« 'I am Muslim. Don't kill me' (UPDATED) | Main | Thank God For Harry Truman »

TIME to tell lies

As in TIME magazine in this piece titled Islamophobia and the 'Ground Zero Mosque' Debate

Two particularly bald-faced ones I'll highlight:

...figures like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf -- the Arab-American cleric behind the mosque project near Ground Zero -- stand out. A consummate moderate who has made a career preaching about the compatibility of Islamic and American values...

A consummate moderate?  Really?  Let's go to Wikipedia:

In a 2001 60 Minutes interview, though Abdul Rauf condemned the 9/11 attacks as un-Islamic, he said that the U.S. was "an accessory to the crime that happened" because "we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world." In 2010 he declined to state that Hamas was a terrorist organization.

Mr. Moderate Islam also had the following to say a few years back:

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

Imam Feisal said the bombing in Madrid had made his message more urgent. He said there was an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there was no sign of the attacks ending unless there was a fundamental change in the world.

Imam Feisal, who argues for a Western style of Islam that promotes democracy and tolerance, said there could be little progress until the US acknowledged backing dictators and the US President gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.

That was back in 2004.  Since then he's found a US President that does nothing but give "America Culpa" speeches and we're seeing how well that's working out for the West.

Now back to the TIME piece:

Cordoba House, named for the city in Spanish Andalucia where Muslims, Jews and Christians once co-existed for centuries in an extraordinary flourishing of culture and science.

The implication clear.  Cordoba symbolizes that which fosters co-existence and the flourishing of culture and science.

Only it's simply not true:

The name "Cordoba House" is also offensive to those who look back upon the history of the Cordoba Mosque in Spain from which the Cordoba House derives it's name. Here is a portion of it's history:

The building was begun in approximately 600 A.D. as the Christian Visigoth church of St. Vincent in the Andalusian city of Cordoba, Spain.  An Islamic conquest led to the capture of the Visigoth kingdom and the church was completely rebuilt and refashioned as a mosque, starting around 784-786 A.D..  The Caliphate of Cordoba, whose original title was Emir of Cordoba, ruled the Iberian peninsula and North Africa from the city of Cordoba, from 929 to 1031.  The economy of the Caliphate was considered successful.  State-sponsored raids into neighboring Christian kingdoms were very lucrative, and tribute payments were made to Cordoba to guarantee safety.

Bottom line is simple.  TIME is spinning.  TIME has written pure propaganda.  TIME is now not just a mouthpiece for a decidedly leftist agenda, TIME is in fact, a vehicle by which intolerance is sold as tolerance.

But those of you who use your brain to think already knew this.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39794.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference TIME to tell lies:

» Brutally Honest linked with TIME to tell lies

Comments (42)

It's the Muslim's property.... (Below threshold)
galoob:

It's the Muslim's property. The use as a mosque is allowed by zoning law, and protected under the First Amendment. End of story. That's our system of limited government. Do you want government to have more power?

Where's your "sensitivity" ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Where's your "sensitivity" galoob? Or are only "Christian" supposed to practice that?

As for Time. It's shrinking just like Newspeak. People don't spend money on bullshit masquerading as news.

Another Wee Lard IP bites t... (Below threshold)
Frankly B:

Another Wee Lard IP bites the big one...

J.

The 15-story mosque facing ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

The 15-story mosque facing the site of Islam's greatest victory since they seized Constantinopole is intended as a monument to that victory.

If they gave even 1/2 of a small damn about the feelings of New Yorkers or Americans they wouldn't have considered building it there...or that big...or naming it "Cordoba"

They're sending a message...message received.

If we're nice to the... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:


If we're nice to them they won't kill us..

love, unicorn

<a href="http://www.... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:


http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/1939.

htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/1938.html


oh, that TIME


at least TIME is con... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:
And yet one more Wee Lard I... (Below threshold)
Frankly B:

And yet one more Wee Lard IP bites the big one...

J.

Interesting to spec... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:


Interesting to speculate about just WHO is gonna build this mosque--permission and funding seem to be foregone.

Which union is going to sign on here, one wonders.

Corboda, Spain is where the... (Below threshold)
kathie:

Corboda, Spain is where the Christians ran the Muslims out and they will never forget it as a desgrace to them and Islam. The final blow to Islam in
Spain was the year 1492.

There is legal and there is right!

Rick, I'm not sure you're a... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Rick, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but moderation is defined in relation to extremes. In this case, on one extreme, you have Islamophobes and the "The-US-Can-Do-No-Wrong-And-Never-Has" crowd. You know, guys like yourself. On the other extreme you have suicide bombers and other terrorists. Then there's this guy, who, just from these articles, seems to fit the definition of "moderate" if you define the word as "one whose position falls between two extremes." Or is that not how you define the word "moderate?"

And one may quibble with this cleric when he says the "Islamic way of war is not to kill innocent civilians." Since when? But he is recounting historical fact when he states that it was Christians who bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. No, they didn't do it "in the name" of Christianity per se, but they did do it to "save Western civilization," did they not?

And he is correct when he states that neither Dresden nor Hiroshima were military targets. Both attacks were made to strike terror in the civilian population in the hope that the governments would lose support and be compelled to surrender. In other words, they were terror attacks. They were described as such at the time.

From what I've read and heard, these viewpoints are pretty widely held in the non-Western world, by a wide spectrum of people. Again, that makes this dude a "moderate."

As far as the name "Cordoba House" goes, I see no reason to doubt that the name is to commemorate a period of peaceful coexistence. You say it's not, he says it is. Who am I to believe? A guy who I know, from his writings here, to be somewhat, er, um,...close-minded? Or this cleric, about whom I know nothing beyond what Wikipedia tells me?

Galoob needs to read Jay Te... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Galoob needs to read Jay Tea's essay from Aug 6th titled "True Confessions". It is based on this statement:

"It's not illegal" isn't a defense, it's a confession."

Bruce,Hiroshima was ... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Bruce,
Hiroshima was the Japanese military command center for the defense of the home islands. Every year when they print the experiences of the survivors I am reminded of this fact by the number of people who were members of the military or were working for the military at the time.

As far as your defnintiion of "moderate" goes, anyone who does not recognise that Hamas is a terrorist organisation is an extremely dangerous "moderate". Also, since Muslims are encouraged to lie to decieve Christians, Jews and pretty much everyone who is not Muslim, your trust in Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's goodwill is probably misplaced. Some of us remember the lessons from "The Shores of Tripoli". The world had better not forget.

Grand Fan ...so th... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Grand Fan ...

so the spanish name is no issue for you ? It was conquered land ... the only reason it was peaceful was because Jews and Christians were under threat of death and had "submitted" to sharia law ...

Can you be that stupid ?

Grand Fan ... don't believ... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Grand Fan ... don't believe either of them you twit ... go look it up yourself (and not just on wikipedia)

read up on the Islamic conquest of Spain and parts of Europe and then tell us how you think the name is just some innocent time when all was milk and honey between Muslims, Christians and Jews.

You have shown yourself to be an ignorant fool who just wants to agitate without really doing the slightest bit of research ...

Your willful ignorance is an obvious sign of a closed mind ... so I have to assume you are projecting when you accuse others of it ...

Tyree, if your information ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Tyree, if your information is correct I stand corrected as to Hiroshima. What military significance did Nagasaki have? Dresden?

What was the purpose of the Christmas bombings of North Vietnam in 1972? For that matter, what was Custer doing at Little Big Horn?

These can be seen, and often are in other countries, as terror attacks on civilians and non-combatants.

Now, as far as "refusing to recognize Hamas as a terrorist group," perhaps this guy just doesn't want to publicly call them terrorists for fear of retaliation. I don't see any quotes where he states unequivocally that Hamas is NOT a terrorist group. Do you?

BruceH- Little Big Horn? S... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

BruceH- Little Big Horn? Seriously? I am convinced that liberals are born without some intelligence gene.

Well, it sprang to mind, Mr... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, it sprang to mind, Mr Zaugg. I confess it was perhaps not the best example of what I had in mind.

The point is that this Imam recognizes what Rick and other xenophobes don't - that the US and other Western countries have some serious blotches on their respective pasts and that Muslims are well aware of them, even if we have forgotten them. The Western choice often seems to be to use massive, disproportionate force to achieve their political and military goals. The French in Algeria, the British in Kenya during the Mau Mau rebellion, the Christmas Bombings of 1972 by the US, many other examples - all are seen by many non-Westerners as terror campaigns against much weaker opponents, involving mass deaths among non-combatants.

And this Imam mentions here two of the most terror-inspiring events in history, perpetrated not by Muslims but by Westerners, presumably at least nominally Christians.

It is always fun to play to... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

It is always fun to play today's morality and military might and apply it to 60 years ago. Bruce your reaching.

The USA at the time was trying to prevent hundreds of thousands of US military casualties by dropping the bomb. But we did warn the Japanese leaders twice of our intentions. They ignored the warning.

Where was the islamist terrorists warning for 9/11? Nowhere. Your ability to try to equate is rediculous on its face. ww

Not trying to equate the tw... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Not trying to equate the two, Wee Willie. Not even trying to say that Hiroshima wasn't necessary; I believe it probably was.

My point here is that what Abdul Rauf has been saying, the stuff Rick has such a problem with, is indeed pretty "moderate" by world standards. One wonders what a Muslim would have to say to qualify as a "moderate" in Rick's book. Maybe "Can I please convert to Christianity?" would do it for him. There seems to be little else that would satisfy Rick.

By the way, being denounced by the likes of that pathetic 9/11-flogger Giuliani hardly counts as proof of jihadist sympathies in my book.

"In a 2001 60 Minutes in... (Below threshold)
914:

"In a 2001 60 Minutes interview, though Abdul Rauf condemned the 9/11 attacks as un-Islamic,"

Un-Islamic?? Who the hell flew the planes?

Looked 100% Islamic to Me,.

Dresden: Railroad hub.... (Below threshold)
JSChuler:

Dresden: Railroad hub.

And really, it's hard to think of a civilian target in Japan, seeing as how all war industry was home based due to the inability of Japanese factories to withstand the constant air raids. Fact is, bombing a residential area had the same military value as bombing a munitions plant.

Remember, entire economies were converted towards waging war, and smart bombs had yet to be invented (ok, beyond a couple prototypes).

Bruce, you do have a point.... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Bruce, you do have a point. He is "moderate." That's not a defense of him, though. It just highlights the stupidity of people who think "moderates" are worthy of being legitimized.

So it is your contention, M... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So it is your contention, Mr SChuler, that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT about showing the Japanese, the Soviets, and the world, that the US was in sole possession of the most terrifying and destructive weapon the world had ever seen, and was willing to use it? Or that the fire-bombing of Dresden was done simply to destroy a railroad hub?

If that is your contention, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

It is my contention, Bruce,... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

It is my contention, Bruce, that WWII qualified as Total War. Whether there were any other motivations on the destruction of those cities is irrelevant: they were legitimate military targets.

That said, if their destruction could serve additional purposes, so much the better.

But, hearing that you think I'm wrong makes me all the more comfortable in my analysis.

It's not that I think you'r... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

It's not that I think you're wrong, Mr Schuler. You ARE wrong.

Not that the cities may have been legitimate military targets. Not that it wasn't total war.

You're wrong that the other motivations were irrelevant. There was much debate at the time, and has been ever since, about exactly why those motivations WEREN'T irrelevant.

The fire-bombing of Dresden, and the atomic attacks on Japan, were made for the express purpose of causing terror in Japanese civilians, and striking fear into the hearts of the Soviets. You say so much the better, and I have to say I kind of agree, but regardless of whether you and I approve, they were, and were meant to be, terror attacks.

All of which goes to show you that this Abdul Rauf guy has a point.

They are irrelevant as legi... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

They are irrelevant as legitimate is legitimate. If you're blowing up tanks for the express purpose of terrorizing the enemy, it doesn't matter. They're still tanks, they're still military targets, blow them up to protect your infantry, blow them up to terrorize, blow them up for fun, blow them up to see if candy falls out. It makes no difference to the legitimacy of that target.

Interesting argument though: "Because I am debating this topic with you, you are wrong."

"The Islamic method of w... (Below threshold)
914:

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."


These islamo wack job's are starting to parrot the libs blaming Bush. The christians did this, Bush did it.

I dont recall London being a legitimate target either but Adolph's terrorized them night after night with incendiary bomb's for a long period of time.

Dresden and Hiroshima were every bit a military target that justly brought an end to the war.

I dont even know why we bot... (Below threshold)
914:

I dont even know why we bother repeating historical facts anyway as a certain % of people will look you or facts in the face and lie anyways. Ahhwkmypinkyjob is one who wants to imagine the Holocaust never occured. Him and his barbaric brother's are not alone in there delusional depraved unreality.

Re # 27, that's not what I ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 27, that's not what I said, Mr Schuler. Read again.

I wasn't arguing about the legitimacy of the targets. Or rather, I was, but conceded that the cities may indeed have contained valid military objectives.

But the total incineration of the cities, by fire-bombing in Dresden's case and atomic explosion in Japan, was meant to terrorize the population and send a message to the Soviets that we had a weapon they didn't have, and were prepared to use it. These are not irrelevant factors, and they have little to do with whether or not the target was a legitimate one.

THAT'S where you're wrong, Mr Schuler, not because you are debating me.

And that, I think, may have been Mr Rauf's point. And it is a "moderate" opinion.

"The Islamic metho... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:
"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

Emphasis for you, Bruce.

And Mr Schuler FTW, I guess... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And Mr Schuler FTW, I guess, proclaiming victory on a point already conceded.

Cling to your simpleminded certitude, Mr Schuler. It obviously gives you comfort in a not-so-simple world.

Rick's article was supposed to show that this Rauf guy was not a "moderate," as TIME magazine "lies" to us. I have demonstrated that, both in his refusal to repeat words stuffed into his mouth by an interviewer, and in his statement that the Third World resents certain historical American acts of violence, Mr Rauf seems to be a moderate indeed.

In other words, despite your harping on a tangential issue, Mr Schuler, Rick has no more demonstrated that TIME is "lying" in this case than he has demonstrated the existence of the Man in the Moon.

Comment #11, Bruce Henry<br... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Comment #11, Bruce Henry

And he is correct when he states that neither Dresden nor Hiroshima were military targets.

Comment #16, Bruce Henry
Tyree, if your information is correct I stand corrected as to Hiroshima. What military significance did Nagasaki have? Dresden?

Maybe you conceeded the point, but you insisted on arguing with me by attempting to move the goal posts:
Comment #24, Bruce Henry
So it is your contention, Mr SChuler, that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT about showing the Japanese, the Soviets, and the world, that the US was in sole possession of the most terrifying and destructive weapon the world had ever seen, and was willing to use it? Or that the fire-bombing of Dresden was done simply to destroy a railroad hub?

As for your other point about moderates, you should be aware of post #23 by me, before you ever responded to anything I wrote:
Bruce, you do have a point. He is "moderate." That's not a defense of him, though. It just highlights the stupidity of people who think "moderates" are worthy of being legitimized.

Not more power to the gover... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

Not more power to the government galoob, more power to the people - and the majority of the US (not to mention the majority of New Yorkers) do NOT want the mosque.
As for bombing "civilian" targets, we don't have any business "going to war" unless we are totally committed to winning it, and subugating and destroying the nation we are at war with. Specifically targeting churches/synagogues/temples etc would be wrong, however the mosques do not qualify as they are used for teaching, training, and advocating the destruction of another religion, while also utilized as "safe" areas for housing of troops, ammunition and supplies, thereby negating the sanctity of a "church". The average person has no concept of the moslem faith, trying to compare it to a religion and assuming the mosque functions as a "church".
As for "targeting" civilians, waiting a sufficient period of time for them to reject the hostile governments agenda, and most of these islamic nations have had that, they are enemy combatants by tacit approval. The military industrial complex doesn't make tools of war, the civilian sector does, thereby making them a legitimate target. That is war, and anyone who thinks it should be a "clean and fair" fight is ignorant beyond belief - as we have demonstrated to the world since WWI.
If you don't believe the "civilians" support their government, watch them dance in the streets the next time America suffers a loss or a disaster.
Pacification is bullshit (watch what happens when we leave Iraq). Not finishing the job left the Soviet Union to purge the eastern block and become an aggressive superpower, not finishing Korea left the chinese to dominate Asia, and not finishing Vietnam left the communists to purging and genocide in southeast asia, not finishing Desert Storm left Iraq to rebuild its armies, attempt genocide on the kurds - how many MILLIONS of deaths are we responsible for by being "fair" or too chickenshit to finish what we started? How many civilians would be alive today if we had? Most importantly, how many Americans would be alive today had we ever finished? Winners are respected and feared, something the world does not see in us any longer. Those in opposition to us see as as patsies, pouring our resources, wealth, into committment we do not intend to keep, and supporting nations and causes that have our defeat at heart. We are fighting a war of political/financial attrition and WE ARE LOSING.

"The Islamic method of wagi... (Below threshold)
tyree:

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians."

So the bombings at weddings, elections and markets are all focused at military targets? The World Trade Center was a military target? The Haggia Sofia was a military target? That church was choked with the bodies of the butchered dead after the Islamic armies crushed Constantinople with "disproportionate response." The root of Islamic warfare is to kill the army and civilians, then force the survivors into slavery or conversion to the "Religion of Peace". When Imans try to blame us for their actions they are hiding their own history of bloody military conquest and underhanded political double dealing in the name of Mohammed.

The bottom line, Hiroshima was bombed to end a war, the World Trade Center was destroyed by followers of the Prophet Mohammed in order to start one. To compare the two events is to support a lie. Something that Muslims are encouraged to do in order to deceive their enemies. If the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wanted to compare the World Trade Center Islamic terrorist attack to a "Western" event he would have been better served by comparing it to the Invasion of Poland or the Attack on Pearl Harbor. That would have been more truthful. That Time magazine would try to paint those who oppose the lies of Islam as "Islamaphobes" is disgusting. But that is what Time magazine is these days.

Bottom Line...ISLAM IS EVIL... (Below threshold)
JHuntMorgan:

Bottom Line...ISLAM IS EVIL...period.

Re # 33:My point, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 33:

My point, Mr Schuler, and I'll type slowly, is not that the targets were not legitimate. I'll concede that they were. (Although, for the sake of argument, read the Wikipedia article about Dresden and you'll see that the debate over its legitimacy as a target has been ongoing for 65 years. But I'll concede that point.)

No, my argument is that creating a firestorm that incinerates at least 25,000 civilians, or using NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS to obliterate a city, constitutes a "terror attack," WHATEVER the legitimacy of the target militarily.

No goalposts were moved in the making of this point (repeatedly). Jesus, you're thick.

Now, I'm not saying that a terror attack wasn't just what the doctor ordered back in '45. Maybe it was.

Look at it this way, Mr Schuler. You can execute a murderer by lethal injection in the dead of night, or a public hanging at high noon in the town square. Which do you think would be a better deterrent?

I think Churchill (Dresden) and Truman (Hiroshima) chose hanging.

"TIME to tell lies"<p... (Below threshold)
914:

"TIME to tell lies"

Your just in time Bruce!

Your point, Lee, was that s... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Your point, Lee, was that saying something was a legitimate military target is akin to saying there was no intent to inflict terror. How do I know this? Because, in response to this:

Dresden: Railroad hub.

And really, it's hard to think of a civilian target in Japan, seeing as how all war industry was home based due to the inability of Japanese factories to withstand the constant air raids. Fact is, bombing a residential area had the same military value as bombing a munitions plant.

Remember, entire economies were converted towards waging war, and smart bombs had yet to be invented (ok, beyond a couple prototypes).

You posted this:

So it is your contention, Mr SChuler, that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT about showing the Japanese, the Soviets, and the world, that the US was in sole possession of the most terrifying and destructive weapon the world had ever seen, and was willing to use it? Or that the fire-bombing of Dresden was done simply to destroy a railroad hub?

If that is your contention, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.


And now you are thrashing about and throwing a tantrum because I refuse to follow your red herring and engage you on the poisoned turf of your choosing. I am denying you the opportunity to save face on a topic you think you are better equipped to debate.

Instead, I would rather just sit here and let you document your complete idiocy for everyone to see, as you demonstrate a keen inability to follow a simple argument.

You're hopeless, dude. And ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You're hopeless, dude. And it's hilarious that YOU accuse ME of being unable to follow a simple argument.

And everyone here knows my name, and it ain't Lee. I've been commenting here since shortly after the 2008 election, and reading this blog for years before that.

By the way, I am neither "thrashing about" nor "throwing a tantrum." Tactics like that remind me of Drummond, or worse, Mallow. I'm sitting at my keyboard, calmly typing, just as you are.

And my points, sir, are what I say they are, not your weird translations of my simple English sentences. Rephrasing an argument into one you wish to argue with, then declaring victory when you "win" is, again, reminiscent of Drummond - but I'm not accusing you of BEING him!

Rephrasing an argu... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:
Rephrasing an argument into one you wish to argue with, then declaring victory when you "win" is, again, reminiscent of Drummond - but I'm not accusing you of BEING him!
Sorry Keith. I didn't know losing the football gig hurt you so much.
Trying to understand your p... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Trying to understand your point, Bruce.
Are you saying that if Dresden was a terror attack then we deserved 9/11? Or we shouldn't be shocked at being targeted my militant Islam because we bombed Hroshima? Or that we taught Militant Islam how to terrorise by bombing Nagasaki?
The millions of Europeans and Africans taken as slaves by Muslims might disagree, The coast of Spain to this day is lined with the remnants of signal towers designed to be lit to warn of Muslim slavers. The Muslims learned to strike terror in civilian populations long before the United States was even a country. Muslim "moderates" might say we are to blame for 9/11, but they would be lying.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy