| February 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | |||
USInfo.State.Gov quotes Representative Keith Ellison:
[Ellison's] values derive from his Christian upbringing and Islam, which he has practiced for nearly 25 years. "The values that underlie Islam are not unique to Islam. They are shared by all faith traditions. Belief in charity, in giving to others in need and facing adversity, the belief in equality and justice -- there is no religion, including Islam, that has a monopoly on these ideas," he said.
That sounds good, doesn't it? He's saying Islam is all about equality and justice. But wait a minute -- what's this he says next?
Ellison said true Islamic values harmonize with the democratic process. "These are universal ideas. In fact, they're not just compatible with democracy; they drive us toward a society in which there is consultation, in which there is input and approval from the populace."
What's that? Something in Islamic values is going to "drive us toward a society in which there is consultation..." I guess that's okay. But why do we need to be "driven"? And -- consultation with whom? Let's see what he's next quoted as saying:
He asks, "How can you have a just society where one person or only a limited set of people make the laws for their benefit and yet other people who had no role in making the law have to abide by it? That's fundamentally unjust."
What other people is he talking about here, who, according to him, have had no role in making the laws of the nation, and yet are forced to abide by those laws? He doesn't say -- he's carefully oblique -- but given the subject of discussion, i.e "Islamic values," there is little room to doubt that he's referring to Muslims.
Keith Ellison appears to be saying that Muslims aren't going to accept our laws, but are going to demand that we change our laws to accommodate them. And if it doesn't happen, then Muslims are going to try to "drive us" there. There is cause for concern in this language at a time when Muslims worldwide are blowing up public places in the name of their religion, with the explicitly stated intention to force Islamic restrictions on freedom, onto Western nations.
Is Ellison on the side of those who want people of all cultures to assimilate successfully into U.S. life? Or is he on the side of those who want to impose Islamic loss of freedoms onto Western nations?
Bruce Herschensohn
Last weekend Bruce Herschensohn spoke at a private residence at Pepperdine University about his new book, Taiwan: The Threatened Democracy. Here are a few points he made ( from my handwritten notes - not expected to be verbatim: )
Since May 1, 1991, there has been total democracy in Taiwan.
...On March 14th, a law was passed in China stating that it is the official policy of China to use non-peaceful means to conquer Taiwan.
...China has 900 missiles aimed at Taiwan, and is adding 2 more per week.
...China has already had 11 rehearsals for a military invasion of Taiwan - the most recent being with Russian troops.
...China says Taiwan is a renegade province of China - but the flag of the People's Republic of China has never flown over Taiwan.
...Yet the official policy of the U.S. is to oppose the people of Taiwan voting on their own constitution.
...The State Dept. believes that they are the permanent government of the United States. They believe that Presidents are a nuisance -- a temporary nuisance that they can put up with. They can put up with them for 4 to 8 years, and then they're gone. The State Department believes in stability -- not in liberty. They believe that Patrick Henry said, "Give me stability or give me death."
Herschensohn argued powerfully that it is in the best interests of the U.S. to support freedom and democracy in Taiwan.
I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but she has done a great thing today, something groundbreaking and of considerable significance:
Hillary Clinton Blasts 'Hate-Filled' Palestinian Textbooks
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., on Thursday called for a rejection of new Palestinian textbooks that portray a world without Israel, refer to Jews as "Zionist gangs" and rewrite the Holocaust to ignore atrocities committed against Jews.
"We must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are exposed," Clinton said in a news conference in Washington, D.C. "These children deserve an education that instills respect for life and peace instead of glorifying death and violence."
...The report found that 12th-grade textbooks issued in November by the Palestinian Authority "repeatedly reject Israel's right to exist, present the conflict as a religious battle for Islam, teach Israel's founding as imperialism, and actively portray a picture of the Middle East, both verbally and visually, in which Israel does not exist at all."
...Clinton called the textbooks "disturbing," adding that the content "profoundly poisons the mind of these children."
"Hate has no place in the curriculum of schools and the glorification of violence has no place in the education of children," she said, calling on the Palestinian Authority to repudiate the texts it has already approved.
"I believe education is one of the keys to lasting peace and security in the Middle East and the greater region," Clinton said. "You cannot build a peaceful, stable, safe future on such a hate-filled, violent and radical foundation."
Clinton has long been critical of the Palestinian textbooks. In 2000, she said that "all future aid to the Palestinian Authority must be contingent on strict compliance with their obligation to change all textbooks in all grades."
She stood by that comment Thursday, telling Cybercast News Service that, "We're withholding money from the Hamas government, which I think is absolutely appropriate, and we're trying to ensure that no country gives any funding to the Hamas government unless and until they renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist."
This is very significant, because it goes to the heart of the problem: this 'poisoning of the minds' of generations of children, causing many of them to fill their lives with a hatred of entire nations of people. It's very important for this to be openly and widely discussed.
Hopefully this will encourage politicians to begin examining the similar statements being issued daily on TV -- which is also, of course, seen by children -- in the Arab world. (Here's an example from this week, via Memri).
Why wasn't this a front-page headline in today's LA Times?
N. KOREA AGREES IN PRINCIPLE TO TAKE INITIAL STEPS TO DISMANTLE NUKE PROGRAM
It isn't even mentioned on the front page. There's an article about North Korea, but it doesn't mention the nuke program:
A rescuer of Korea's forgotten
An activist's network helps free countrymen who had been abducted and held by the North, such as a fisherman who escaped after 32 years.
Sure, that's way more important than dismantling the nuke program of madman Kim Jong Il.
Let's see what else was more important, per today's LA Times (some articles have different headines on the web than in print):
That's right, all those stories were way more important than the story about a potential deal to dismantle North Korea's nuke program.
Similar stories were reported yesterday by news outlets including Forbes and the Houston Chronicle, so it appears the LA Times had the opportunity to put the story on the front page should it have wished to do so. The story is also buried on the home page of the LA Times' web site, in small print close to the bottom of the page, under "AP News."
This is a rather dramatic example of the LA Times refusing to give prominence to any story that makes GWB look good.
Remember this next time you see a story about polls showing low approval numbers for GWB. Those low approval numbers in part measure the extent to which MSM buries the news about GWB's achievements.
The security systems for the One Laptop per Child computer are quite brilliant:
Beyond cyberthreats, the XO laptop will have an anti-theft system designed to render stolen laptops useless. Each XO is assigned a "lease," secured by cryptography, that allows it to operate for a limited period of time. The laptop connects to the internet daily and checks in with a country-specific server to see if it's been reported stolen. If not, the lease is extended another few weeks.
If the lease expires, the XO's internet connectivity is turned off, and shortly thereafter the whole computer becomes a brick. In the case of an area without internet connectivity, a local school can extend the lease from its own server by Wi-Fi or with a USB dongle.
Were the Nazis really looking for a supernatural object, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark? A new book says they were.
From a comment posted here by Mac of the Askew weblog:
An Iranian friend of mine who has left Islam and lives in the West now, says that there is no moderation in Islam. He says that there are those who truly study and understand the purpose of Islam, and they are radicals. Then there are those who don't really know the Qur'an and Islam's other holy books well; they buy into a sort of mythological "religion of peace". Finally there are those who know well that there is no moderation, but present a moderate face to the Westerners they encounter, in order to protect themselves and advance Islam's cause. (Taqiyya - deliberate deceit in the advancement of Islam is acceptable to Allah; Kitman - the withholding of part of the truth in advancement of Islam is acceptable.)
This matches up precisely with what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said on Hannity & Colmes a few days ago (video link here via HotAir):
Colmes: You say you renounced your faith after 9-11. Is that correct?
Ali: Yes.
Colmes: Why let those who misuse the faith, because they are radicals, and maybe not even observing the faith as it is meant to be observed, dictate your own faith?
Ali: I'm afraid that's not the truth. I'm afraid that the Islamic faith has not gone through the reformation and through enlightenment. And it is the faith that is as it is. After Bin Laden, after 9-11, I started to download the documents of Bin Laden, and I started to hold them up against the Koran and the Hadith -
Colmes: But is that true Islam?
Ali: Yes. I was shocked to discover that that was true Islam. But that doesn't have to mean the end of Islam. What Muslims can do, is not renounce Islam like I have done, that was just for private reasons - but what they can do is acknowledge that what Bin Laden is saying, is correct, but that that belongs to the 7th and 8th century, and not in the 21st century.
Colmes: There are 1.4 billion people, I mean depending on various estimates, but around that number, who practice Islam in the world today. Are you suggesting that all those people are radicals or believe what Bin Laden claims Islam is? Don't most of those people want a peaceful world?
Ali: I'm not saying that all of them are radicals. I'm saying Muslims are varied. But I'm saying Islam has as its basic tenets, elements that are not compatible with liberal Democracy. And that if you want to wage war, against non-Muslims, in this case the West, that you will find enough ammunition, within Islam. But Muslims are varied, and can be persuaded otherwise, yes.
It's very difficult for Westerners to hear this. But we need to listen.
From Memri:
On February 3, 2007, Islamist websites posted a 23-minute audio recording by Emir Al-Muaminin (i.e. Commander of the Believers) Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, whom Al-Qaeda has appointed "head of the Islamic State of Iraq." The recording, dated February 2, 2007 and titled, "Victory from Allah, Victory is Near," was issued by the Islamic State's media company Al-Furqan.
...The following are excerpts from his speech:
"We [hereby] inform the Sunnis of a [new] plan called the Plan of Honor, which is more comprehensive and more perfect [than the existing plan] and includes not only Baghdad but all parts of the Islamic State [of Iraq]... [This plan] will end with Bush announcing the failure of his [security] plan and signing an agreement of defeat... The goals of the plan are: to defend our people and our honor; to rout out the invaders and eradicate the remaining pockets and bases of heresy; to butcher the wounded Crusader tyrant and take advantage of the collapse of morale among [the Crusader] soldiers and commanders; to unite the ranks of the mujahideen and to strengthen the foundations of the Islamic State [of Iraq].
"Oh Muslim youths, remember the cut up bodies of the children, the voices of their bereaved [parents] and the anguished cries of the elderly. Let the volcano of your wrath burst forth. Burn the ground beneath the feet of the Jews and their helpers, eradicate their army, destroy their equipment, down their planes, ambush them in their homes, in the wadis and on the roads. Hide in the darkness of night and turn their morning into hell... We are not afraid of your coalitions...We have drunk blood [in the past], and we find no [blood] sweeter than that of the Byzantines [i.e. Christians]... Roast their flesh with car bombs, cut off their supply lines with [explosive] charges and tear out their hearts with sniper fire. Know that offense is the best [form of] defense, and be careful not to lay down your weapons before the war is over... We are not fighting out of nationalism, but with the aim of making Allah's word supreme.
Notice that Al-Baghdadi is banking on "Bush announcing the failure of his [security] plan and signing an agreement of defeat." He's banking on Congress to pull our troops out before their job is done. Congress must let the troops finish the job that they have fought so hard to accomplish.
Al-Baghdadi's approving reference to "drinking blood" underlines the evil of Al Qaeda. And notice that they say explicitly that they act according to their understanding of Islam: "We are fighting ... with the aim of making Allah's word supreme."
Muslims who say that Islam is a religion of peace, must speak out loudly and publicly, saying that people like Al-Baghdadi are not going to paradise. And if such Muslims do not speak out loudly and publicly and say that, we need to put them on the spot and ask them why they won't say so.
JIMMY CARTER AND THE KILLER RABBIT -- a tale from the Carter presidency.
The Senate resolution repudiating the surge appears to have failed:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan resolution repudiating President George W. Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq failed to advance in the U.S. Senate on Monday, dealing a serious setback to critics of the war.
The resolution needed 60 votes before the 100-member Senate could begin debate, but it got 49, with 47 voting against. Although it would not have been binding on the president, the measure was the first serious effort in Congress to confront Bush over the unpopular Iraq war.
Notice how Reuters characterizes the Senate's action: "partisan wrangling over the limits and terms of the Iraq war debate:"
The proposal, sponsored by Virginia Republican John Warner and Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, fell victim to partisan wrangling over the limits and terms of the Iraq war debate. The measure could still be revived, but the way ahead was unclear.
They describe it as "partisan wrangling." Yet the very next line in the Reuters piece is a typical MSM CYA sentence, acknowledging that very important issues were discussed.
Opponents said the resolution was a thinly disguised political slap at Bush that would dishearten U.S. troops and signal American disunity.
A speech against the resolution, powerfully expressing these tremendously important issues, was given by Sen. Joe Lieberman. It was forwarded to this site by Cheryl Felicia Rhoads, under the heading, "God Bless Joe Lieberman!" (No link yet.)
A Critical Crossroad
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) delivered this speech on the Senate floor on the evening of Monday, February 5.
Mr. President, our nation has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. More than four years ago, this chamber voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who slaughtered his own people, attacked his neighbors, and threatened our security. Thanks to the courageous service of the men and women of our military, that evil regime was overthrown. And in its place came hopes of democracy in the heart of the Middle East and a victory in the war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.
As of today, those hopes have not been realized. Because of the ruthless conduct of our enemies, as well as our own failures, we instead today find ourselves on a knife’s edge in Iraq.
Now, a new course has been chosen. A new commander is in place in Iraq, confirmed by this Senate. A new Secretary of Defense is in place at the Pentagon, confirmed by this Senate. And a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground in Iraq by our troops.
It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.
But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America’s security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.
The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.
Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.
What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.
This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.
For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.
If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.
The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.
Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.
I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.
Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they clashed directly with the Executive Branch over their execution. But in doing so they accepted the consequences of their convictions.
This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq.
But again, I ask you: what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? And what will it say to our enemies?
We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe that they are winning in Iraq today. They believe that they can outlast us; that, sooner or later, we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home. That is the lesson that Osama bin Laden took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq, and at the core of radical Islam worldwide. And this resolution—by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake—confirms our enemies’ belief in American weakness.
This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. I agree that we must hold the Iraqi government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I have offered would do. But I ask you: Imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end—and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution will affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Every day, you are threatened by enemies who want nothing but to inflict the most brutal imaginable horrors on you and your loved ones. Will this resolution empower you, or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer, or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave the country?
And finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that everyone here supports our troops—but actions have consequences, often unintended. When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops.
We heard recently in the Senate Armed Services Committee from General Jack Keane, who said of this resolution. “It’s just not helpful… What the enemy sees is an erosion of the political and moral will of the American people… Our soldiers are Americans first. They clearly understand there’s a political process in this country that they clearly support… But at the end of the day, they are going to go out and do a tough mission, and I certainly would like to see them supported in that mission as opposed to declaring non-support....”
Everyone here knows that the American people are frustrated about the lack of progress in Iraq. Everyone here shares that frustration. And as elected representatives of the people, everyone here feels pressure to give expression to that frustration.
This is not a new challenge. It is one that every democracy in every long, difficult war has had to confront.
Nearly a century and a half ago, at a site not far from here, an American president wrestled with just this problem. It was in the midst of a terrible war—a civil war—in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting and dying to secure the freedom of millions long and cruelly denied it.
“We here highly resolve…”—that was Lincoln’s message at Gettysburg. It was a message of resolution, of conviction against adversity, of hope against despair, and of confidence in the cause of freedom, which is America’s cause.
Today, in the depths of a terrible war, on the brink of a decisive battle for Baghdad, let us have a serious debate about where we stand and where we must go in Iraq. That is the debate we should have—but it is not the debate that this resolution would bring.
The sixty vote requirement to close debate was put in place by our predecessors as a way to stop the passions of the moment from sweeping across our country and through Congress in a way that will jeopardize our future. Because I believe this resolution, if passed, would have such an effect, I will respectfully oppose the motion for cloture.
I thank the President and yield the floor.
"20 Face Lash for Dancing in Saudi Arabia:"
Saudi Court Orders Lashing, Jail for 20 Foreigners for Drinking and Dancing at Mixed Party
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia Feb 4, 2007 (AP)— A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The defendants were among 433 foreigners, including some 240 women, arrested by the kingdom's religious police for attending the party in Jiddah, the state-guided newspaper Okaz said. It did not identify the foreigners, give their nationalities or say when the party took place.
Judge Saud al-Boushi sentenced the 20 to prison terms of three to four months and ordered them to receive an unspecified number of lashes, the newspaper said. They have the right to appeal, it added.
That's right -- Saudi Arabia has "religious police" who arrest you for breaking Sharia law. Isn't it great that the Saudis are financing so many schools here in the U.S., teaching Muslim kids about Sharia law?
From Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer's web site:
At Judiciary Hearing, Schumer details how top officials in the Saudi government help finance schools and mosques in the US and Middle East that spread militant teachings
From Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam:"
Of the more than 1,200 mosques in America, more than 80 percent have been built within the last 20 years - thanks in large part to Saudi money, according to Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam."
"Saudi Arabia alone has spent $87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere," Safa said.
From the 60+ Congressional sponsors and co-sponsors who introduced H.R. 2037: Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005:
To halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents, and for other purposes.
...(5) A report released on January 28, 2005 by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom found that Saudi Arabia is the state most responsible for the propagation of material promoting hatred, intolerance, and violence within United States mosques and Islamic centers, and that these publications are often official publications of a Saudi ministry or distributed by the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C.
From counterterrorism expert Harvey Kushner, author of "Holy War on the The Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States:"
In 1997, there were over a hundred Islamic day schools and more than a thousand Sunday or weekend schools in the United States, many of them affiliated with mosques, all expanding the reach of Wahhabi doctrine.
For years, mainstream America wasn't watching what was taught in Islamic religious schools, but 9/11 put these learning institutions in the spotlight. The USA Patriot Act allowed the government to look into mosques for the first time. What investigators found was very disturbing. The Saudis, either directly or through intermediary groups such as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), are pouring "truckloads" of money into American mosques and schools, New York Senator Charles Schumer told a congressional subcommittee." In exchange, they demand that these mosques and schools toe the Wahhabi line. Saudi textbooks that preach violence against infidels can be found in some American Muslim schools."In February 2003, the American Jewish Committee and the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace released an analysis of ninety-three textbooks published by the Saudi Ministry of Education and used between 1999 and 2002. The books, American Jewish Committee Executive Director David A. Harris told a congressional committee, "reveal a widespread presence of contempt towards Western civilization and followers of other religions.
According to the study the teachings include:
- Islam is the only true religion.
- Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Muslim world.
- Christians and Jews are infidels.
- The West is a "decaying society" and the source of Muslim misfortunes.
- There can be no peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.
- Jews are wicked
- Israel does not exist on world maps.
...It is of little comfort that, in defense of the books, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told CBS's 60 Minutes that "85 percent of what was being taught in the schools was not hateful."
Oh, only 15 percent of what is being taught in Islamic day schools in the U.S. is hateful, per the Saudi Foreign Minister. What a great relief that is.
From the Terrorism Awareness Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center - a new Flash video documentary: The Islamic Mein Kampf, on The Nazi Roots of Jihad:
From David's Blog:
Click on the links to our new flash video The Islamic Mein Kampf and see our latest weapon in the war on terror. We are sending this today via email to 850,000 plus individuals. We are sending it into the mail boxes of the entire liberal arts faculties at Duke University, Brandeis, Georgia Tech, Berkeley, and other schools. We are putting full page ads -- "What Every American Needs To Know About Jihad" -- in college papers across the country. We have put up a new website at www.terrorismawareness.org with information about our new movement and about the terrorist threat. We are distributing pamphlets about the Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism. Please help us spread the word by emailing our flash video to your email lists and joining our campaign.
See the video - it's excellent.
This site has been down for about 6 hours, along with Instapundit, PowerLine, and others using the excellent web host, HostingMatters. From the HostingMatters emergency support forum:
From Peak10, Telcove has had a major fiber cut in Atlanta, and our Level 3 Circuit is carried over the Telcove line. Telcove technicians are onsite trying to repair the cut right now. We will let you know as soon as we have any more information.
I have no idea yet what a Level 3 Circuit is, or how this one got cut. Presumably more info will resurface tomorrow.
Skip Press emails:
This morning I saw a news story about Robbie Doughty, an Iraq War veteran who lost his legs. He was being given his own Little Caesars pizza franchise. Michael Ilitch, the owner of the company (himself a former Marine) was interviewed - what great guy. Check out his philosophy from the website - http://franchise.littlecaesars.com...
I found my local Little Caesars on their website, and that's who I'll order from for the Superbowl.
Here's something on the Little Caesars Veterans Program -
http://franchise.littlecaesars.com/VeteransProgram/...
