Scattered Idiocy Related to the GZM

So it turns out that one of the guys who has been preaching at the GZM and is a close associate of the Imam is a Truther.  You know, a while back someone said that America was becoming the Jews of the world.  And wouldn’t that be a prime example.  The anti-semites are always saying 1) the holocaust didn’t happen, and 2) the Jews deserved it.  Well, Faiz Khan says 9-11 was an inside job, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says we were an accomplice to it.

Meanwhile Michael Moore just loves this.  He wants the GZM actually where the towers stood.  Yeah, that is too be expected.  But then he adds this lovely coda: "There is a McDonald's two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald's has killed far more people than the terrorists.”  Yeah, the fat ass is telling us that.

And isn’t that just typical?  He blames America for everything bad that happens to it, but when he goes to figure out why he is a massive fat ass that is likely to die of a heart attack, he figures someone else to blame.  He pretends to be self-critical when he attacks this country, but in truth he is flogging something he doesn’t identify with.  Because in the end this fat ass cannot take responsibility even for the fatty food he shoves down his fat throat.

Mind you, I am not a slender man myself.  I could get in better shape and for reasons I would rather not share, I will probably be forced to very soon.  But I don’t blame anyone else for it.  I know that when it comes to blame I just need to look no further than the mirror.

(P.S.: No I am not linking to the fat ass’s site.)

Big Update to the Koran Burning Story

Okay now this is getting murky and maybe confused.  Apparently the Paster Jones is saying that he spoke with one of the Imams connected to the Ground Zero Mosque projected and they struck a deal that he wouldn’t burn the Korans if they moved the Mosque.  But the Imam wasn’t our good friend Feisel, so...  its really unclear whether they will honor that deal.  And if they don’t, then is the flambé on?

All this, by the way, goes straight into the column of this Pastor maybe being a sly genius.  Indeed, he might even be sowing dissention in the ranks of the people behind the Ground Zero Mosque.

Anyway, the blow-by-blow is covered, in detail, at Hot Air.  I feel like I am watching ping pong.

Obama and Imam Feisal Prove to be Hypocrites (sort of) on Burning the Koran (update: the burning has been called off))

Big Update:  Cnn’s breaking news email reveals that the pastor has called off the burning.  Now when are they going to call off the Ground Zero Mosque? 

Now first, I am very heavily medicated, on benedryl dealing with hives caused by pain medication I needed after having my appendix removed.  You are very likely to see more grammatical mistakes than usual.  For that I apologize.  But despite all of that I believe my thinking is clear, at least on this subject..

Anyway, I am beginning to think that this Koran burning Reverend is some kind of genius, in terms of political theater as performance art.  Or he is just an idiot and just blundered into it.  Its really hard to decide, but whether intentionally or not, he made both the President and the founding Imam of the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) look like complete hypocrites.  Which if intentional, was nicely done.

First up, let’s remember what the President said on the GZM.  First he stood up for it, saying this:

Like Thinking you are Squeezing Lemons: A Different Take on the Attack on Ahmed Sharif.

Ahmed H. Sharif was the New York City cab driver who was attacked by Michael Enright and Mr. Sharif gives us a much longer account to the New York Times, and you won’t hear me say this very often, but its worth reading.  Yes I know, the New York Times.  I am as surprised to write that as you are to read it.

Anyway, as you read this I want you to keep a few facts in mind.  Bear in mind that Enright was embedded with a unit in Afghanistan, to shoot a documentary.  He was in film school.

It was the first fare of the cabdriver’s shift. A young man hailed him at the corner of Second Avenue and East 24th Street, wanting to go to 42nd and Second. It was 6 p.m. on Tuesday; the traffic was dense.

Once the fare, Michael Enright, a 21-year-old film student who had been recently trailing Marines in Afghanistan, settled in the back, he started asking friendly enough questions: Where was the driver from? Was he Muslim?

The driver, Ahmed H. Sharif, 44, said he was from Bangladesh, and yes he was Muslim.

Mr. Enright said, “Salaam aleikum,” the Arabic greeting “Peace be upon you.”

“How’s your Ramadan going?” Mr. Enright asked, Mr. Sharif said.

He told him it was going fine. Then, he said, Mr. Enright began making fun of the rituals of Ramadan, and Mr. Sharif sensed this cab ride might not be like any other.

“So I stopped talking to him,” Mr. Sharif said. “He stopped talking, too.”

As the cab inched up Third Avenue and reached 39th Street, Mr. Sharif said in a phone interview, Mr. Enright suddenly began cursing at him and shouting “This is the checkpoint” and “I have to bring you down.” He said he told him he had to bring the king of Saudi Arabia to the checkpoint.

“He was talking like he was a soldier,” Mr. Sharif said.

That is when the attack started, but I want to stop there.  Especially to a lawyer this account has a certain familiarity to it.  It starts to sound like an absolutely classic scenario in pleading insanity.

A lot of people think that the insanity defense will basically say that if you are diagnosed as “nuts” in any way then you get out of jail free.  This is not even remotely true.  Generally (and each state varies) you have to be a very specific kind of nut.  One common variety is where the person is so far gone they literally have no idea what they are actually doing.  And there is a classic example given to make you understand it intuitively.  Imagine you are so given to hallucination that you are thinking that you are squeezing lemons to make lemonade, when in fact you are actually squeezing a person’s neck and killing them.  In that scenario you can truly say that the person literally didn’t understand what they were doing.

And isn’t that maybe what was happening here?  As you read his account you really start to think that he literally thinks he is in Afghanistan, and somehow he is trying to get the King of Saudi Arabia through a checkpoint.  I mean I suspect you might get a brain strain if you try too hard to understand, but it seems like at the beginning of the ride he was alert and oriented, in touch with reality and somewhere along the way, he entered Afghanistan in his mind. 

Of course that is assuming that Mr. Sharif is telling the truth but there is no reason to doubt him.  And it is assuming that Enright was not putting on an act, which is much less certain.  But if you believe Sharif is telling the truth, and Enright was not putting on a nutty act, then this might be equivalent to the lemon squeezing example.

Obviously that means he might have the insanity defense available but I have a deeper point to make.

Everyone is so eager to turn this attack into a larger symbol.  But the truth suggested by this account might very well be simply this.  Enright was so insane he didn’t even know where he was, or what was going on.  And for everyone, including the New York Times, to pretend this says something about our culture is simply wrong.

------------

Oh, and its hypocritical, too.  Remember when Maj. Hasan shot up Ft. Hood?  What was the New York Times’ favorite explanation?  The trauma of treating patient who served in war, sort of PTSD by proxy.  But here is a man who actually was in a war zone, and mentally might have been back there when he committed the attacks and what do they attribute this to?

The violence that erupted during the cab ride came amid a heated and persisting national debate over whether to situate a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks north of ground zero. Upon learning of the attack on the cabdriver, some Muslim groups called for political and religious leaders to quiet tensions.

Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement: “As other American minorities have experienced, hate speech often leads to hate crimes. Sadly, we’ve seen how the deliberate public vilification of Islam can lead some individuals to violence against innocent people.”

Oh and not for nothing, but it turns out that Mr. Sharif is one of those knuckle dragging bigots who is opposed to the GZM:

Recently, some passengers asked him about the center planned near ground zero, he recalled, and he replied that he was against it, that there was no need to put it there.

But we will ignore every fact that undermines “Teh Narrative” right?

GZM Supporter Curses Out Holocaust Survivor, Accuses him of Wanting a Holocaust of Muslims

I wonder if Juan Cole will blame his side for this anti-Semitic asshole?

The really ugly crap was at around 2 minutes in.  And I liked the closure of seeing the man singing God Bless America and showing off his pro-Israel shirt.

On Collective Blame and “Root Causes” and Juan Cole

So, Mr. Cole, help me out here.

So on September 11, nineteen Muslims murdered around 3,000 Americans.  You know, like this guy:

But, Mr. Cole tells us, it would be wrong to blame all Muslims for that.  On a different subject he said, “[c]ollective guilt and collective punishment are always wrong[.]”  And he is right.  Collective blame is wrong, and leads to a lot of other wrong things.

And then he takes it further and says that to oppose the GZM is collective guilt, stating that opponents of the mosque “identify Islam with the attackers (even though Usama Bin Laden openly said of the hijackers that ‘those young men had no fiqh [Islamic law]‘– i.e. they were lawless secret operatives rather than proper Muslims.)”

