middle east, you are not completely idignant about the SPLC making a film about tolerance, and making it available to schools, but who knows? You seemed more worried about gay and womens’ rights in the middle east, than students being driven to take their own lives by bullying in the USA. It is hard to tell since I don’t recall ever a post on this subject on this site, at least, since Jay Tea left.

          • jim_m

            Given that gays have, on average, higher education and higher incomes than the general population, I would say that they are holding their own,

            If you are demanding that I approve of their lifestyle I suggest you fuck off. There are plenty of other lifestyles I don’t approve of. Whether I approve or not shouldn’t mean anything. I’m not asking them to approve of my lifestyle. Most “tolerance” BS is about enforcing approval and not anything about tolerance.

            If you think that not legalizing gay marriage is some sort of crime against humanity I suggest you get a grip. Lefties in the US go on foaming at the mouth about gay marriage but ignore the atrocities committed against gays elsewhere, especially in muslim countries. Why is that? Why are lefties unwilling to speak out against muslims? Either they are cowards afraid of getting their throats slit or they actually really don’t give a damn about gays as I have suggested.

            I have worked for gay managers. I have hired gay employees. I have gay relatives and friends. Your sexual proclivities are none of my damned business. Your personal life is none of my damned business. Stop making it my business! I just care if you do your job right.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Jim, I should disabuse you or few of your misapprehensions about me and the left. I never said I was gay (just because i support them particularly in their fiight aginst dadt), wizbang is one of the few places I spend time with men! Frankly, I don’t care for islam because of their 8th century regard for the civil rights for women. I don’t really abide any religion, but have some tolerance for moderate christianity or zen buddhism! As for extreme muslim fanaticism , everyone, left or right up or down, is united against honor killings, stoning, genital mutilation, and a long list of barbarisms. In Pakistan, it is the secularists and socialists who are being hotly persecuted. We on the left just don’t think it is proper to wage an offensive orelective war on islam everywhere, you find different varieties of muslim, especially with the averge gi being the storm trooper. As the late Gore Vidal resigningly said, it is” like waging a war on dandruff”.

          • jim_m

            I never thought you were gay. As for your position on gay rights etc, you haven’t really posted enough for me to say anything. It has been Hugh and others who have lead that charge.

            Yet I find the left’s dismissal of muslim atrocities disgusting in the extreme. The continual condemnation of the US and ignoring far worse actions elsewhere serves only to confirm the impression that the left hates the US and is willing to abide anything in any ally against the US that they can find.

  • Pingback: Observations In Passing | Daily Pundit

  • Wild_Willie

    I do not know how this could be terrorism. This group he allegedly belonged to never warned anyone that they would cause an act of violence, etc. which is where the terror would start. Just going somewhere and shooting up people is a massacre and a tragedy but not an act of terror. ww

  • http://www.facebook.com/audrey.southard.rumsey Audrey Southard-Rumsey

    THANKS FOR THE ARTICLE, I HAD TO POST IT ON NBC, ABC, CNN…THEY LOVE ME THERE!! heheh

  • Pingback: Spot on at Wizbang | The Rio Norte Line

  • Pingback: The Morning Links (8/8/12) | Lady Liberty 1885

  • Pingback: A Game of Words at Texas League of the South

  • Pingback: LL1885′s Year In Review: August | Lady Liberty 1885

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE