"You can’t professionalize if you don’t federalize”

Tom Daschle, just preceding the unanimous vote to federalize and ultimately unionize private airport security, now know as the TSA

Before TSA was created, private contractors paid airport inspectors not much more than minimum wage. They weren’t very good. Now we spend five times as much, and they’re still not very good.

Today even the TSA knows that private security is better. In one of its own tests, its screeners in Los Angeles missed 75 percent of explosives planted by inspectors. In San Francisco, one of the few cities allowed to have privately managed security, screeners missed 20 percent.

In a reasonable world, the government would disband the TSA and move to a private competitive system.

But we live in a Big Government world.

Not your imagination:US falls to 5th in global competitiveness

The U.S. has tumbled further down a global ranking of the world’s most competitive economies, landing at fifth place because of its huge deficits and declining public faith in government, a global economic group said Wednesday.

The announcement by the World Economic Forum was the latest bad news for the Obama administration, which has been struggling to boost the sinking U.S. economy and lower an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent…..

Singapore moved up to second place, bumping Sweden down to third. Finland moved up to fourth place, from seventh last year. The U.S. was in fourth place last year, after falling from No. 1 in 2008.

YOU HOO AMERICA, WHAT’S IT GONNA TAKE?

Blame the victim tactics are everywhere

GalliaWatch has translated an article from Valeur Actuelle about a horrific gang rape of a 14 year old girl 6 years ago - we can only guess the likely identities of the perpetrators - and the victim was even prostituted to drivers. Yet blame the victim tactics abound here, just like this disturbing case in which a Latina girl was gang raped in Texas by a black gang, and what happens? Blame the victim tactics helped damage a considerable amount of justice.

I really think it's time to form a movement for combatting discrimination against whites, for example, in crimes where the perpetrators were of a specific ethnicity that the PC crowd won't touch out of selectivity. Only that way will it be possible to effectively repair all the severe damage that's been done by leftism over the years, both in America and Europe.

Nappy & The TSA Porn Kings: Defending State Sanctioned Molestation

Call it sexual molestation. Call it rape.

In either case there is absolutely NO reason a TSA goon needs to insert her/his fingers into a travelers vagina, or any other orifice, for purposes of airline security.

But that is apparently exactly what happened here.

And it is state sanctioned.

Consider:

Had Alkon refused the screening she would have been detained and/or arrested.

Had she tried to physically stop the search when it went to far she would have been detained and/or arrested.

Had she tried to walk away and CHOOSE NOT TO BOARD THE PLANE when things started going to far she would have been detained and/or arrested.

She had NO CHOICE but to allow herself to be digitally penetrated. Violated.

by the State.

That's molestation. That's rape from where I stand.

Sure, afterwards a passenger can file a complaint and MAYBE something will get done. But in the cases we've seen and talked about here that is the exception, not the norm.

And by then the damage has already been done anyway. And the State says it's ok in the interest of passenger safety.

Magee shouldn't be allowed to sue for defamation here. She should be in a holding cell awaiting arraignment or trial.

But in Barack Obama's upside down universe the criminal is the victim and protected by the government.

NO means No except in the interest of The State. And you have no rights.

This is not my father's America.

And nothing will change until American Citizens wake up and throw a spear in the sand. Thus far and no farther.

Or as Jimmy Hoffa Jr would say, it's time to "take the sonsabitches out".

Forbes:

Female Blogger Threatened With Defamation Suit For Writing About TSA 'Rape'

Attacking the TSA for its privacy-invasive screening procedures has become a favorite activity for many journalists, especially Matt Drudge. TSA horror stories are often featured prominently on The Drudge Report and he has taken to calling Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (of which the TSA is a part) “Big Sis.”

Napolitano, who doesn’t think Drudge “means [the nickname] kindly” said at a recent Politico event that Drudge is wrong in describing DHS programs as Orwellian and that “the privacy impact of new airport screening technology and similar programs are thoroughly vetted before they are implemented,” in Josh Gerstein’s words.

“We want to be conscious of civil liberties and civil rights protections—and we are,” Napolitano said, as reported by Politico.

On the same day as this piece came out, TechDirt reports on a passenger who would likely disagree with the Secretary. After a particularly aggressive patdown in March that might be better termed a feel-up, advice blogger Amy Alkon graphically described how she sobbed loudly while a TSA agent put her hands “into” her — four times. She screamed “You raped me” after the LAX patdown and took the agent’s name with plans to file charges of sexual assault. Those plans fell through after consulting an attorney, but she did blog about it and included the agent’s name, thereby inflicting her own assault — on the agent’s Google search results.

The TSA agent then hired a lawyer who contacted Alkon asking her to remove the post, threatening her with a defamation lawsuit, and asking for a settlement of $500,000. “Rape is a very serious charge,” writes lawyer Vicki Roberts on Thedala Magee’s behalf. She also says that Alkon, on a return trip to the airport in May called her client “a bad person” who had “sexually molested” her.

Free speech lawyer Marc Randazza has stepped in to assert Alkon’s right to post about her patdown experience, and to defend both her definition of the patdown as rape and, regardless of that, her right to rhetorical hyperbole. Techdirt has a copy of the letter Randazza drafted in response to the defamation threat.

“After [the agent Thedala] Magee’s assault on Ms. Alkon’s vagina and dignity, Ms. Alkon exercised her First Amendment right to recount this incident to others in person and through her blog,” writes Randazza. “This was not only her right — it was her responsibility.”

Forced to perform patdowns now required by law, TSA agents are the ones who have to face the public’s anger. Texas abandoned its effort this year to pass a law making overly aggressive patdowns a misdemeanor subjecting agents to arrest and a fine, but bloggers can certainly keep on trying the agents in the court of public opinion. I have some sympathy for the agent whose name will now be linked with rape in Google results for eternity — though it should surely serve the purpose of making her a bit less touchy-feely during patdowns — but I hope Randazza and Alkon persevere. TSA screening procedures have already taken a toll on the Fourth Amendment; let’s not add the First Amendment to the list of victims.

9-11 is a day of mourning, just like the Holocaust and other war-related tragedies

Pamela Geller writes about the Obama administration's latest propaganda efforts, and makes a good point that 9-11 is a day of mourning, not a day of service, as Obama's putting it. Well, he's certainly not going about it the right way. To do a true service to the victims would be to remember who it was who murdered them. That's not what the left is actually trying to do.

If you're in the NYC area, please make sure to attend the AFDI's own gathering:

...my organization, the American Freedom Defensive Initiative (AFDI) is going to do what Obama should be doing: we’re going to honor the victims and rededicate ourselves to fighting for freedom on September 11 at West Broadway and Park Place at our 911 Freedom Rally. One 9/11 family member remarked: “I am looking forward to the rally. It is a place we can be free to really remember the who, why, when and where of 9/11. The morning ceremony” – that is, the official ceremony, from which clergy and 9/11 first responders – “is devoid of any meaning.”

This is the true memorial service everyone needs to visit.

Another fool takes everything out of context

The insane moonbat Andrew Belonsky recently wrote another laughable item where he took more than a few details out of context about the problems with white terrorists. He begins by asking:

Will the investigation into Aryan Nation leader August B. Kreis III saying he wanted to join al-Qaeda prove to conservatives that white people can be terrorists too?

Umm, since when didn't any conservatives think whites could be terrorists? The Arabs are white, aren't they? It's not whites we're concerned about, it's Islamofascists.

Right wingers were enraged when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a report in 2009 warning that homegrown extremism, including disgruntled veterans, pose a terror threat.

“The department is engaging in political and ideological profiling of people who fought to keep our country safe from terrorism, uphold our nation’s immigration laws, and protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” said Florida Rep. Gus Bilirakis at the time.

And those critics were again incensed when a Homeland Security PSA depicted white people as terrorists, and again when President Obama said this month that lone wolves like Norway shooter Anders Behring Breivik are a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda.

Sigh. He still does not get it, and prefers to obfuscate many details. The problem is that they depicted non-Muslims as such. And then, when that part does come up:

“The establishment is shifting gears. Where once we were all told to be afraid of Muslim bogeymen with bombs hidden in their turbans. Now we’re told that it’s white people who are the dangerous bunch,” wrote conservative blogger Grant J. Kidney of Obama’s remarks.

“If you read between the lines, our current president wants to shift the fear. He wants a little smoke and mirrors, and make you think the enemy is a white dude driving a pick up, wearing blue jeans, ball cap, has an NRA sticker, attends a local Baptist church, reads a King James Version Bible, votes republican,” opined one reader at Glenn Beck’s website, ‘The Blaze.’

Such reactions are more than just partisan political opposition. They stem from the stubborn fact that many people refuse to believe that Americans, particularly white people, can be terrorists. That’s why Peter King willfully ignored homegrown terrorism during his divisive congressional hearings on “Muslim radicalization.”

So he exploited the possibly flawed argument of one blogger for the sake of confusing everything. As a matter of fact, nobody who's a realist thinks it's impossible. After all, we had the Weather Underground and Bill Ayers at one time to worry about, and even today, as it so happens, it's sadly possible. What we on the right have a problem with is leftists like Belonsky with selective ideas of who counts as a terrorist. And he's gone repeatedly out of his way to play apologist.

Yet, we know white people indeed be terrorists: Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were white, as is Cody Crawford, the man accused of torching an Oregon mosque, and so too is an Aryan Nation leader named August B. Kreis III.

But what Belonsky doubtless doesn't want anybody to know is that McVeigh may have had connections with a shady Iraqi named Hussein al-Hussaini, who was spotted with McVeigh several times.

Kreis is currently being investigated for “[stating] that he and members of his movement desired to join al-Qaeda in its Jihad against a United States government,” according to the FBI.

Why would a white supremacist want to team up with a fundamentalist Islamic group comprised mostly of Arabs? Because terrorism and its destructive goals know no color: they are one and the same, proving that terrorists come in many shapes, sizes, nationalities and religions.

Uh, excuse me, but most alleged "Christian" terrorists don't act in the name of their religion, which would have to be a violation of Jesus' statement "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". On the other hand, what would Belonsky have to say about a religion whose "holy scriptures" include such abominations as these?

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens..." -- 47:4

More at the link, which makes a very worthy case. But I guess none of that matters to Belonsky.

That said, it would seem as though young master Belonsky is implying that Arabs aren't white, which is simply not so. They are white, regardless of whether they're darker or lighter complected. I wonder if Belonsky, who's probably Polish, would go so far as to say that Poles aren't white or even Caucasian? There's an irony here, that someone who goes out of his way to apologize for jihadists is yet willing to insult the main race adhering to Islam, by implying they're not white. Ahem. Arabs are white and saying they're not is insulting and isn't helping one bit. Nor is obscuring the simple answer to why a "white supremacist" would want to join jihadists: because he agrees with their ideology. That's what the nazis Kreis worships did too, and why they collaborated with monsters like Haj-Amin el-Husseini.

It's not a matter of race, but rather, of ideology and religion.

Why the Muslim Beard Bodes Trouble

From Raymond Ibrahim at PJM:

To develop a thorough understanding of Islam, one must learn to “connect the dots.” For instance, Muslims who adhere to non-problematic aspects of Islam, indirectly indicate their acceptance of problematic aspects of Islam — such as enmity for infidels, death for apostates, subjugation for women, and so on.

Consider the Muslim beard. Because Muhammad wanted his Muslims to look different from infidel Christians and Jews, he ordered them to “trim closely the moustache and grow the beard.” Accordingly, all Sunni schools of law maintain that it is forbidden, a “major sin,” for men to shave their beards — unless, of course, it is part of a stratagem against the infidel, in which case it is permissible.

Prior to Ramadan, Islamic leaders in Egypt called for a million men to grow their beards and show Egypt’s adherence to Muhammad’s commands. Popular and enthusiastic preachers such as Muhammad Hassan went as far as to pray for the day when 80 million Egyptians grew their beards — a figure that presumably includes women and children, as 80 million is the size of Egypt’s entire population.

Amr Adib, a popular talk show host on Cairo Today, mocked this call for a “million man beard” with his trademark sarcasm: “This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!”

He and his Egyptian viewers know quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad — the Salafists — that are most prone to violence and deceit, which were also advocated by the prophet. Towards the end of the program, Adib spoke seriously, ominously, saying this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, “once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”

Page 1 of 2  Next ->

We need prayers for Youcef -- an Iranian convert from Islam to Christianity under sentence of death

For everyone who is reading this, please read and pass along the news of an Iranian named Youcef Nadarkhani. He is a married 34 year old Persian, sentenced to death by the Islamic Republic of Iran's highest court, for committing the 'crime' of converting out of Islam, as well as proselytizing to Muslims as a Christian minister. For the moment, his legal team is trying to get the sentence of death commuted on a technicality. But the odds of this being successful in the kangaroo courts of Sharia-ruled Persia appear to be very grim indeed.

If there ever was a miracle needed, to save an innocent man's life, now is the time for one. Please pass this along to everyone you know, especially to our elected officials, and let us pray to the Almighty or Whoever for that miracle.

Full story here: http://presenttruthmn.com/the-ministry/youcef-nadarkhani/ (link)

Bosch Fawstin – Towering Over Islam – Rebuild Twin Towers in Mecca

About TTGG & the International Memorial Reconstruction

Twin Towers Go Global (TTGG) is the official umbrella organization for individuals, companies, and agencies currently engaged in the World Trade Center International Memorial Reconstruction (WTC IMR).

They're having a contest.

Here's Bosch Fawstin's submission:

Bosch says:  

To my FB friends, please vote to support my submission(?) for the "Twin Towers Go Global" exhibition. My piece, along with another, has been the subject of calls for censorship, so I'd appreciate your support. To vote, send an empty email with the title of my piece, "Towering Over islam", as the subject line to: vote@twintowersgoglobal.org

War Is Over, If You Want It

Commanders Livid As Obama Orders Reduction of Iraq Troop Strength To... 3000

From Ace

Not thirty thousand. Three thousand.

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News. Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
...
Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.
Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.
Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.

How can 3000 men in a foreign country accomplish anything, even securing their own safety?
This seems, yet again, to be a purely political decision, made without regard to any security goal or even the affected troops' safety.

Outrageous: NY Times Op-Ed Defends Sharia Law … in America

From Bruce Bawer at PJM:

In recent years the New York Times has published more than its share of slippery apologias for Islam, but the op-ed it ran on September 2 in defense of sharia law was not only slippery but curiously feeble as well. Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, harshly criticized the attempts currently underway in over a dozen U.S. states to pass legislation prohibiting the introduction in those jurisdictions of sharia courts. “Some of these efforts,” Stern lamented, “would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration….”

What to say about this? First, let’s be clear that even a sharia court whose authority was strictly confined to dietary and marital questions would be a matter for concern. Take marriage, for example. Under sharia, marriage is a very lopsided affair, rights-wise. A man can divorce his wife at will — all it takes is saying the words. (One sharia judge recently ruled that a brief text message from husband to wife is sufficient to end a marriage.) By contrast, a woman who wishes to split from her husband must submit to a lengthy and often very expensive process of litigation that may very well end with her being turned down and forced to return home. Under sharia, she has no automatic right to a divorce. (Indeed, under sharia she hardly has any right to anything.)

That said, however, to pretend that sharia law is concerned only with such relatively innocuous matters as dietary laws and marital quarrels is disingenuous in the extreme. Yes, some of those who are trying to introduce sharia courts in the U.S. indeed insist that they wish only to employ sharia to resolve disagreements in these and other harmless-sounding areas. But don’t fool yourself — once the door is open, the sky’s the limit. The whole premise of sharia, after all, is that it applies to everything in life — not just food and domestic quarrels. The notion of separating the state from religion is utterly alien to the spirit and the letter of sharia, which, as most readers of this site are already well aware, prescribes the death penalty for apostates, homosexuals, and adulteresses — and that’s just for starters.