(Yes, that is right.  He is trying to claim that Osama bin Laden said the nineteen hijackers were not proper Muslims.  What crap.  I mean, I can accept a moderate Muslim saying that, but no, not bin Laden.) 

Now I have to part ways with them on that, but my opposition to that is not, contrary to their silly claims, based on collective blame but the belief that this will hand our enemies a propaganda victory and because this particular group appears to be radicals in moderate clothing.

But then along comes a man named Michael Enright who allegedly viciously attacks a cab driver, allegedly because he is a Muslim.  So then Mr. Cole wants to wants to tar all conservatives, or at least the Republican party as being to blame for the actions of one emotionally disturbed man.  Um, isn’t that collective blame?

Oh, and if that isn’t contradiction enough, he is also one of those people on the left who wants us to look into the “root causes” of terrorism,” by which he means that we should realize that terrorism is caused by deep injustice and if only we eliminated that injustice there would be no more terrorism.

“What the citizens of the U.S. fail to understand is that the battle against the 9/11 terrorists is not their battle. It is a Muslim battle.”

That is a quote in a very interesting editorial by Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, Al-Arabiya TV’s director-general.  Translated from the indispensible Memri, he discusses the issues around the GZM and its worth reading the whole thing.  I was tempted to do another “here’s another anti-muslim bigot opposed to the mosque” type of thing, but most people capable of grasping that point have already grasped it and I think the material is best presented more straightforwardly.

A lot of the analysis is strange.  First, he makes the mistake of thinking Obama endorsed creating it, but hell, he wouldn’t be the first.  And also contra the people who claim that this controversy is spreading hate, he says that building the GZM “is unnecessary and unimportant, even for the Muslims. This mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they do not care about its construction.”

But, to be blunt, by the end of the article, I got the feeling he was talking about how he felt, and mistakenly assuming the rest of the Muslim world feels the way he does.  But that is just opinion, and given that it is his job to understand the Muslim community, maybe I would be wrong to second guess him.  He then says something else that, if true, would drain the air out of liberals’ tires on another issue:

Objecton, Relevance: Stupidity Regarding Fox News and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal

You know, given how often liberals denounce corporations, you think they would understand some basic truths about corporate law and governance.  Or maybe their hatred is born out of ignorance, come to think of it.  But here are some basic facts missing from this discussion.

First, Al-Waleed didn’t “fund Fox News” as you often hear claimed—not unless he was part of the IPO, which has not been claimed.  Let me explain.  News Corp is a publicly traded company.  So this is what happened.  At some point in the history of the company they had an initial public offering.  At that time various people bought the stock.  Those people put money into News Corp’s treasury.

Then they sold the stock to someone else.  And how much did New Corp get out of that transaction?  Nothing.  And then the stock probably changed hands several more times, and finally 7% ended up in the hands of Al-Waleed.

Think of it like selling a car, because in a real sense it is no different.  When you sell your car to someone, that person is “funding you” in the sense that he is giving you money.  But if that person sells the car to another person, and that person sells to another person, those transactions literally have no effect on your finances.  Its precisely the same way with stocks.

And yeah, you read that right.  He owns a paltry 7% of the company.  Which leads me to my next point:

Another Intolerant Anti-Muslim Bigot Writes About the GZM

Let me quote him at length:

Let us remember that the project organizers themselves created this controversy by announcing that the groundbreaking would take place on the ten-year anniversary of the attack, and that the exact site was selected because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Given that fact, the current media meme that this is not a “Ground Zero mosque” is dishonest spin....

More importantly, the mosque will come to symbolize in the radical Muslim world the triumph of Bin Laden’s attack, and provide a kind of heavenly validation for his approach to spreading radical ideology. For what other reason could the tenth anniversary have been chosen for the groundbreaking?

It is not hard to see that this will only inspire more attacks. The logic will be: “If Allah gave us one miracle, maybe He’ll give us more.”

If some Americans are suspicious and fearful of Muslims, it’s not without good reason, and nothing their self-appointed leadership has done or said in the nine years following 9/11 has allayed those fears. Non-Muslim Americans have yet to see any clean line of demarcation between radical and moderate Muslims. Everywhere around the globe Muslims are the cause of so much bloodshed and turmoil, making life on this planet a living hell.

What are people to think when they see a group of World Cup fans blown up in Uganda by Somali Muslim psychopaths? Closer to home, a U.S. Army Major shoots his fellow soldiers! What are they to make of a Pakistani national given U.S. citizenship just last year attempting to set off a car bomb in Times Square? And the self-taught “American” sheikh, Anwar al-Awlaki, who from his cave somewhere in Yemen calls on Muslims to murder Americans, and they listen?

The underlying problem in this bitter controversy is that Muslims in America suffer a deserved trust deficit, wherein they are seen as a foreign and dangerous element. Perhaps if the $100 million being spent on this mosque were used to build, say, a hospital, this perception would begin to change.

Ah, who is this evil, bigoted jerk.  I bet his name is John-boy, or Bubba.  Well, look below the fold:

About that Moderate Ground Zero Imam...

Can I be prescient or what?  Yesterday I wrote:

But bluntly you have to wonder.  There is a long tradition of Imams who say “peace” in English and “jihad” in Arabic, when they don’t think we are listening.  I wonder what he says when he doesn’t think we are listening?

Well, well, via Memri we learn that he has a slightly different title for his book when it is sold in Indonesia:

It Would be Cheap and Unfair...

…if I took this one anti-Semitic thing said by this one speaker in favor of the GZM and tarred all supporters with it.  I mean seriously, it would be.

But when has the other side shown such leniency?

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but hey, at least now you have ammunition, when they cite one random person in a crowd.

But who are we kidding.  The media will never stop its double standards.  All we can do is counter it by exposing it.

Fisking the GZM Imam

You know, I will tell you the truth.  The shocking clips…  maybe I have been around too many liberals, but they are not very shocking.  His anti-americanism is actually kind of tired and stale.  It just strikes me as moronic conversion of the left and the islamofascist right, that speaks in quiet tones, but nonetheless is singing My Sharia More.  But I thought I would do something different and fisk his stupid talk, as kindly provided by Pamela Geller.  So here goes.

Now first there is a bunch of introductory crap.  I half expected him to make a crappy opening joke.  Okay.  And early on he gives this bit:

The Jewish prophets, Jesus Christ and John the Baptist and Mary are in fact religious personalities and prophets of the Islamic faith as well.  What divides us is less theology, to my mind, than history.

Yeah, what a bunch of smiley faced bullshit.  You deny that Christ is the son of God, and that is okay, but don’t then pretend you and I have much in common in our faith.  I don’t condescend to Jews that we share much of our faith, and neither should you.

And mind you, most of the world are “not Christians” and we get along just fine.  Seriously, knock yourself out.  But don’t bullshit me.

And isn’t that itself pretty exclusionary?  What about Buddhists, where do they fit in that?  The Taoists?  The Atheists?  The pagans of the DaVinci Code variety?

I Can't Endorse This Yet

But if genuine, this is explosive stuff, and sounds like the stuff hinted at last week.  Basically the Ground Zero Imam is a tad more radical than advertised.  So go look, read and listen with an appropriately critical eye, but no matter what, its worth a gander.

Going Full Metal Idiot on the GZM

The lamest thing to see recently is for Democrats/liberals making fact-immune defense of the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM).  Two recent examples of this is a blog post from Robert Ebert and Cracked.com.

So let’s take Ebert on first.  He creates a post called Ten Things I know About the Mosque.  The irony is that he doesn’t seem to have done basic research or even talked to someone who criticizes it, or even read too many blogs on the subject.

So his first truth:

1. America missed a golden opportunity to showcase its Constitutional freedoms. The instinctive response of Americans should have been the same as President Obama's: Muslims have every right to build there.

Now I have said that I think we have a right to stop it.  I have advocated using the Historical Sites Act to take over much of the area and make sure appropriate messages are sent.  I have said that if it is built with absolutely the best intentions, that it will be interpreted rightly or wrongly by our enemies as a Victory Mosque and as such, as a matter of the powers of war, we have the right to stop it at least until the war is over.  And there is good reason to think they do not have the best of intentions.

But here’s the thing.  I am distinctly in the minority on that point.  Most Americans agree they have the right to build it wherever the hell they want.  They just don’t want them to do it.  A perfectly reasonable position: you can do it, please don’t.

Now, the funny thing is that ordinarily Ebert gets that, which is demonstrated in his second “truth” that the first amendment doesn’t mean: that “[t]he First Amendment gives me the right to repeat the N-word 11 times on the radio to an inoffensive black woman, and when you attack me for saying it, you are in violation of my First Amendment rights.”  We agree, Roger, but see, the thing is, that is all most of Americans are saying on this.  Sure, you are legally entitled to say the n-word, or to build a Mosque at Ground Zero.  But please don’t.

The Latest Anti Muslim Bigot to Come Out Against the GZM is... Rima Fakih, America’s first Muslim Miss U.S.A.?

This is only the latest and easily the sexiest example of Muslims who have come out against the GZM.  I mean, besides the crazy ones who claim the Jews are responsible.

So Pelosi, do you want to investigate her, learn all the intimate details of her life, and all that?

No, actually I am wondering, because if you need volunteers...  well, I am married, but my brother-in-law would probably be more than happy to help!  And if any of you patriotic males, or lesbians, would like to start the investigation, this would seem like a good place to start.

In more serious GZM news, there is a claim that very damaging audio tapes are about to drop, involving radical statements by the imam who wants to build this.

Update: Over at Patterico there is a regular commenter called “ColonelHaiku” who likes to post humorous Haikus.  When I shared this story over there, he wrote:

Colonel declare his

chubwa on Ms. Fakih months

ago it still on!

To which I responded: “I could be wrong but I believe the commercials for Cialis tells you that you should seek medical attention at the four hour mark.”

To which he responded:

Colonel must sign off

not enough blood go to head

getting hard to…typ…

So, um, take those commercials seriously, folks.  (Source.)

How the Federal Government Could Prevent the Building of the Ground Zero Mosque

One of the most curious arguments liberals have made in relation to the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM) recently is the idea that this is somehow just a local decision.  I mean these are the same people who think your daily health is a federal matter, but suddenly they are state’s right supporters?  Now of course you could charge the conservatives with hypocrisy by turning the objection around, but, well, national defense is a national issue.  And 9-11 was a national event.  Conservatives don’t believe that nothing is national, they just believe that a lot less is national than the liberals do.

The left also acts as though there is no national law that bears on the subject.  But in fact there is.  Its called the Historic Sites Act.  And in 16 U.S.C. § 462(d) the statute specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by purchase, or, if necessary, condemnation historic landmarks.

As noted just today at Patterico’s Pontifications, this is a site where debris from collapse of the towers fell.  As such, the Secretary could condemn the land, pay just compensation for it, and make it Federal Property.  Then they can instead build a 13 story monument to those who were murdered on September 11, including the innocent Muslims caught in the blast.  I would even support an appropriate multi-faith approach, where a Jewish memorial, a Christian Memorial and so on, respecting the faith of every person who died there.  Or they could build a museum or, well, whatever the hell they want as long as it is rationally related to the historic nature of the site.

You Know the Democrats Have Lost their Minds on the GZM...

…when Howard Dean emerges as a voice of reason.

Yeah, that Howard Dean.  He is the voice of reason in this.  Not that I 100% agree with everything he writes, but he’s being really much more reasonable and intellectually honest than most of his party.

God that feels like such a weird thing to write.

And the GZM Stupidity Keeps Coming...

Via Hot Air, we have a clip of Russell Simmons trying to say we shouldn’t blame Muslims for 9-11.  Agreed.  There is no such thing as group guilt, you are responsible for yourself only.  But then it gets stupid when he asks “Did we blame Christians at the first World Trade attack?”

Really, there are no words.  But let me say, no, this is not the stupidest thing said during his entire controversy.  Kathleen Parker gets the prize for that.

Islamic Research Academy: There Should not be a Mosque at Ground Zero... and, um, the Decision to Create One is a Zionist Conspiracy?

You know I didn’t think anyone’s paranoia could top Pelosi’s, but silly me I forgot all about the insanity coming on a daily basis out of the Middle East.  Yeah, I said it, there are idiots all over the place over there that make Oliver Stone go “gee, don’t you think you’re being a bit too suspicious?”  Mind you, I ascribe the majority of that crap to just living in dictatorships, but for whatever reason its really endemic over there.  Death Cult Mickey Mouses, lovable furry rabbits that eat Jews, Jews stealing organs, and other nuttiness spew on a daily basis over there.  I mean I have heard people over there claim that Tom and Jerry cartoons were a Jewish conspiracy, because in their minds Jews (or “Joooooos!”) are mice and thus the T&J cartoons were designed to make kids like mice.  Yes, really.

So really I should have known better than to be surprised when I read this in Pajamas Media:

A number of Al Azhar ulema expressed their opposition to building a mosque near [where] the events of September 11 [occurred], convinced that it is “a conspiracy to confirm a clear connection between the strikes of September [11] and Islam.” Dr. ‘Abd al-Mu‘ti Bayumi, a member of the Islamic Research Academy [of Al Azhar] told Al Masry Al Youm that he rejects the building of any mosque in this area [Ground Zero], because the “devious mentality” desires to connect these events [of 9/11] with Islam, though he maintains that Islam is innocent of this accusation. Instead, it is a “Zionist conspiracy,” which many are making use of to harm the religion. Likewise, Dr. Amna Nazir, professor of doctrine and philosophy at Al Azhar, expressed her rejection that a mosque be built near the World Trade Center, saying: “Building a mosque on this rubble indicates bad intention — even if we wished to shut our eyes, close our minds, and insist on good will. I hope it is a sincere step, and not a new conspiracy against Islam and Muslims.”

I mean it is par for the course over there.  Everything is the Jews’ fault.  Apparently even these Muslims are in on it.  The Jooos are that insidious.  And really it fits an old pattern of kleptocratic dictatorships blaming an easy scapegoat, and let’s face it, the jews have been the punching bag of choice for something like 2000 years.

It all reminds me of that case a few years ago in Nigeria involving that woman who got pregnant something like three months after husband died and was tried, convicted and sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery (in the sense that she had sex outside of the context of marriage), all according to their interpretation of Islamic Law.  Now she had claimed that in fact she was raped, but no one cared, and for that reason her case attracted international attention for that reason.  It turned out that she was lying when she said that, but given that they were going to stone her to death for a reason that is stupid even if she is “guilty” makes me very willing to forgive that lie.

So finally the Nigerian Supreme Court stepped in and set her free.  Which sounds great and all until you read the reasoning.  You see, according to Islam, or at least their interpretation of it, a man’s sperm can survive up to 7 months inside a woman.  Mind you, science calls that complete bullshit, but Islam says it is true.  So the court said that since she got pregnant within 7 months of her husband’s death, that there was an irrebuttable presumption that it was actually his child and therefore she did not commit adultery.

So you read that and go, “okay, I like the bottom line—the woman ain’t going to be stoned—but man, that reasoning is FUBAR" (Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition).  So that is about how I feel reading that quote.

That all being said if Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate these opponents of the GZM, I am with her.

Is Ann Althouse Equating Pelosi’s Conspiracy Theories with Conspiracy Theories About Radical Islam?

Althouse correctly excoriates Pelosi for her silliness writing: “It just can't be that people — and it's the vast majority of Americans! — actually read/hear news reports and commentary and arrive at opinions.”  Good point and it does highlight to me again the creepy disdain the left has been showing recently for the opinions of the American people.

But then she write this: “Meanwhile, the right is headed over to the conspiracy place too.”

Sorry, but is she trying to demonstrate a certain equivalency?

Well, Ann, if you are, there is a slight difference between imagining a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in relation to opposition to the mosque v. imagining a conspiracy to spread islamofascism.  You know what that difference is?  There is undeniably a conspiracy to spread islamofascism.

Seriously, what do you call it when 19 hijackers got together, with support from al Qaeda to murder about 3,000 Americans?  You call it a conspiracy.  There indeed is not one but many conspiracies to spread islamofascism.  There is no question at all the conspiracies exist, and it is perfectly rational to wonder if there are connections to the Ground Zero Mosque and these undeniably real conspiracies.

In related silliness, Kathleen Parker writes “[t]he Muslims who want to build this mosque didn't fly airplanes into skyscrapers.”  Yes, Kathy, that is right.  Because the ones who did, are dead.

You win the prize for officially saying the stupidest thing possible in this entire debate.