Just take a glance at these excerpts from the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, ratified in 1990 by representatives of most of the world’s Muslim nations. They make it clear that, in Islam, sharia is all — its authority is universal and eternal, and it trumps any non-Islamic notion of human rights:

• Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.
• Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari’ah, to free movement….
• Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical labour of which he is the author; and he shall have the right to the protection of his moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
• There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.
• Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
• All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
• The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

The Cairo Declaration, it should be noted, was a response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim countries rejected because it was inconsistent with sharia law. If Muslim leaders acknowledge that sharia is incompatible with Western concepts of human rights, why can’t Professor Stern acknowledge it, too?

Anti-sharia laws, claimed Stern, would “stigmatiz[e] Islamic life.” No, they would recognize the reality of sharia law. Stern dismissed Newt Gingrich’s description of sharia as “a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States,” claiming that “[t]he crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.” But how does a crusade against a blindingly un-democratic system of law undermine democracy? How can banning a law built on intolerance and religious separatism constitute a blow to tolerance and assimilation? One object of sharia is to reinforce the “divide” between Muslims and infidels — how would prohibiting it create “a dangerous divide”?  Every one of Stern’s arguments is precisely 180 degrees away from the truth.

If Stern had wanted to make a serious case that concern about the introduction of sharia in the United States is without foundation, the natural approach would have been to set out to demonstrate that sharia law is nothing to worry about. But, apparently recognizing that sharia is, in fact, very worrisome indeed, Stern took a different, and familiar, tack: He contended that to be concerned about sharia is, quite simply, to be a bigot. “The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security,” he wrote, “is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)”  Stern proceeded to go on at length about the history of nineteenth-century European concern about Jewish law — all of which was utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. It seemed obvious that Stern was focusing on this history because he knew that if he had, instead, taken an honest look at sharia law, he would have defeated his own case.

Page 1 of 2  Next 

And then there's this (with thanks to Damien):

American Muslims speak out against enforcement of shari‘ah law in America

Damien comments: Isn't it funny how the New York times is openly supporting something that genuinely moderate Muslims, the ones they repeatedly tell us exist, are openly opposing?

Wayne Shorter
Speak No Evil

How bad is the engineering/technical software employment picture now in the USA

Only about 30% of PROJECTS (temporary contracts) and full time jobs are now in the USA, the following is TYPICAL

Opportunity to work in small, mainly autonomous dev teams where u will have the freedom to try new ideas, experiment & be expected to learn & grow. Email us @ work_for_it_appdev@xxxxxxx.com:

xxxxxxxxxx & Company's Application Development group is seeking a Senior Software Engineer/Architect that has passion for building quality software. You'll join small, mainly autonomous development teams employing agile methodologies to build IT applications that support our global network of consultants. You'll have the freedom to try new ideas, experiment and be expected to constantly learn and grow. Come join our casual, fun and social 'startup' culture with emphasis on education and innovation!

Candidates with the required qualities and skills (listed below) should email us @ work_for_it_appdev@xxxxxx.com with link to github account,blog, or other online community participation:

- Are Ambitious, driven, and talented who want to solve hard problems
- Self motivated and able to manage one's own time working with in a highly distributed team across multiple timezones
- Introduces and integrates cutting edge tools and frameworks
- Improves our development process by proposing tools and approaches
- Disdains repetition and automates annoying tasks
- Balances beauty and pragmatism in your designs and code
- Relentless at refactoring and improving code quality
- Can work in an iterative environment practicing agile methodologies
- Has contributed to open source projects, participated in some technical community, or has written or spoken in public about your area of interest
- Ideal if the candidate is located in India; but not mandatory

We might find you acceptable if you are demonstratively a near superman and are NOT in India. What they are saying is they want a senior WEB designer and developer (databases and coding) who can show they have added to the world sized pie in Linux or Ruby on Rails or other open source entity, and can prove it at both ends and manage artists and designers by making all processes fun, creative and ruthlessly efficient.

In NY this person would expect to be 200k+ MINIMUM

Everyone getting the picture? This is from a professional networking site for application developers near the top end of the pointy stick.

This is not for entry level people.

What is to be left here?

In 20 years as the collapse proceeds....

THIS WILL BE THE HOME OF LOW COST LABOR

Obama Disappoints American Muslims

Cry me a river.

From the Washington Post:

...Obama has not visited a mosque in the United States since taking office, although he has done so in Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia as part of his project to repair U.S. relations with the Muslim world. Bold abroad, Obama’s outreach has been largely invisible at home as Muslim Americans confront enduring suspicion and, in some cases, outright hatred a decade after the attacks.

Read the entire whining thing at the above link.

Hardhat Outrage

Story HERE.

FULL Pew Poll on Muslims in the USA ... a bit different than the Abu Dhabi Gallup poll

Four weeks after the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center released its study of Muslim Americans (IW analysis here), thePew Research Center followed suit by publishing a survey (PDF here) of far greater value due to its broader range of topics, more direct questioning, and extensive demographic cross tabs. Though the media, like Pew, have emphasized the mainstream attitudes of most U.S. Muslims, the data indicate that radical views are held by a small but important minority that cannot be ignored. These and other interesting results are highlighted below:

· Radical Muslims remain uncommon in the U.S. — but not uncommon enough. Muslims’ opinions of al-Qaeda are 5% favorable (2% very, 3% somewhat) and 81% unfavorable (70% very, 11% somewhat); 14% did not answer. This is a step forward, as only 68% recorded disapproval in 2007. Furthermore, 8% of U.S. Muslims — a larger percentage than in Pakistan — say that suicide bombing or other violence against civiliansis at least sometimes justified to defend Islam. Perhaps most troubling, 21% of U.S. Muslims see a great deal or fair amount of support for extremism among their own.

· Underlining the significance of homegrown Islamism, more U.S.-born Muslims than immigrants hold radical views. Native-born African-American Muslims lead with way: 11% have a favorable opinion of al-Qaeda, 16% say that attacking civilians can be religiously justified at least sometimes, and 40% see support for extremism among U.S. Muslims; each value is double the one characterizing Muslim Americans as a whole.

· Despite pseudo-academic studies smearing those who sound the alarm about radical Islam as “Islamophobes,” Pew finds that 60% of Muslims are very or somewhat concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S. — almost as high as the figure for the general public (67%). Are many Muslim Americans “Islamophobes” as well?

· The Pew poll, like Gallup’s, erodes the Islamist meme that life in America is miserable for Muslims. Pew finds that 56% of Muslims are satisfied with the country’s direction, compared to 23% of the general public. Muslims also are happier with their lives, have a more positive financial outlook, and feel more confident that hard work leads to success.

· Pew combines the percentage of Muslim respondents (about 0.5%, roughly the same as Gallup) with census data to estimate a population of 1.8 million Muslim adults and 2.75 million total Muslims in the U.S. — barely a third of the number often claimed.

It is reassuring that most U.S. Muslims hold mainstream views, but history shows that Islamists need not be a majority to be dangerous. The moderate and largely silent masses do not offset a hundred thousand radicals, if not more, who approve of al-Qaeda and serve as potential recruits.

Congressman Peter King, who called Pew’s results “disappointing” and reiterated the need for hearings, has the right perspective: “Seventy percent of American Muslims are opposed to al-Qaeda. We are at war with al-Qaeda. One hundred percent should be opposed to al-Qaeda.”

And, That's Exactly The Way It Should Be

From the Associated Press:

1775 document: Colonists asked pacifists to pay 

In a fledgling nation hungry for men to fight in the American Revolution, conscientious objectors were frequently greeted with scorn and their loyalty was questioned.

As war approached, leaders in Pennsylvania's Lancaster County sought to ease tensions by urging the growing number of German immigrants with religious objections to war to demonstrate their patriotism by giving as much money as they could afford to the revolutionary cause.

The proposition is spelled out in a July 11, 1775, public notice known as a "broadside," which is on display at the Moravian Archives & Museum here. Experts recently confirmed it as the only known English-language copy.